An Introduction to Insecurity: When Men Are Emotional Bitches

1. Insecure people talk shit about X to X's associates before (or instead of) directly to X.

If you have shit to say to someone's face, don't say it as a reply to someone else. That's the insecurity sign of you want others to project to you 1st just so you can project to them more.

Example: 2 people talking about X, and a 3rd person says to the 2nd person "2nd-person, don't listen to 1st-person, he doesn't know what he's talking about." Then, 1st-person immediately says "Person-3, you're supposed to say that to my face, not as a reply to Person-2."

The irony is, if this conversation took place on-line, that person-3 could change your argument and say "I would say it to your face if this were in real life, dipshit."

(If the other way around happens) So if someone infers me to someone else, just simply say.

"___, if I have shit to say to X, I'll say it to X's face, not yours."

Quote of the day: Everyone wanna boast to a female about what age they lost their virginity, but when a female ask them straight up "What are your flaws, fears, weaknesses, and insecurities" then they try to avoid answering that question.

2. When bitch niggas wanna break the ice with you, they’ll try to get you to break the ice with them instead.

When people constantly make side comments to you, it means they wanna output to you, and they too coward to do it themselves (they want you to be the 1st to talk to them).

This gives them a chance for them to say what they want to say.

Or in other words, I hate it when men are such emotional bitches.

Quote: If you halfway break the ice with me, I'll wholly break the ice with you.

3. Bitch niggas make comments about so and so, so others can reply to that person about so and so, without saying to his face.

Example: when bitch B wanna talk smack xX to you, then bitch A will 1st say x, just so bitch B can therefore bring up xX. Bitch niggas make a x comment just so someone else can talk about xX.

Now, if I wanted to talk about xX, I wouldn’t wait for someone to talk about x just so I can say xX, I’ll say xX up front.

Too many people wait for someone to say x just so they can say xX, or someone to say y, just so they can say yY.

And the difference between xX and x, is xX is “the next step” after x. So if x is talking shit about person X, then xX is the next step up talking smack against that person X.

Example:

Me: "___, I appreciate you saying X [to my face], but now others are gonna use your post as a stepping stone to talk about xX. If this keeps happening a lot, I’m gonna think they hired you to say that."

4. Bitch niggas make emotional arguments, rather than rational arguments.

You know when someone makes the “shut the fuck up already ” it means you doing a good job saying whatever you saying.

(I will later cover cases when people make arguments which reflects that they are "emotionally hurt" by something.

5. Learn from other people’s counter-arguments. And therefore learn to start your arguments with those embedded. (The point of this is just to save wasted conversations from happening.).

For example, many times I make a post by saying.

“This is off topic, but […]”
“Nobody asked me for my opinion, but […]”

Why do I make arguments starting like that? Because, I learned from years of experience, there’s always going to be somebody that makes the “what does this have to do with X” and “did anyone ask you for your opinion?”

Note that those 2 specifically came from Pokémon communities, you can start your arguments based from wherever. So this is based on your community and environment. You can even combine them, and make the “This is off topic, and nobody asked me for my opinion, but […].”

6. Here’s how you can tell if someone is the shit to someone, or if you’re the shit to someone, but they deny it.

If person claims X doesn’t matter to him, then ask him on how he feels if he were the 1st to apologize to X. After all, if you ain’t shit to someone, then that someone won’t care to apologize to you.

If someone claims he doesn’t care what X thinks about him, ask if that still matters if he were to apologize to X. You can even inquire if he has the “balls” to apologize to X.

7. Lastly, experiment with people.

If some people constantly avoid the topic, you can experiment with that. So it’s like a set up.

I time, I got in an argument with a dude. If I bring up his flaw X, he’ll change the topic. If I bring up his flaw Y, he’ll change the topic. And that changing the topic could be attacking me instead. So to test this, I decided to do an experiment. I decided to take his-attacking-me argument and take it up a notch: I made the “I myself could be a pedophile, you know.” Now, did he change the topic? No, he did not. So, sometimes I do things for strategic reasons.

But, then the next step for me would be to make the “Well dude when I brought up that I could be a pedophile argument, you didn’t change the subject, but you did when I brought up the ___ against you. Now, can we get back to topic?”

The 2nd reason behind this, is to show him I’m less insecure than he is. For example, I now could make the “how is it I’m more comfortable talking about the possibility of me being a pedophile, then you are for being a ___? Can we talk about that now?”

-

If someone wants you to answer their question 1st, try it and ask if they will answer yours.

1 of my favorite lines to say to someone is "____, if I answer your question, will you answer mine?" (And I do this after already asking someone a question, they avoided answering, and asked a counter-question instead.).

8. Bitch niggas will change the topic while also avoiding the topic.

The usual formats are.

Me: talks about A.
Guy: talks about B.
Me: talks about C.
Guy: talks about D.
Me: Guy, I was talking about A, and you changed the subject to B, then what when I talked about C, you changed the subject to D. Are you gonna ignore A and C? You know you can talk about A and B at the same time? You know you can talk about C and D at the same time?

Of course, an exception to this rule is if B actually answers A, and D actually answers C, and if I were that person, I would spend some time explaining how B explains A or D explains C. This is usually a terminology/communication problem.

But if I were that someone else, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt, and say “Hey __ I’m going to branch off and talk about something else, but that something else will answer your question.”

Here's an example of a counter-reply for when someone avoids the topic:

Okay, now you're adding a new topic - by making repeat posts. Yes, again, you avoid the question, and no, you don't have to answer it. But that doesn't make it right to repeat your same post. Rather than posting on the stuff we agree on - you avoid the part we disagree on.

I'm not going to repeat my questions, because you don't have to answer them, but it doesn't help to continue reiterating what you already said. It just makes you look like you're trying to avoid the question.

(Shorter version.).

Yes, that is true, but that's not the point.

(When people change your argument.).

This is not my argument. The whole point of arguing effectively is not to change people's arguments.

-

(For on-line examples.).

Sometimes mother fuckers will change the subject by making an attack on you, such as your grammar.

Him: wdf does “x” mean / Learn to fucking spell.
Me: Yea __ I made a typo, sometimes you gotta purposely make a typo to see if others will use that as an excuse to avoid the topic. Because I made a typo, does that give you an excuse to avoid the question?

(For real-life examples.).

Sometimes mother fuckers will change the subject by making the "you raised your voice" argument on them. By doing so, it allows them to avoid the subject.

-

An insult I made to someone - it was to a Wikipedia administrator. He didn't respond. Nothing happened as a result of that.

"____, I sure hope you don't take offense to this. My opinion doesn't matter what you think. But I think you're an ass hole. (Which could be good for women's perspective.). Twice I said Christians don't interpret Revelations literally and twice you said they do, but you haven't listed an example of a denomination that does. Of course, I didn't ask you "what denomination." It was a test to see if you're a nice guy or not. You can tell a lot about someone who makes the "No you're wrong" argument, but not show why they're wrong. I called you out an ass hole, but I included the reason why I thought so. So by that, I gave the benefit of a doubt, stuff that people like you, don't do.