We owe a sincere apology to all women for blaming them for what we have interpreted as their shallow natures, their rapid judgments, and their immediate decisions about what sort of men they find attractive and what sort of men they do not. Because if we have learned one thing from the Lindsay Clancy trial beyond the obvious “bitches be crazy” it is that the female attraction machinery is, for the most part, both reasonable and reliable.
Consider the picture of the two men below. Which man was capable of resisting the combined collective will of a nine-woman coven of Karens and which man cravenly cowered before it? You don’t need any evidence whatsoever to know beyond any shadow of a doubt, do you?
The face of the man on the left shows independence, strength, and determination. The face of the man on the right shows judgment, softness, and and DNA that definitely descends from the weasel family. You can almost hear his Smart Boy smarminess just from the picture alone.
Nick Dargie, 25, one of the other male jurors, now claims the unidentified dissident did not provide the other panelists with any evidence explaining his vote.
‘There were several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying and... he couldn’t,’ Dargie told ABC News. ‘There wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in that note,’ he continued.
Can you believe it? He actually did the SOURCE meme!
“Do you have any accredited sources to back up your claim?”
This, again, underlines the importance of never explaining yourself to a woman or to a low-status male in any context that is even potentially adversarial. They are not asking for an explanation in order to understand you, they are asking for an explanation in order to prosecute you and attempt to remove the foundations from your position in order to alter your behavior.
Notice how the craven little creature implies that the holdout juror’s refusal to provide the others with “a single piece of evidence or witness testimony” is somehow tantamount to there not being a single piece of evidence or witness testimony to justify his holdout despite the fact that he is, quite literally, admitting that he has no idea what the holdout’s justification might have been.
Other than the three dead children and the murderess having admitted to strangling them with premeditation, of course.
Always, always, always leave others in the dark. Never show your hand. Allow them to cast any aspersions and make any false claims they happen to like, and don’t take the bait by correcting them. The moment you hear those two fatal words: “you just…” then you have definite confirmation that you’re not dealing with an honest interlocutor, you’re dealing with an emotional manipulator and someone who is not going to actually listen to anything you have to say except for the purposes of undermining it.
At the end of the day, most people are neither rational nor reasonable. They are rationalizing creatures who use their intellectual facilities to provide ex post facto justification for whatever their feelings have led them toward. So they are totally incapable of accurately judging anyone else’s reasoning and their demands for SOURCE and evidence and everything are nothing more than performative posturing meant to influence your behavior.
If they’re not signing your paycheck, you don’t owe anyone an explanation. So stop offering them. And if you’re a woman or a low-status male, stop demanding them. We know perfectly well what you’re trying to do and it’s never going to work, so you might as well give it up.
