“Humiliating a person publicly is really kind of trashy behavior”

To be clear,

+ feminine way = acting nice publicly, while privately saying mean things about someone to others to humiliate the person = passive-aggressive competition

+ masculine way = humiliating publicly, while saying great things about them privately = direct competition

I.e. humiliating publicly is closer to the MASCULINE way, basically

Masculine belief is that all competition should be done in public, “to their face”,

never “behind their back” when they’re not present

Ofc confrontation could also be done privately & to their face…

Bigger picture is that

+ Guys LIKES publicly establishing a hierarchy — while secretly treating each other more evenly behind the scenes

+ Feminine HATES publicly establishing hierarchy, and instead would prefer to pretend everything is the commie equity/equality in public — while secretly fighting behind the scenes

Which again illustrates how,

left is feminine-aligned, fighting for public appearance of equity,

while right is masculine aligned, fighting for public appearance of hierarchy

FWIW

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

That said, do I agree with this bot post? ^^

No

No, no, no, no, no

Horribly wrong words of a cucked retard who’s addicted to failure and cannot pattern recognize, unfortunately

Showing an enemy that they can use a weapon on you, but you can never use the same weapon back on them — ESPECIALLY when your style of weapons is banned but theirs is not — IS ABSOLUTE SUICIDE

Unfortunately,

YOU MUST ADOPT THE FEMININE STYLE AND COUNTER-ATTACK IN THEIR STYLE 1000x MORE, PREEMPTIVELY

If forced into a situation where only their style of attacks is allowed, which is many places today, unfortunately, that is how the game theory plays out.

— Unless you’re a total cuck addicted to losing

They spread horrible BS behind your back to others while playing nice to your face?

— You have to do the same 1000x more, if you don’t want to get crushed like a loser

This applies to:

+ Offices with horrible office politics

+ Dealing with absolute losers in business who adopt this feminine passive-aggressive style and start wrongly attacking you

+ Politics in general — Right unfortunately should attack the left with the same tactics, 1000x more

Surprising thing though?

Those who use these feminine tactics ARE COMPLETELY SHOCKED when they are used back on them, and often INSTANTLY FOLD, act confused, and back off

— Those who use these tactics tend to ONLY WANT TO USE THEM ON PEOPLE WHO THEY KNOW WON’T DO THE SAME BACK

So simply by using them, you can often instantly neutralize them, kind of a mututally-assured-destruction deterrent

i.e. hoes M.A.D, if you will

Now, stepping back — what could offices and communities do to prevent such wars?

One place I’d once worked had a quite effective solution to this:

= If people were spreading negative things about someone’s back — then BOTH SIDES get fired / banned

(As these types lie so much it can be difficult to determine who’s the real attacker or victim — SO JUST BAN THEM BOTH)

Bam, solved. Always thought that one one of the best office politics rules.

Anyway, in short,

— If someone wrongly does the feminine passive-agressive attack style on you, and the direct masculine counter-attack style is banned, then you unfortunately must adopt the feminine style 1000x more and destroy them with it

Is what it is

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

NOW - Bryan Kohberger sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for the murders of four University of Idaho students

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Yes, that is the one huge missing piece here,

+ feminine style = UNFALSIFIABLE insults, either refusing to provide evidence, or humiliating just through negative value judgements intentionally constructed so that they cannot be disproven nor really verified, e.g. “she smelled bad the other day” or “people hate her, trust me bro”, etc, i.e. Rules for Radicals #5 “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule”

= intentionally avoiding anything resembling fair direct competition, intentionally attempting to be unfalsifiable

+ masculine style = intentionally FALSIFIABLE, either providing evidence that can be falsified, or openly challenging the other guy to a competition

= extremely inviting of direct competition, striving to make it very easy for the opponent to disprove the humiliation claim, if it truly is false, intentionally falsifiable

One of the biggest differences between feminine and masculine style

Taste for verifiability, falsifiability — is an EXTREMELY masculine-tilted tendency, concepts whose appeal is inconceivable to the feminine-minded

Verifiability desire is a masculine trait

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Denied request

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

NOW - White House's Leavitt says Obama "conspired to subvert" and "sabotage" Trump through "great and nefarious lengths."

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Maine Representative Deqa Dhalac (D) says her goal is to help "our country of Somalia"

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

What do you notice about this stock?

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

JUST IN: Bo Hines says the President’s Working Group on Digital Assets will release its 180-day report on July 30, positioning the U.S. as a leader in digital asset policy

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

The more stablecoins there are.

The higher Bitcoin goes.

And altcoins do too!

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Hail to the king baby

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶

Institutional investors are STILL selling to retail:

Institutional Investors sold -$800 million in single stocks and ETFs last week, building on -$2.4 billion in the previous week.

This marks their 10th week of selling out of the last 11.

Over the last 4 weeks, institutional investors have sold -$8.5 billion in equities in total.

On the other hand, corporations bought back +$1.2 billion of their own stock, while retail and hedge funds purchased +$1.2 billion and +$400 million, respectively.

Retail investors have now been net buyers for 30 out of the last 32 weeks.

Wall Street vs Main Street continues.

🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶