If someone is often suspicious of others' claims, motives, etc. does that usually mean they themselves are worthy of suspicion

[Leucosticte]

Let's say there's someone who's always casting shade on others, saying they're fakes, etc. Does that mean they themselves are probably that way? Are most cynics also manipulators?

 

[Admin]

Many cynics will not tell you they dont trust you, only demonstrate they dont via their actions.

Yes i think cynical people are more likely to be manipulators/fake themselves.

It takes some effort to learn the skills requires to manipulate and control people.

 

[Leucosticte]

Many cynics will not tell you they dont trust you, only demonstrate they dont via their actions.

Yes i think cynical people are more likely to be manipulators/fake themselves.

It takes some effort to learn the skills requires to manipulate and control people.

Yeah, a lot of times, they probably have some ulterior motive for wanting to cast shade on the person. In reality, we normally don't know who's telling the truth, so we can say, "Well, I'm a little suspicious they might be lying," but to say, "Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're lying" requires some support.

 

[Admin]

People are generally not good at telling whether or not someone is making a whole story up, you can try this online and most people will just assume the fictional story you made up about yourself is legit.

 

[upyr]

Let's say there's someone who's always casting shade on others, saying they're fakes, etc. Does that mean they themselves are probably that way? Are most cynics also manipulators?

People that partake in gossip with minimal or no evidence are not trustworthy. People that are simply reserved and doubt the intentions of other people are ok. The later tend to be more serious people than average.

Are most cynics also manipulators?

Virtually all people manipulate to some extent, cynic or not.

 

[Leucosticte]

People that partake in gossip with minimal or no evidence are not trustworthy. People that are simply reserved and doubt the intentions of other people are ok. The later tend to be more serious people than average.

Well, an example was with Florelle. She came on there saying she was an 18-yo virgin. Yeah, this is kinda convenient because if she'd said she was 17, people would suspected she was a cop doing a sting operation or something. But on the other hand, there are a certain number of 18-yo virgins in the world. As Victor Pride was fond of saying, the median age of women is 29. In incel forums, the median age might even skew lower.

Anyhoo, certain people were really skeptical of her claim. Other chicks of course wanted to cast shade, because if Florelle was the most desirable chick on the site, she would make them look bad in comparison, and attract male attention from them. Dudes who weren't succeeding in winning Florelle's favor also wanted to do a sour grapes thing of saying, "Well, she's probably not what she says she is anyway." They wanted to discredit the achievements (however limited and ephemeral) of those guys who did at least somewhat or temporarily win her favor, by trash-talking her, saying she was a low-value chick.

The reason was, they didn't want to admit that they were deemed by a desirable chick to be less desirable than other guys on the site. What ended up happening too was that the guys who didn't win her favor had to viciously attack the guys who did, for any perceived failings, such as being too bluepilled to get her pussy or whatever; this distracted from the fact that they themselves made even less progress with her.

Maybe some guys knew from the get-go that their game sucked, or they just weren't getting a positive reaction to their initial overtures, so that's why they barely made an attempt on her; and thus they got less emotionally invested in her than they otherwise might've, if they'd gotten further with her. They then viciously attacked those who had gotten further, and said that those guys were bluepilled for getting emotionally attached to this supposed "thot".

It was a bad situation, and wreaked a lot of destruction. I am still paying the price now, even though I barely got anything out of the situation. I'm hated by many (which is to say, I'm hated by those who didn't get anywhere with Florelle) because of what went down during Florellegate.

 

[upyr]

@Leucosticte I do not know what kind of forum you used to run. In any case, as the head of a community one should be firm in keeping drama out. Whoever makes drama should get a warning and if they persist, a ban. Aggression between users in public should not be tolerated. That is the key to avoiding situations like this.

 

[Admin]

I have seen several big successful forums that have a lot of drama and users fighting against each other.

flashback.org
lookism.net (dead now?)

I think the network effect is a big factor, people will go to places that already have a lot of users, the smaller the forum the harder it is to attract new users.

 

[upyr]

I think the network effect is a big factor, people will go to places that already have a lot of users, the smaller the forum the harder it is to attract new users.

Of course. Once one has a big enough network effect one can get away with many things. That should not be an excuse to allow low-quality users.

 

[Leucosticte]

@Leucosticte I do not know what kind of forum you used to run. In any case, as the head of a community one should be firm in keeping drama out. Whoever makes drama should get a warning and if they persist, a ban. Aggression between users in public should not be tolerated. That is the key to avoiding situations like this.

Yeah, well, the worst of it was, in one case there was a dude I had been friends with off-site for three years, and so getting rid of that drama was not just a matter of banning someone; the whole friendship ended over Florellegate. And that was a pretty good friendship up till that point; he's gonna be hard to replace.