For centuries, people have had this phrase jammed into their heads from birth: “Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.” Your mom, your teachers, your religion, and celebrities all preach this statement as the only code of moral conduct. To summarize: “Play nice.”
If you are presented with an opportunity to can take advantage of a person’s weakness or vulnerability, The Golden Rule mandates that you should not use the situation to your benefit. After all, you wouldn’t anyone to take advantage of you, right?
In a perfect scenario, this reciprocity would result in everyone being equal. The weak and the vulnerable could live without fear. On paper, this theory in action could solve all of the world problems, but here’s the issue: if the strong and dangerous contribute to the Golden Rule by playing nice, what do the weak and vulnerable contribute to balance the equation? They do NOT play nice.
Those who identify as a victim, regardless of whether or not they are, are encouraged to ruthlessly seek justice for themselves. For those who are not real victims, this “justice” means fighting for selfish desires or trying to obtain power they are not worthy of. And by making an awful lot of complaints.
If you are a strong, handsome, successful man, odds are you do not find yourself playing the victim role very often. In an animalistic world, females and the weaker men would be at your mercy. You have the ability to overpower them, outsmart them, and conquer them at will. However, according to The Golden Rule, taking advantage of your strengths is immoral and wrong. After all, if you were weak and vulnerable, wouldn’t you want them to show you some mercy?
Why Does the Golden Rule Fail in Real Life?
There are two major flaws with the Golden Rule of moral conduct:
1. Life under the Golden Rule is extremely fragile.
The Golden Rule only works when everyone follows the rule perfectly. If even one person takes advantage of a vulnerable situation, the Utopian world is thrown off, and artificial winners and losers are unfairly created. Also, if people who aren’t really victims play the victim card, the entire honor system is completely destroyed.
2. The strong and dangerous often remain that way the majority of their lives, while the weak and vulnerable victims rarely improve themselves.
By definition, the Golden Rule demands that the strong spend most of their lives relinquishing power while the victims collect it for no good reason. The weak will likely never have to return the favor – this promotes people identifying as victims for life.
Despite the obvious flaws in this moral system, modern society continues to push the Golden Rule on its people. Basic biological differences make men bigger and stronger than women on average — nature intended men to dominate and for women to submit. It’s easy to figure out who the Golden Rule dictates should play nice and who should not.
When dealing with victims, men who live by the Golden Rule are very polite. Society tells them that women are weak and vulnerable, and that men must be understanding of all their hardships and demands. After all, how would he feel if he was in her shoes?
“It’s OK that she elbowed me in the ribs at the bar. After all, how would I feel if I was five feet tall and had to navigate through these giants?”
“It’s OK that she cancelled our date at the last minute again. After all, how would I feel if I had to get up early for my 11am class and she was pressuring me to meet up?”
Even when obviously being taken advantage of others, these same men still stick to their moral guns.
“It’s OK that I got targeted in the Knockout Game. After all, how would I feel if I was an underprivileged urban youth with nothing better to do?”
While these “noble” men act in the best interest of weak, expecting to be repaid with similar kindness if they ever become vulnerable, many “victims” are simply plotting how to achieve their next helping of justice. Take, for example, the most infamous victims in the history of the modern world: feminists.
This poor, mistreated feminist shamelessly used her victim identity. Golden Rulers jumped to the rescue with generous donations to help a vulnerable person they didn’t know because hey, how would they feel if they were denied pay because of their sexual orientation?
As permanent victims, feminist thirst for undeserved power and justice is never quenched. Regardless of how much power men relinquish, feminists view men as the cruel slave masters beating them down. This is why beta males and white knights receive no love for their numerous gifts to the feminist cause—if they were born with a larger stature and a penis, they are the enemy for life.
The Dirty Truths
The “Golden Rule” ignores three dirty truths that victims forbid men from speaking about:
1. Men still have the physical ability to keep hoes (and the rest of the weak) in line – they just repress it.
This can be seen on a daily basis in any third-world country or traditional society. Not necessarily ideal, but a definite option.
2. There are few situations in which the world will sympathize with a strong, successful man.
If you are waiting for the weak to return the favor, don’t hold your breath.
3. Even in situations when the Golden Rule commands sympathy for a successful man, those who identify as the victim will never play nice.
What about me? I have problems too! GIVE ME STUFF.
My advice to men is to not follow the Golden Rule. This does not mean to be evil, but to use your strengths to act in the best interest of yourself. If you choose to do good deeds for others, do them because you truly want to. Bill Gates had to screw over many people in the business world and create an unfair monopoly to earn his fortune — but now, as one of greatest philanthropists of all time, he has the power to give millions of dollars each year to the causes of his choosing.
If you give away your masculine power just because society tells you to, don’t expect to ever get it back. And certainly don’t expect to receive a thank you in the mail.
Read More: Is Feminism Its Own Worst Enemy?
The strong rule and the weak exist under that rule and the whim of the strong. Powerful or powerless, know which group you belong to and act accordingly. FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EQUALITY. If you desire to be strong, then do what is necessary to become one of the strong or remain weak and a victim…you will receive no sympathy. That is the truth of life.
Mr.Direct you sir summed it up.
Thank you, Sir
I am in total agreement Mr. Direct. I recently heard that Amanda Palmer is trying to “love bomb” the manosphere with her nu feminist philosophy here:
I posted this in her comments:
While your “love” is much appreciated and men and women do share common ground, i.e. this planet, the natural biological differences between man and woman have become blurred over the past century due to what some would term “progress”. This has not been conducive towards healthy relationships between the sexes. Before you scream “patriarchy” and “misogynist ” hear me out. I am not preaching a return to former times. I believe a woman should be paid the same as any man for the same work, no more no less. But the simple fact remains that we are all subject to the choices we make in life, work, rest and play. Women make different choices to men and visa versa. There will never be true equality of the sexes. We only have a certain amount of control over our time here. The rest is up to nature. Unfortunately nature is a dictatorship not a democracy. Try all you like to impose your will on biology but there is only so much we can achieve through it’s manipulation. After that he/she/it doesn’t care…..
Amen. Never count on your competitors to believe in equality. The only way to live in this world is by trying to get ahead by all means available.
Candidate for comment of the year.
bless, mr direct
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Joe, you stole that quote from a Conan the Barbarian movie. Still a valid comment but you should have credited the quote.
Actually, Conan stole it from Genghis Khan. Just sayin.
It was a joke, don’t be so fucking autistic.
Not even in Heaven is there equality. The only difference is that the power imbalance is far more constructive there than it is here because Good is much stronger in Heaven than it is on Earth.
Compared to Earth, it’s infinitely more difficult for wickedness and corruption (and therefore abuses of power) to occur because the nature of Heaven is much more inclined towards Good than it is towards Evil.
But equality? HA! Don’t make me laugh! No such thing XD
Everyone was never made to be equal. lol People refuse to accept that. Strive to be whatever it is you desire to be in life but don’t expect hand outs or a leg up. Do what you must do to succeed in life. Those without power or drive complain about the unfairness of life and want others to solve their problems or issues. Those with power and drive…ACT. They accept life at face value. They carve out a place for themselves. This world is ruthless…..be equally so and you will succeed. You don’t become powerful by playing nice and playing by the rules. You do so by exploiting situations to your advantage and utterly destroying your enemies. If you are weak or show weakness its like blood in the water for sharks. Be the shark that eats other sharks. You will be feared, admired, respected and emulated by others trying to succeed.
I kind of disagree with the article. Golden rule is more like a moral guideline, than practical advice.
Denying it does not serve your purpose for one reason – having an ONS with a girl you met at a bar does not make her weaker or victim. Sex was consensual. What they want to make us believe, is that women cannot give consent while drunk and man can. Or that men and women having sex while drunk isn’t same thing.
So golden rule is in no collision with game.
golden rule works in small things, like not bashing your car door against the next car in the parking lot, or not stealing a phone off the table in starbucks because you can, or taking care of a drunk friend and getting him home ok…… be reasonable do unto others….and remember who lives by the sword dies by the sword…. if you go around being selfish it comes back to you… i remember pinching a cell phone once, and literally that same afternoon my phone with all my contacts got taken… talk about instant karma…
where the golden rule fails is when you have opportunity to exploit a situation for your own honest gain…
Exploiting situation is not same as hurting someone or making someone damage. Exploiting situation = using intellect to persuade hamster mentality masses
Exactly, I believe this rule is only effective or can be interpreted to a certain degree. If this rule were to be literal god knows the things I would be doing to “others”.
Although I feel the writer and his motives for breaking down this “rule”.
Haha I once stole sunglasses from a bar counter….30 min later I went to a coffee shop and bam! I forgot the stolen sunglasses on the table….speeding back to the coffee shop they were gone already in 2min.
“who lives by the sword dies by the sword”
“Those who don’t have swords still die by them” – blond chick from Lord of the Rings
“Karma” is a Stone Age bedtime story told by Indians. Shiva and Vishnu or not counting your rights and wrongs.
Christ may be viewed as weak for saying that, but that is because he is misunderstood. He told his followers to purchase swords, and he did NOT say “Live by the sword, go to hell by the sword.” He leaves us our swords.
Exactly. History has shown time and again that many men in war who have killed with swords, guns or bombs have died peacefully as old men while those who have never taken up a single weapon have died in merciless and violent wars and battles. Reality shows that if you think that others will be kind and nice to you simply because you are nice and kind to everyone, you will be a sheep that will be devoured by the wolves who will show no remorse at their behaviour. Be they an enemy combatant, violent sociopathic feminists or back stabbing colleagues at work.
I ‘view christ as weak’ becausse the little faggot allowed himself to be tacked to the wall like a Justin Beiber poster. If I am ever in the market for a god, it will not be the zombie jew.
I’d imagine a nihilist having little problem with zombies, seeing as you are nothing more than a mystically animated sack of meat, follwing yourself and whatever chemical delusions sweep across your cerebral cortex at any given time. Stating an overarching transcending divine plan as one of weakness, as if you believe Jesus was real and had a divine plan, is absurd. Did not King Leonidas allow himself to be “tacked to the wall,” or was that weakness too? Your definition of strength is absurd and unfounded; not even evolution values survival or fitness- why do you? As a former nihilist, I found Christ the least absurd option.
Leonidas died with a sword in his hand; not a nail through it.
” as if you believe Jesus was real ”
Nope. I do not. Gods are just bedtime stories told to frighten children and control the money, minds and cocks of the weak willed. Jesus just happens to be the most limp-wristed of all the imaginary friends.
Nevermind that what Christ is referring to is strong arm robbers and bandits.
No, but of course my guess is the type of idiot who thinks an unequipped and unskilled civilian could tackle an armed and armored infantryman isn’t into philology.
I don’t recall Christ vituperating the roman soldiers other than reminding them too be content with their pay.
But then again He was a whole fuck ton tougher than 99% of the Westerners today. I am sure most of the tough asses here would beg Pontius for clementia if faced with the cross.
” He was “… imaginary.
That doesn’t deny the lessons of his teachings or his actions.
If whether or not a person existed is enough to completely invalidate everything they ever said or did, then we’d have to destroy every single work of fiction known to man in one glorious reenactment of the Book Burnings of Nuremberg.
“All these characters never existed! They don’t have anything to teach us, we don’t need ’em!”
“That doesn’t deny the lessons of his teachings or his actions.”
OK, buddy. In that case “He knows if you’ve been bad or good So be good for goodness sake…Santa Claus is coming to town”.
I’ll volunteer to end you, so you can find out yourself. I think the sun gets a bit brighter when a nihilist departs!
I would say Christ’s influence affects far more than Leonidas’. Not every sword is created the same.
Golden rule: treat others as you wish to be treated. – good rule for people you have never had any interactions or dealings with.
Silver rule: treat others as they have treated you – good rule for most of life
And if you both follow the golden rule from the get go you will both treat each other well into the future.
Uranium-235 rule- Screw unto others as others whould screw unto you.
Polonium-210 rule: Please eat the sushi, it’s for the good of us all.
It’s a fine line, if you posses the looks the means or any advantage, you should exploit it for your gain, I still am trying to understand when using someone for your gain is fair game. At times I also wonder if I am being used or exploited I guess what we don’t know won’t hurt us. But this article gets you thinking A+ as always and we have be on guard 24/7 Gentleman.
I love the picture since I am a firm believer in never tipping. Although I break my rule often if I get a male server and he doesn’t seem like a total mangina, since I actually care if my underprivileged and oppressed men get to eat since the government won’t feed them unlike women.
I like this article as for once the golden rule is broken the golden rule ceases to function. Once upon a time this rule would have created the worlds strongest nation for nobody would be evil under this, but with one person breaking the rule it all falls apart. Living by this rule would be like building the World Trade Center and then letting anybody with a computer visit a website that would set off hundreds of bombs inside the building. You pray nobody does this since they would want bombs going off in their work place, but if one takes advantage of it the entire building literally falls apart. In todays society women can get jobs that pay 20$ per hour via government and other employers right out of high school… What I would of given for that when I got out of high school. In short, men do whatever the fuck you want since its justified… Hell maybe rape a girl so at least we get one real rape offense, hell it might even be the first real rape that America has seen in a decade!
You don’t believe in tipping? Do you not realize that servers get about $2.50 an hour because they are expected to make it up in tips? And, at most restaurants, servers have “tip share” taken out of their tips at the end of the night to help pay for the busboys and bartenders. Your tip share is taken out as a percentage of your sales. So, when you go out to eat and don’t tip, you are basically stealing from the server.
Lol. So lets get this straight, because an employer refuses to pay a decent wage to his employees I am supposed to pay that wage instead? Hell if a waiter gets 10 customers and all tip 6$ that waiter is now making more than most college graduates an hour.
Uhhh, yes. It’s not the server’s fault that the system is set up that way. In this culture, it is expected that you leave a tip when you go out to eat. If you can’t afford to leave a tip, then you need to stay home. And, no server is going to get 10 tables in an hour. Most servers at chain restaurants make about $12-15 an hour after tips, and the way schedules are made, they aren’t getting 40 hour weeks.
It’s the server’s fault that they are so niggardly underemployed.
Join the Army.
Well, hell, if you’re going to use that reasoning, why not just start flinging your poo at Wal-Mart employees and stealing their wallets since it’s their fault they work there.
I won’t steal their wallets but I don’t care if they can’t feed their [bastard] children. Yes, it is thier fault they work there.
1. Go to college
2. Learn a trade
3. Join the military (and do 1 & 2)
4. Seppuku
Fine, you’re not required to care. But, if you go out to eat and don’t tip, that is basically the same as stealing a Wal-Mart employee’s wallet because you are taking money from that server. That was my point.
I tip 15% FOR GOOD SERVICE. I don’t know where this 20% bullshit came from recently.
Tipping is stupid, it is like something out of Mexico or Asia. Shoul I tip my patrolman when he pulls me over for a busted tail light? In Mexico, you better have a freakin tip ready. Here is the U.S., we have this thing called a free market, and a meritocracy. If you want to tip based on merit, then you should have that option. However, because of the West’s strong emphasis on contracts, principal & agents especially, we should ditch tipping.
I used to believe as you do as I worked as a server during early college and lived off of those tips. Now? Fuck them. If it’s my obligation to tip them, the restaurant can weave it into the overall price of the meal like in Europe and force me to.
I am well aware of what goes on in the kitchen when someone is known to not tip, but that’s the way the game is played. Don’t get known. It’s not like you should be wasting your money going to restaurants anyway.
Your logic is flawed; at its most simple explanation, if it was stealing, it would be a crime. As it is, it’s an option at best, and a sucker’s option at worst.
Submit an article to RoK about tipping and why we shouldn’t just because they brought us a meal.
Did you miss the entire point of what I wrote? I’m simply pointing out that tipping servers is an expected cultural norm in this country and server’s wages are based on this fact. By not tipping, not only are you being an asshole but you are stealing from the server.
“If it’s my obligation to tip them, the restaurant can weave it into the
overall price of the meal like in Europe and force me to.”
And that’s exactly what will happen if enough people stop tipping — servers will get paid higher hourly wages to compensate — meaning the cost of your meals go up and you get worse service.
Ive got a “tip” for those fuckwads. Get a better job.
I’m fine with paying more; it just means I’ll eat out even less than I already do. In the meantime, there are more than enough chumps to tip and keep servers working at slave wages. Fools.
My point is that mandatory contrived expected tipping is counter-cultural and anti-american.
The Golden Rule is supposed to be applicable to all, therefore your article’s premise is flawed. It isn’t the Golden Rule that’s at fault, but the deliberate refusal of a certain part of society to embrace it.
What you should have said is “Society is broken and unfortunately lacking in virtues of charity and kindness because professional victimhood means that those lower on the totem pole have no qualms about ruthlessly exploiting the goodwill of anyone whom they perceive to be above them.” Don’t make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It’s fallacious to condemn virtue just because vice exists too.
Many strong men are strong because they had it hard. Therefore, being “kind” and “compassionate” may in fact be preventing someone from becoming harder and sharper. Many strong people don’t see suffering or misfortune as bad- they actually see it as good; cleansing by trial and fire, building character and resilience. I don’t call them “economic depressions,” I call them “market corrections.”
Absolutely. “Tough love” is often the best way, while being “nice” is often just a womanish instinct to avoid confrontation which would otherwise be inevitable by presenting an artificial veneer of kindness which does nothing to help the other party, and only serves to encourage them in their folly.
That said, there is a difference between being prudent, hard, and fair, and being an asshole, and there is a difference between being kind and charitable and being “nice” in a simpering and weak way.
Example: This is a game blog. If I see that it’s not going to bite me in the ass (prudence) because I can judge that my friend is reasonable and has a good head on his shoulders, then it’s gratuitous charity on my part to enlighten and teach him about game and women, and help him out with that aspect of his life because I know something he doesn’t. I would want him to do the same were our roles reversed. Golden Rule. It would be false charity, that horrid “niceness,” to just play dumb while I watched him fail because, say, I noticed he was making certain mistakes over and over again and didn’t want to tell him -unless I judged that he would learn better if he failed a few times to really be able to appreciate the lesson I could teach him.
The Golden Rule is not about reciprocity. That is ideal, but not the premise. It is a moral guideline for one’s own conduct.
And the Golden Rule does not mean you excuse bad behavior, or open yourself up to exploitation. You can still do kind things for others without making concessions for their selfish actions or accepting abuse.
Your reasoning is therefore flawed because failure of society to follow the rule does not negate the rule. Once again, it is a moral guideline for personal conduct. Adopting a Machiavellian approach to life makes you no different than the weak you described, expect you only use your power to help others when there is no detriment or risk to you.
This site may be becoming a monetary success through ads and “shock” pieces, but the content is a joke. Most of the authors here have a poor understanding of how logic and persuasion actually work, and they write like they are still on the forums—poorly structured rants flawed with fallacies and dressed up pretty with some 4-syllable verbiage. Return of Trolls.
You’d be better off making it an overt satire like the Onion rather than trying to push this off as a serious site about masculinity and men’s issues.
A moral guideline for personal conduct fails in the large-scale. His logic is sound in the sense that when you live by this ‘moral guideline’ you are more prone to exploitation simply because you expect reciprocity. A Machiavellian approach to life, while I personally don’t don it, isn’t comparable to playing the victim role in life, as one is a predator and the other pretending to be preyed upon to elicit compassion.
One needn’t expect reciprocity. One can hope for it, but doing something that is good or magnanimous is often done for its own sake, not because any like action or attitude is expected. One should do things because they’re the right thing to do, not because one expects to get something out of it. Of course, the level of one’s generosity is going to be determined by what is practical for them, and what is deserved (in some sense) by the recipient. We tend to be more kind and more generous with those who are not obviously out to screw us over.
“This site may be becoming a monetary success through ads and “shock” pieces, but the content is a joke”
That’s exactly what it’s all about. Turtmosis’ and Troublemakers controversial posts gained them about 1000 more viewers as well as a lot of publicity. Obviously, other ROK writers are trying to repeat their …erm, success.
If you can’t expand your readership through quality writing, why no try with scandals? I would’nt expect “real, masculine” men to act like drama Queens all the time, but what do I know? I am but a silly, irrational female…:P
Leah, I have been checking this site out for a week or two now, and although I won’t argue with your assertions about the authors here, I will ask you a simple question, given your assertions: Why the hell are you always hanging around here? What are you going to get out of it? I like to see what young people (I’m 33) are thinking so that I can prepare my 5 kids for the future. What about you? Are you on some kind of evangelical outreach here? Which religion are you promoting, with your little opinions and concerns and comments?
why are you here?
Feminist troll. Buy a bigger dildo, then go back to wherever the fuck you came from. And stay there. No one here gives a flying fuck what you have to say about anything.
When people nag at me (typically miserable, failing, people) that I ought to follow the Golden Rule, or that I ought to treat my wife as I would treat my own body (a Christian scriptural commandment from Ephesians 5), I mention that I kicked my own ass as hard as I could by enlisting for 4 years in the Marine Corps, and it made me the (comparative) success that I am today. I kicked my own ass into gear because I was a natural conservative who’d been brain damaged by 22 years of liberal feminist programming, full of stupid ideas about equality and tolerance and sympathy that were resulting in my slow and painful DEATH. Now, I am ALIVE, Ooh-rah. Golden Rule was not taught to Marines; Honor, Courage, and Commitment were.
“Honor, Courage, and Commitment were.”
Dude, that’s part of the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule isn’t about being a little bitch, a lot of people here (including the author) seem to be missing the point.
“Don’t shoot the opponent, you wouldn’t like him to shoot you”. Sure, Marine corps follow the golden rule !
You’re missing the point the most.
You can’t redefine what the author and I are stating as the current definition of the Golden Rule. You can tell me what you think it means all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the current advice given to strong men is false and harmful. It doesn’t change the fact that the golden rule has become nothing more than a self hating, annihilationist attitude, designed to drag society down to your lowest level. Nowhere in all the USMC lit do I see anything about the golden rule, or anything close to it. Everywhere, I do see, is the encouragement for a man to find the highest values in life (God, country, corps) and forge his own wayin light of those Truths, regardless of how others treat you, regardless of how it makes you or anyone else feel.
“You can’t redefine what the author and I are stating as the current definition of the Golden Rule”
But you and the author are redefining what the Golden Rule.
You treat your body hard to make it better. You might be obliged to treat your wife hard to make her better. That’s the golden rule, even if she, or some outside observer, is unable from her inferior vantage point to see and understand this. If they could understand, they’d want you to take the steps necessary to truly help them, and they would do the same to you to help you. Their misapplication of the Golden Rule into some kind of sappy “let’s all just be ‘nice’ to each other all the time” doesn’t negate its fundamental truth.
If he treated his wife hard to make her better, he’d be in court for emotional abuse.
It so happens my God has blessed me with a woman worth more than rubies and gold, who enjoys being treated with firm love from her benevolent husband.
Benevolence is related to sympathy. Benevolence requires being charitable. Charitability requires sympathy. Were you not saying a moment ago that sympathy is for the weak and for the dying?
That’s some highly motivated trash debbil
I have to agree 100% with your break down of this article. Every article I’ve read on here that deals with human nature, on a large scale, can be summarized as lacking depth, research and real value. To speak on human nature and things like morality, social Darwinism, etc, I feel you need to have a few decades under your belt. You have to be a well traveled, and educated individual.
I don’t accept that a ‘millennial’ who has never left America(not talking of author specifically) can really write an engaging and thoughtful piece on such an elaborate topic.
The golden rule is the basis for several world religions and philosophies. It goes back thousands of years. It must have some merit for people throughout time to consider it valuable.
“Adopting a Machiavellian approach to life makes you no different than the weak you described”
Why exactly? Most leaders of this world live this way, are they weak?
“You’d be better off making it an overt satire like the Onion rather than trying to push this off as a serious site about masculinity and men’s issues.”
If that’s what you want, go read the Onion, men are here for self-improvement.
Is that guy one of those “hate readers” I’ve heard so much about? They can’t get enough of reading and commenting on sights they hate?
Doesn’t sound like a very fun use of time! Maybe that’s why he prefers us over the onion!
I understand your point, but I believe there is value in the underlying message. While I see what you are saying with regard to misrepresenting the golden rule, the actual premise of the article nonetheless holds up. Men do act like this and they are punished for it.
In the end, your argument should be that these men themselves do not understand the golden rule and that is why they are suffering for it.
“Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.”
unto not onto
I don’t get this article. No one has ever advocated the “golden rule” as a piece of advice to get ahead. It is a moral rule and people who believe in and follow the rule are doing so because they feel morally obligated, not because they think it will help them advance. You’re using pragmatic arguments against a bright-line moral rule. This article will only “convince” those who already refuse to follow the golden rule.
Excellent Article!
Don’t be a sucker by any means, sniff out the motives of the manipulative weak and plan accordingly.
However, the path of the strong is also one of a leader and a protector to those who are weaker and deserving. The golden rule must be incorporated into this portion of life to get ahead. The strong who walk all over the weak will soon have an uprising.
Finally, it is a sign of weakness to be constantly sensitive about your weakness and strength. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are and things will improve.
This man sounds like a hero^
The golden rule has nothing to do with equality. This article would have been better just examining victim culture. Also Bill Gates is a bitch and multiculturalism is a jokes so you really lost me.
The Golden Rule is a modern false teaching, ripped from its context, as postmodern relativists/nihilists are wont to do. Why they bother with religion at all anymore, I have no clue. The Golden Rule can be read in its original religious context in Matthew 7, the context being: Judge others well, be intolerant of sin in yourself and others, be assertive in correcting others where you excel, patronize your family and loved ones, shirk and withold your blessings from haters and mockers- but in all these things do them so that you are strong and your family is strong and so that you become more like Christ and so that God is glorified.
It (Mat 7) is giving you a sense of mastery, righteousness, and accountability, not a sense of helping just anyone who comes along with no sense of ultimate purpose. Especially not a sense of “I can do whatever I want and you can’t say anything as long as I’m not hurting anyone!” That is the modern sense, and it is a bastardization.
Leviticus: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk.”
In the context of Leviticus, “vengeance” means murder.
“2. There are few situations in which the world will sympathize with a strong, successful man.”
Forget successful men, that rule applies double to weak unsucessful men. At least successful men are vindicated. Weak betas, on the other hand, are treated like garbage. They get no sympathy as a victim.
A think a big mistake that can happen is to attribute weakness to being good. A lot of nerds aren’t exactly nice moral people they simply are too weak to see their desire to fruition. It’s just that their pissy behavior manifests in the form of passive aggressiveness.
Dropping your guard and being too nice to a guy simply because he is genetically inferior and is socially awkward is a very dumb move. It’s not your job to build them up and it’s akin to jumping in after someone trapped in quicksand.
You actually follow the golden rule by crushing would be professional victims trying to ruin your life.
Do unto others before they do unto you.
Remember the Simpsons episode where Bill Gates barges into Homers new internet business with two heavies. Homer thinks he’s going to buy the business but instead they start busting up the place and Gates says “I didn’t get rich by writing a bunch of cheques!” Sums him up delightfully…..
I think what this blog is getting at is a tortured way of reaching the same conclusion as the book No More Mr. Nice Guy. Niceness and kindness does not build up in a bank account that you can cash out at some time in the future. A man should have a moral code, follow that code, and do things not because they are nice but because they serve some sort of purpose.
Don’t do – My friend needs $100 to pay rent for the month. I will give it to him because that is the nice thing to do and I am sure because I did this nice thing he will pay me back some day or return the favor. If he does not abide by this implicit agreement I will get mad at him in the future.
Do – My friend needs $100 to pay rent for the month. I will give it to him because he has helped me out of a few jams before and it will show that I appreciate his friendship. I will tell him thanks for helping me in the past, here you go, don’t worry about paying me back. This leaves no implicit expectations and clearly communicates the reason for my actions.
I get the premise of what you are trying to say. Basically, you’re pointing out that true equality is a utopian fantasy. I get that. However, you are over-simplifying things. Perhaps you should go back and read the comments left on the article written about social Darwinism.
I’m always skeptical of people when they start describing human nature in black and white terms. You can’t be an absolutist when talking of human nature. The ‘golden rule’ is an important component of what makes a civilization possible. Dismissing it altogether does not really make sense to me. Again, your writing style exhibits an ‘all or nothing’, absolutist mentality. I learned years ago while serving in the military, and encountering various cultures, that that type of thinking is harmful to understanding human beings.
The Golden Rule comes from Jesus, who was treated like dirt his whole life, even though he was really nice to everybody. The point of it is, you don’t treat people with kindness expecting it to be reciprocated in this life – you do it for God, who is always watching, and who will reward you in the next one. If you’re non-religious, I honestly don’t see why you would have any morals at all. Darwinism is about the survival of the fittest right?
And one of the most important aspects of fitness is not murdering each other before you can reproduce. Humans are a social species, we rely on each other to survive. We have morals for the same reason piranhas don’t eat each other during feeding frenzies.
But if murdering somebody will help you get further, like say, you’re on the Titanic, and you can get a seat on a life raft by killing some child (and nobody will find out), why don’t you do it?
I’m calling you out on this. Religious people I have known and refuse to associate with now have had no qualms about abandoning people who simply do not believe in their religion or are not religious at all. Their so-called morals only extend to those who belong to their in-group which is their religion. The number one people guilty of such thinking are the followers of the Abrahamic god. They are the wolves whom I mentioned in my reply to another post. At least sociopathic feminists don’t behave out of some deluded belief in a desert god but there are plenty of people in your religion very willing to commit mass murder in the name of the war god you clearly follow.
Not saying that everybody is a good Christian. I’m just outlining the general idea behind Christianity.
You must separate the god from the religion if you seek truth. Some religious people hurt your feelings? Who’s being feminized now? You. Put that emotional crap out of your head and focus on the logos, not the pathos. The logos wants to know: by what standard do you judge mean religious wolves? Look a bit deeper into ethics and metaphysics and you’ll see that you have no ground to judge them because you are blown about on the winds of the age. First, name you god, then tell me how I’ve sinned against him or you. Anything else is a waste of my time, and a clattering noise., a rushing of wind.
It is also from Hammurabi’s Code and many of the world’s religious texts. But you are right- I don’t understand why (post)modernists and materialists bother themselves with religious teachings and debate. Why don’t they just admit: “If we are but animals, why can’t we act like it?” Darwin, or the naturalist view, is NOT about survival of the fittest, nor is it about adaptations. It is merely about mutation, whether the mutation is adaptive or maladaptive makes no difference because survival is not a naturalists value either. Not all species survive, nor does another species really give a shit if it or another goes extinct. Not even survival or fitness truly matter in the Darwinian paradigm.
Morals were not invented by any religious scripture. We had them before we had monotheism. They were in short supply, but we had them. Being the fittest in this sense is to make efficient use of all of your resources. Friends, allies, women, are all resources. To my girlfriend, I am a resource. From the waist down, so is she. Does that make sense? Being nice to others in exchange for being treated nicely is a very baseline exchange of value that is absolutely necessary for any kind of social fitness and success.
“Man is what he is, a wild animal with the will to survive, and (so far) the ability, against all competitors. Unless one accepts that, anything one says about morals, war, politics — you name it — is nonsense. Correct morals arise from knowing what Man is — not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be.” –
Starship Trropers, Robert A. Heinlein
It’s not a trade, when as the author points out, you have absolutely no guarantee of a return. You can be the nicest man alive, and women might still reject you, and men might still want to kill you. I forgot the name, but they had a made up scenario where you had two criminals and they were given a choice to stay silent or to betray the other. The result ends up being that it’s always more favourable to betray the other person. I think this applies to reality as well.
Everyone misses the point of Jesus saying that in the first place. The text actually begins in Matthew chapter 5 where Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Then in Matthew 7:12 He says Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The point is, Jesus did not give that as a general code of conduct; He was talking ONLY to those who would follow Him and truly deny themselves and become His disciples. That is why the Law and the Prophets are mentioned in the verse. Non-followers of Christ could care less about any of that.
“The Golden Rule comes from Jesus”
No. It did not. It has been perceived by many cultures in many lands for many thousands of years. That the fictional character of Jesus is attributed as repeating this message does not mean it came from him.
Indeed, it predates him even in the bible.
yes, but for everyone not just men. worst advice, ever, i the famous. me says everyone should not but into it.
Do what thou willst.
1) You are not your brothers keeper
2) The onus is on others to prove themselves, not on you to be sympathetic
3) Mankind is spinning circles on the same spot, having made little progress since we adopted collective responsibility and
4) One is only encouraging mediocrity and victimhood and not challenging others to take self-responsibility
5) My deepest depressions followed my greatest acts of charity and sympathy…every single time. Like giving a gun to someone to hunt some deer for self-sustenance, and instead get shot in the back
6) Why are we all afraid to permit any degree of suffering? The animal world has no welfare..we shouldn’t be so arrogant to believe we are in any way superior to them.
7) Joker was happier, had more fun, was more relaxed, far more intelligent than that twisted Dark Knight, crippled by his ethics, morality, and sense of social justice. Joker knew the futility of propping up a dying system.
8) Our current economic predicament is the result of being charitable with monster banks that took our tax dollars in the form of crony-corporate bailouts, and only outsourced massive risk to the rest of the society. And that Frankenstein has only gotten worse knowing that the citizenry tolerate them without finding solutions to their monopoly over the fate of our economies, our form of currency, our time, our spirits, our lives.
9) When crisis hits, and it will, and if you follow the pattern of data points throughout history, you too will succumb to the Machiavellian traits necessary for some semblance of control over one’s life and destiny, in an abstract, or real Mad Max scenario. When time runs out, and you’ve got mouths to feed, and employment opportunities diminish in the face of globalization and the robotic age you won’t even have the time to be your brother’s keeper.
10) Funny how one never hears successful people tell us to be collective cowardly conformists. They didn’t play nice with society, their teachers, or women and were the type to dropout, and to accept personal responsibility and maintain secure control to mitigate as much risk as humanly possible.
11) Think like a corporation
12) The most successful investors know the key to success it to mitigate risk
13) Risk and reward are asymmetric…it takes just one strike to bring down a building, a company, a marriage, but much more time, planning, effort, development and engineering to build anything…if you have any dignity, and value yourself, and everything you’ve built and stand for, you will maintain control at all times.
14) One doesn’t merely have friends…he has interests.
I much prefer the Iron Rule: you shall do unto others as they have done unto you.
Kindness to the kind, cruelty to the cruel. People deserve no better treatment than their treatment of others.
It depends.
It’s simplistic to think that what people do unto others is strictly a matter of their own choice. There is programming running in the background.
Repeatedly abuse an animal with what you do OR DO NOT DO and chances are he will become abusive.
While I totally agree that cruelty should be met with cruelty in a JUST way, as a disciplinary/deterrent action, let’s keep in mind that we live in a world where sometimes people’s cruelty is a CONSEQUENCE of what has been done to them UNJUSTLY by other cruel people.
Unjust cruelty changes people and some become cruel too or very deranged.
It’s a limited win to punish a cruel man who initially was a nice kid but became a monster due to an abusive mother / father, for instance. It’s a limited win because it doesn’t address the root cause which many times can be traced as being external to the perpetrator.
The skeleton in the closet is the root cause and what just punishment / prevention mechanism can be put in place to address the root cause.
Example: who punishes the abusive mother / father who turn their son or daughter into a sociopath or psychopath who does damage to society demonstrably because of the poor parenting job and gets sent to life in prison or death row?. Shouldn’t the parents face some mechanism put in place to make them liable for their action or inaction with respect to their kid- turned-monster-by-them? You know, when one tries to adopt a kid there are all kinds of rules one must meet but when one chooses to have a kid inside of the ‘marriage industrial complex’ everything goes. No rules that get imposed beforehand. Let’s call this the ‘happy family fraud’.
Example: who holds accountable the media and the propaganda machine which de-sensitive audience with respect to:
* single parenting – deemed OK hence kids do not need fathers
* all kinds of violence
* sexual promiscuity
Let’s call this the ‘what you see is not what it is’ fraud.
Example: who holds accountable the public education industrial complex for doing a mostly miserable job and largely failing to instill solid core values into generation after generation of people, whose parents actually paid good tax money to buy qualitative education that does not get delivered, judging by the poor results?. Let’s call this the ‘institutionalized education’ fraud.
In an environment fraught with fraud the typical punishment addresses the effect only, not the root cause. It’s better than nothing but this is just another fraud. Let’s call it the ‘justice has been served’ fraud. It’s at least hilarious if not deeply concerning.
.
“It’s a limited win to punish a cruel man who initially was a nice kid but became a monster due to an abusive mother / father, for instance.”
While it’s true that awful shit happens to us, tragically when we are still young and innocent, and that can create ‘urges,’ we always have CHOICE. It’s our own faults if we decide to be victims of circumstance. Just my outlook on it.
THIS is a proper strategy, and is referred to as a “tit-for-tat” strategy in evolutionary game theory. You’ll be happy to know that after a 1000 generation computer simulation, this is the strategy that came out ahead, with the “nasty” (opportunistic, unprovokedly-aggressive) strategies (like the ones this article seem to think are superior) died out in the 200s.
I see it as the opposite. You forgive others in greater measure, elevating them to a higher place than before the transgression. It doesn’t mean you have to accept their behavior; rather that you won’t return the transgression in kind, if possible. This is the difference between an emotional reactionary and one in true control.
My Golden Rule; Do unto others. Then split.
I wouldn’t interpret the golden rule as conceding everything to self proclaimed victims because they are ‘weaker’. If they are attacking you and threatening your capacity to enjoy your life, then by definition they are not weak. They are aggressors. The real meaning of the golden rule is to be just and fair, and not to exploit or harm others for your own gain when they pose no threat to you.
A version of the rule I like says: “Do no harm, but take no shit”.
That’s one of my favorite quotes.
Eat life..or life eats you.
When you fail to follow the Golden Rule, you are China.
“The story of the world, my sweet, is who gets eaten and who gets to eat” – Sweeney Todd
Not all strong people take what they can get because they are empathizing with a victim/weak position because society has told them to do that. Some people just do it because they feel worse if they don’t (ie, they are actually acting selfishly by being ‘nice’). This idea of altruism is nothing new: Jesus of Narrazaroth was the first man to theorize its societal implications: it’s in-built into human animals as much as being a bastard is) You seem to have met some very dumb feminists in your time. The ones I know accept and celebrate differences between men and women ans love what both bring to the world. From what I’ve read, many of the authors and readers of this blog are in fact feminists by this standard, which is the standard you’ll get from real feminist, if not from dumb people indulging victim mentalities and trying to get what they can.
Sorry typo: ‘Not all strong people don’t take what they can get…’
Of course, there probably isn’t a single individual who agrees with the OP, that would also actually be willing to publicly admit that he believes it’s OK to deceive, take advantage, push around, manipulate, murder or steal from those who can’t defend themselves. Because naturally “those who are weak” will inevitably include “friends” who are vulnerable at some point or another. And the OP himself probably wouldn’t have the balls to admit that is precisely where his article is going. That in effect he is totally untrustworthy and will take advantage of anyone stupid enough to turn their back to him.
Which means the OP and those who agree with him are probably gutless backstabbing manipulative bullies who stand for nothing at all.
I’m noticing two trends here at ROK, one trend is encouraging men to stand up for themselves and call people to account for their bullshit, and the other trend is like this article, nihilistic, dishonest, and frankly more than a bit gay.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a quote said by the same man who said “If I am my not for myself, who will be for me?” – ?” אם אין אני לי,מי לי”
That man was Hillel. His original quote was “DONT do unto others as you would NOT have them do to you”
So when the OP characterizes that saying as meaning you should bend over and take it up the ass, he is missing the point. Inherent in that statement is the concept that I would expect someone to kick my ass if I tried that on someone else, therefore if someone tried that on me he would next be carried away to the morgue.
I’m going to leave off with a final quote by Hillel, I don’t expect the narcissistic uber menschen reading this post to pay attention, but maybe someone will have a moment of pause and reconsider embarking on a life of ass raping, theft, deceit, bullying and sadistic cruelty – what can I say, I’m an optimist.
Hillel also said “If I am only for myself, then what am I?”
If I am only for myself, then what am I?
Smart.
Do you recommend ass raping? You seem to have the voice of experience. From the Catcher position, I mean.
Love this article as it expresses the ideas of what it is to really take control of your destiny and go your own way. I tried to articulate the basis of this article in my own post http://thedirtyyoungman.blogspot.com/2013/12/addendum-to-gold-rule.html
americanbk,
a good article but you missed a fundamental point. The golden rule is the one and only law you could be said to be subject to without consent.
As you do to others you agree others may do to you. Simple.
Take my ex for example. She attacked a strong and successful man by pretending to be a victim. She has now been outed as an adulteress, a prostitute, a criminal and a child abuser. Photos below for those who want so see what such looks like.
Women hate on me and attack me for “slandering Jennifer”. I rebut that and say I have done no such thing. I point out she committed perjury and slandered me first and that I am merely telling the truth about her. If she has a problem with that? I don’t care. And I am still awaiting my community supported day in court.
If a few more men did this? Those who claim to be victims would think twice about attacking strong successful men like me. Naturally, most people in the west hate on me for publishing the truth about my ex. So what? I left the west and live in Germany where men say “if she did not want the truth about herself to come out she would have taken the offer of saying “irreconcilable differences”. She wanted money? It comes at the price of the truth getting out.”
Mind you? It now turns out that there is evidence Jennifers father and brother Bill Toal/Michael Toal raped Jennifers little sister when she was a teen girl and that she blackmailed Bill and Michael to support her.
Of course, we all know that if BOTH Jennifer and Suzanne Toal testify that Bill or Michael raped Suzanne then they are going to jail for 10 to 15. And Jennifer has already shown that she is willing to commit perjury against her husband of 18 years just to get some money. So Bill and Michael must be shaking in their boots, right? Serves them right for letting Jennifer get away with slandering me.
If you do not “do unto others”? You can expect to come to a bad end like Bill and Michael Toal. They have now been publicly accused of sexually molesting Suzanne in public announced to every member of parliament, many other politicians, and many in the media. The fact that NONE of these people are asking the man hating feminist Deputy Commissioner of NSW Police, Catherine Burn, to investigate these allegations shows you that the Australian CIA, ASIO, do not want these allegations investigated….link below.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/3/threadid/54/scope/posts/Default.aspx
And, of course. It is only a matter of time before some white knight goes and dispenses summary justice to Bill Toal and Michael Toal given that these allegations are credible and no justice has been done for Suzanne.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/80/threadid/9227/scope/posts/Default.aspx
So no…the golden rule is not bad advice in my opinion….strong and successful men are well advised to observe it….but when attacked? They are well advised, like me, to use their strength and success to totally, completely and utterly crush the person who attacked them to make an example to the others….you want us strong and successful men to ensure your safety and well being? Don’t attack us. We will be ruthless and without mercy should you do so.
Get out your guns and saddle up boys. Time to kill some Feminist assholes.
Nice try, troll. Flagged
You people need to stop confusing Goodness with weakness. That’s one of the reasons I hate articles like this. It just makes people think Good is the same as Weak.
Well it isn’t >_<
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotSoft
I can pretty much sum up the whole point of this article right here.
The Golden Rule is too high of a standard. Most people will never measure up to the standard, so let’s just get rid of the standard ^_^
This should be teached to brainwashed people (95% of the men).
I see your point but overall it doesn’t hold up. commerce doesn’t take place without the golden rule.
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Treatise-Economics-Volume/dp/0865976317
This website it pathetic and all you busters who take this crap seriously.
damn son , so edgy
goddamn brilliance, thats what this is…
Yeah, actual evolutionary game theory – you know, a scientific field – has basically destroyed this concept. The most evolutionarily stable strategy is to be “nice” (non-aggressive) by default, but with a willingness to retaliate against all slights. This has been proven conclusively by computer models, in which the “nasty” (aggressive, opportunistic) strategies died off within the first 200 generations of the 1000 generation cycle. Your basic “common sense” alpha bullshit is outdated, and this has been demonstrated by science.
For more, read Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene”, which features several chapters explaining and citing evidence for this.
I wouldn’t call myself a strong man, I am only 5,7 and not very muscular. In the eyes of the people who run this site does that make me less than human? Do you all think I deserve to be put out of my misery?
It means if you ever go to prison you will end up with a size 11 asshole. 😆
Like snack portions to children, things should be giving in portions…crumbs. Not in arrogant way, but I see myself as a King (you should see yourself as one also).
Family (parents,siblings) close friends I give them the golden rule…. People on the outer courts, acquaintances, strangers, are treated with the silver rule. I see no reason to be an arrogant asshole all the time. Now that is weak my fellow friends. Some of the most nicest people I know, can be extremely dangerous once the kindness has been tucked away. Majority of the arrogant people I’ve come across only do it for a front. Being nice,kind, compassionate, humility has gotten a bad rep in our culture. What the hell is so bad about being kind to another human being?
*Hey bitch! Let me get a motherfuckin double cheeseburger*
The golden rule works I would say, 90-97% of the time (my own little conclusion)… I havent got into a fight in 11 years. Why? Because I treat people with respect… This isn’t a black,white,gay,straight, bi,rich,poor thing, it’s just the way I wanna be treated.
It’s hard to be a strong man without appreciating your own gender. We don’t honor ourselves….. For example..
On social media, I see plenty of guys that wont say jack shit to me. Yet a female puts up a pic, her comment section is flooded. I see the same guys in person, they wanna talk my head off. I’m chatting with them (But in the back of my mind, I’m like wtf? Why couldnt you say this online). Smdh weird mf….
Some of the biggest playboys,dope dealers,PUA’s, I know are insecure AF.
Being strong isn’t just about physical strength, it’s more about your psych/spirit. Look at Justin Bieber (millionaire) and look as Mark Zuckerberg (billionaire).
Too many Banes in society, not enough Bruce Waynes.