Read on Twitter
The simp and the anti-simp are two sides of the same phenomenon. The simp will agree with anything, the most heinous or fatuous views, because he is (thought sometimes he can’t tell consciously) thirsty on main and so his concupiscence takes over his rational faculties. 1/12
The anti-simp is actively hateful on main, bringing to public disputes the same kind of energy he’d bring to a an MRA forum. He is looking to express views he knows will be seen as beyond the pale to the women he already hates. And when women criticize his views, he strikes. 2/12
Accusations of intolerance, narrow mindedness, ideological blinders, etc. are deployed. The simp and the anti-simp are, at the level of the desire for recognition, identically dependent. 3/12
The simp sees his capacity to reason to be wrapped up with his capacity to be seen as a good simp. This is why many self-identified male feminists or overzealous queer allies are actually pursuing simp logic. This is also why their commitments to whatever cause are flimsy. 4/12
The simp can quickly go from desiring to please to willing domination. He becomes the male feminist who talks over women or dominates feminist spaces claiming the most progressive or intersectional agenda. He becomes the most radical queer theorist who happens to be cishet. 5/12
This is because a libido dominandi lies ar the bottom of the simps desire for recognition by those he thirsts after or those in that social milieu. It’s a desire for social capital. And this desire can easily transform into another expression of the libido dominandi. 6/12
So, too, the anti-simp’s views and commitments are eternally labile, not because of a suppleness of mind but because his views are often just an assemblage of slogans or watchwords cobbled together to deploy screeds designed to incite outrage, critique, rejection. 7/12
In this, the anti-simp may resemble the troll except there is no impish joy for the anti-simp. The anti-simp may just ultimately be deploying tired memes that anger his ideological enemies, but the meaning of everything he believes hinges on being recognized as an enemy. 8/12
Once his views are corrected or rejected, he doubled down on defending them, not because he already believed them strongly, but because he’s now realized how strongly he believes them due to their being rejected by those feminists or fellow travelers he considers enemies. 9/12
The defense is usually weak, as his views are not strongly considered or thoughtfully put together. But, then, defending his views coherently is not the point. He doesn’t seek to persuade; in fact, he begins form the fact he cannot. His arguments are weak almost by design. 10/12
But of course if he persuaded his enemy all would be lost, the meaning of his views, based entirely on angering or upsetting those whom the simp thirsts after, and of seeing himself as their enemy, would disappear if the enmity or mutual hostility did as well. 11/12
This, the anti-simp resembles the troll only superficially; whereas the point of trolling is nihilistic errant joy, the point of anti-simping is empty but joyless: empty because the content of his identity isn’t robust, joyless because it relies on being hated. 12/12
This was my attempt at simp theory. Thank you for attending my TED Talk. Probably TEDx, let’s be honest.
