Mansplaining is a sexist term invented by fat angry incel women to denounce any argument a man might make that contradicts or outwits the blatantly retarded pov of the woman
Thread Split: Incels and Gun Control/Your typing of forum members
Mansplaining is a sexist term invented by fat angry incel women to denounce any argument a man might make that contradicts or outwits the blatantly retarded pov of the woman
sol is a great example of a beta male (not socionics terms)
Nice projection bro. There are no "fat angry incel women" that try to denounce others' arguments because they don't work from the same logical premise of dominating over others. But angry incel men do, and that's why they go on shooting rampages to dominate others.Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Well it's probably very difficult to fully understand the true psychological motivation of anyone. What I mean is not necessarily "unconventional", but just having your own thoughts rather than just following some authority. If you don't have your own thoughts, then you're likely to look up other people's thoughts and adopt their thoughts as your own. That's only normal. But once you start to look into a topic in detail, you'll start to have your own thoughts about things.
My view is that it's an attempt to gain authority over things. You can try to win arguments by waving around "facts" and say that those facts are indisputable, even though no facts are absolute. In fact, no argument is absolute, ever. It's the same with logical arguments, emotional arguments, etc. All arguments are eventually fallible. If you start to say that anything is infallible and indisputable and therefore no further arguments are required, then that's a path towards authoritarianism, which is not an exaggeration to say so.
Of course, I don't know what causes one to be unconventional or not. But the point isn't simply to "be weird" or even anti-authoritarian. The point is that it could be true. If we're truly concerned with being objective, then we must also consider whatever argument that could be true, no matter how unconventional or counter-intuitive it seems at first. I mean that's how science progresses, people come up with theories that are incredibly counter-intuitive and unbelievable at first, but nonetheless it ends up being true.
why is that
Mass shootings happen because outcast young men receive nothing that alleviates their psychological, emotional, and spiritual troubles but instead are pushed further into alienation by a generally nihilistic and atomized society.
In a truly healthy society, in which communal and familial love is strong and in which belief in the transcendent and absolute is upheld, there would be no "incels".
In truth, we are all responsible for our tendency to judge those less fortunate than ourselves, and choices we make every day can either contribute to or help alleviate the fragmentation of society. If we want to prevent further harm, the best change any of us can make is to show more warmth and intimacy in our day to day lives, to be more forgiving and less quick to shun someone for committing a social faux pas. For example, you could greet your colleagues at work tomorrow by embracing them, rather than just wave and walk on. When you next go to a bar, you could smile at that person who is sitting alone, and invite them to join you. You could host an open party, trade jokes, mirth and merriment, all the while getting to know the people in your neighborhood. Most of all, instead of condemning to ridicule and isolation those who we find objectionable, we all ought to entertain their perspective. I sincerely believe that if all parties come in good faith and can keep an open mind, anything is possible. I will make an effort to affect these changes myself, because we can never know, a small kind gesture on my part might mean the world to someone else.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 08-09-2019 at 12:42 AM.
Theres always gonna be beta men and women on bottom of the pack, theres no utopia where everyone is regarded equal because in reality not everybody is equal, so yea keep on dreamin my incel brother
The problem is that our culture sends the message that your value is determined by what you possess - your qualifications, your income, your physique, sex life, clothes, house and travel itinerary. All of these are superficial things; they speak nothing to your virtue, but the tendency to evaluate others on this basis pits people against each other in a constant war to attract and keep attention, and none of us will ever be successful because someone else, somewhere will always have more of X quality, whether it is wealth, women or wine, than we do. This painful realization is why we try to sabotage those more fortunate and exploit those less fortunate than ourselves. Pure bitterness and envy.
If only people would realize that they don't need to have the same material conditions in life to be happy. The inability to see value in things that do not increase our immediate status is one of the most tragic developments of modernity. It is directly responsible for our current malaise. There have always been kings and peasants. But all of us are children of God and equally deserving of love.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 08-09-2019 at 01:55 AM.
who cares what message your culture sends? are you a slave of your culture?
I am wise enough to know my limits, they keep me focused and sane. It is truly wonderful to be an idealist in a personal, intimate sense; I revel in the passions and exhilaration of romance and hold nothing back. But I am highly pragmatic when it comes to changing entire societies. We can change ourselves, and perhaps we can influence those whom we love. But the rest of the world? If you want to do that, I'd start by changing something about how you treat people in your own life.
Technically, we all are. Much like we all have a "god" whether we like it or not. So to do we have a "culture" whether we like it or not. The most pertinent question we must ask in life is not whether or not we have a master, but rather, which master is most worthy of our devotion and unquestioning service?
Answer me that question, for research purposes.
Once again, the problem is capitalism. I guarantee that most people wouldn't give two shits about people more wealthy and fortunate then them if they enjoyed their livelihoods. I doubt a nomad that lives his life freely hunting and surviving in the wilderness with nothing but sticks and stones feels much envy or hatred towards people living in mansions. In capitalism, surviving as someone less fortunate means selling yourself away to someone and working for their benefit instead of your own, a.k.a wage labour. Living in capitalism is the same as living in slavery only you are given some superficial freedom in choosing your master, a.k.a boss. This is really what drives people to become bitter and unhappy, though not everyone is aware of this.
The advertising industry, another abomination of capitalism, should also be noted as a key player in exacerbating people's discontent as advertisers often seek to plant and foster insecurities in people to in order to make them feel like they need something they otherwise wouldn't care about.
Last edited by Muddy; 08-09-2019 at 05:44 AM.
The problem is individualism. people are collective kind - they are more effective and stronger when live together by one life and in love, when do not create artificial inequality inside a socium, when do not spare forces on fighting between each other.
Capitalism is based on individualism.
There was and may to be other social systems. Any which is based on idea where interests of minority are above interests of majority, where individual interests are higher than social ones, where egocentric ideas are set above collective altruism - will be not better than capitalism, but just other kind of the same approach.
USSR has started to fall when party was used to create a separate social layer - people which has become new aristocracy which more served to themselves than to socium as a whole. That layer has become a social cancer, parasites. They should being as priests without own material and egocetrnic interests - to serve to ideology and socium altruistically, to be an example and head of this serving, but they have become new aristocracy similar like at feudalism. There have appeared opposing of interests between "head" (party/ruling layer) and "body" (majority of nation), - that head has decided to serve to itself and saw the body as a competitor for resources against which it needed to protect, what it needed to use and exploitate for own interests.
This change has started when Stalin established centralization of power. There was a hope this process will stay limited and people which got much of power will be serving to the majority as formaly ideology inclined to this. But people were same as before USSR - there was no happened the inner change for new kind of psyche. This change was "new", it was blocked when was needed to happen. It was blocked by Stalin too - he was conservative for the step to so new. Staling has helped to be created new aristocracy with formal communism ideology and then this aristocracy which was still people of old times has thown away communism and altruism as obstacles to use the power to serve to themselves. They has thrown away Stalin too - as a symbol of what forced them to follow communistic idealism to serve to others. Stalin was idealist which could to force them to serve until this new class was in a state of creation and was weak.
USSR could to use religious technics to indoctrinate minds to serve to others and to become wider to see materialism and egocentrism as lower and lesser interesting to follow. Communism and original Christianity - have the same core ideas of: humanism, collectivism, altruism, idealism with the join of all in one God image, to join with what is the highest mind state. New religion could be formed for communism and such USSR would lasted for centuries, as minimum. The succesfull join of a religion with politics was shown by arabs and Eastern part of Rome Empire. It could be the most mistake of Russian communists to reject the ways to work with unconsciousness which were known for thousands of years.
It's not about pretending that everyone is "equal" because you're right--that's not true. It's about not treating people like shit because they're "unequal" in some way. As a species, we've definitely shown growth and evolution there--early nomadic peoples used to regard the sick and disabled as useless and would leave them to die when they moved to a new location. Most now living in the developed world would shun that type of behavior. Of course there have been set backs and some retrogression throughout our evolution, but it's not as if we don't possess the wherewithal to reroute, make corrections and become more humane--which is why it is an important ideal, even if not always the reality.
I agree with much of what you have said here.
What I'd add is that the real test of moral virtue can simply be found in how well someone treats their peers and intimates of lower social capital. I have also noticed that unfortunately, many people who claim to be compassionate, tolerant and opposed to discrimination in the abstract simply do so for personal gain (i.e. virtue signalling), and are quick to mock someone just for having the wrong kind of accent, making an awkward pass, expressing sadness, or dressing in an eccentric manner. They exploit and intimidate subordinates if in a position of authority. I have witnessed this behaviour personally, both from faculty towards students and from students towards each other, and I find the moral hypocrisy appalling.
Sounds as lame as sending "hopes" and "prayers" whenever there's a mass shooting.
But hey, people are apparently comforted by this kind of empty do-nothingism.
It's like, no fucking shit that this wouldn't have happened if they were "loved!", apparently. Actually, we're not even sure. A lot of mass-shooters come from privileged, upper-class societies where they have been treated well all their lives.
But what they all have in common is an inconvenient truth that most people tend to leave out: the vast majority of them happen to be male. It doesn't matter what economic background they're from, doesn't matter whether they grew up in a loving family or not, doesn't matter whether they're rich or poor, whether they're popular or bullied, whether they have girlfriends or not.
So there's a problem with "masculinity", and I think this is one of the problems that we can solve to try to reduce the level of violence in our society.
It's not "do-nothingism", it's the truth that banning guns or banning imageboards won't fix what is symptomatic of societal illnesses affecting the entire Western world.
It's not racism or narcissism that creates mass shooters, it's anomie. How do you fix anomie? By fixing social bonds and the lack of moral guidance, first. Perhaps change may come through peaceful means, perhaps it may come through the barrel of a gun. Perhaps the masses are too easily swayed for any meaningful action to be successful.
Canada is pretty similar to the US, and they don't experience mass shootings.
England is pretty similar to the US, and they don't experience mass shootings.
Germany is pretty similar to the US, and they don't experience mass shootings.
Japan is pretty similar to the US, and they don't experience mass shootings.
The list goes on. Most of the countries in the world don't experience mass shootings.
What is it about the US that enables nutjobs to kill hundreds of people every year with automatic weapons? The anomie of modern existence in the States?
I do think gun control helps, but it doesn't completely solve the problem, it only alleviates it. For example, universal health care certainly improves the health of poor people compared to private health insurance for obvious reasons, but it doesn't solve the problem of why people get sick in the first place; which goes back to diet, exercise, stress, etc.
We need to do both, treat the symptoms and the causes, not just one or the other. Canada, despite stricter gun controls laws than the US still has gun violence from gangs and attacks similar to mass shootings in the US. Just to a much lower scale and frequency due to a tenth of the population size, a slightly different culture despite numerous similarities and stricter gun control laws likely help tamper it to an extent as well.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Well you should read what I wrote below, the fact is that 98% of the mass-shooters have been men.
My guess is that one of the main causes of violence is the desire to dominate the other. And using physical force, or killing the person, is the most extreme expression of domination.
Apparently, the vast majority of women won't go on a killing rampage, no matter how many guns you give it to them. Perhaps you should be taking notes as to why.
And what do you propose we do about masculinism. Kill all men, castrate them all?
Why are there no mass shootings in other parts of the world? Why is it only mostly an issue in the united states? Are there no men in the rest of the world?
Different cultures have different symptoms, you idiot. It's ridiculous to believe that those countries don't have individuals with the exact same psychological makeup as the US's mass shooters. The answer is the same.
You edited that part in after I began to reply. Your apparent belief that mass violence is a natural manifestation of masculinity is so stupid it isn't worth discussing.
Yeah let's stop eating meat and eat more vegetables. To much toxic masculinity. That's why these kids are killing people. So simple. So, so simple. Boys will be boys is the issue. Need more girls, need more woman in power roles. Need more girl power. Need more of something missing, something not present that is pushing boys and men to murder. Must be their gender.
What Americans really need to fix many of their problems is socialized health care, but like who wants to pay for the free loading bums down the street amirite??
Like way better to like pay 7000 dollars a year in Insurance Deductables premiums than it would be to pay $49/ 3months. Like, why pay less when you can pay more!!!?
^best thing you've ever written Carol
Can I make a chain bw the posts of Carolus and singu by saying it should be socially acceptable for men to have emotional troubles? (ie cry, it's ok to cry)
What if you never feel like crying?
I once tried to analyze what made people cry, and concluded that they cry when they are in situations that are beyond their control.
Since I fear loss of control over my situation more than almost anything else, I usually have a plan for alternative actions, and hence I don’t feel like crying very often.
At least, that’s what I think.
I've never been a big cryer but I've cried like 5 times the last 2 days lol, obligatory brain injury comment I'm fucking glad to trade alexythemia for emotional disregulation. I'd rather be a sobbing wreck than a robot given the choice, type related?
I think carolus, singu, and Adam all have a finger on the pulse of the creature with many hearts and limbs that is mass shootings. Making it harder to get guns might help it technically, but there'd still be lil groups you don't wanna piss off.
Banning guns doesn't assess the heart of the problem - but it alleviates the hindrance to that road. It solves nothing, but may make *it* easier to solve.
it solves nothing? how about the hundreds of innocent kids that can live vs being shot down like characters in a video game? jee, they're nothing. aight
I meant ''solve'' in a very general sense - it doesn't stop the rampant killing of people in a supposed ordered state, but it alleviates the disarray the country seems to be in qua the spilled blood. Banning firearms may open a crevice for some sort of broader idea of peace to emerge. To insinuate that i find the death of children to be ''nothing'' is sort of hurtful, even if i chose my words carelessly.
Lol women staying independent while defending themselves against men who are violent is one reason to be pro gun
For sure and you DEF need an automatic Assault Rifle with 30 round recoil for maximum kill rate to do so.Lol women staying independent while defending themselves against men who are violent is one reason to be pro gun
gun control can really stop the rampant killing of people in a supposed ordered state, it doesn't alleviate the deep disarray we all face globally.
To me, many murders for many reasons is rampant, in states which have banned firearms. The ''deep disarray we all face globally'' is a different matter from this, though not unrelated. This deep disarray is timeless or everpresent for civilized man - the broken ideal for a reasonably peaceful state isn't. I believe that gun control may make it easier for a state to reach a closer idea of statewide physical peace.
I think you can buy firearms from other states, not sure how that works, but guns seem to be very free in the US, which is just crazy. I agree the problem is something else but having such policies is just a joke.
Lol cue the American Gun control apologists. Even those who don't believe in gun use stand on principle hahahahahahahahah.
Death of American Exceptionalism. I actually do feel bad for my Continental brothers.
it's the capitalist motto lol, why pay less when you can pay more
Gun control is the one area I express solidarity with right-wing libertarians. Ten-fold times the amount of people die from other preventable causes like drug related deaths and shitty hospital care (my own dad even contracted Hep-C because of idiot doctors who gave him bad blood) yet even freaks out over gun deaths just because its scary and sensational, much in the same way shark attacks are. If a 100 or so more people must die a year in this country of 330 million people so we can how the liberty to own guns, then so fucking be it. People died by thousands a day in WW1 and WW2, and yet here we are today getting hysterical over petty outbreaks of violence. Fuck authoritarianism, fuck capitalism, fuck all forms of control.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote