"The society that separates it's scholars from it's warriors will have it's thinking done by cowards and it's fighting by fools." ―Thucydides
stay at home mom's can die. or get hospitalized, or grow and change like people do and realize they now want to use their skillset outside of at-home work....so we can't be sure we can get away with doing no at-home parenting ourselves and that our kids will have a parent at home all the time. I had a similar plan to your own.
It's obvious to anyone that the advice you're giving people on how to act is all stuff YOU desire to see in them, not stuff FOR THEM that's going to help them have a better life. It's like you have no intent of letting people live for themselves and not others.
I know whom I'm speaking for, you don't, so kindly stop doing them damage. Stop telling broken people they're healthy. You're harming them.
As somebody that's on the spectrum, but am lucky enough to be extremely intelligent (so bosses, friends, and family always say anyway) and self-sufficient, without getting into details, I've personally had to deal with abuse when I was a child, such as being held against my will in a mental institution and given antipsychotics (and having the humiliation of going to court and make a case for being sane just to get my gun rights back) and labeled with all kinds of serious mental illnesses, parental abuse by a father that wanted me to be normal, or employment abuse by people that expected me to fake my emotions and be normal all the time (which really takes a toll on your mental health). The best thing I did for myself was cut the stupid people out of my life (like my father) and live on my own terms and not give a shit. Then suddenly everything started working out. So I can say...from personal experience...that although what you say probably makes sense for a normal person, it does not really apply to someone on the spectrum. It really doesn't.
And not that you're talking about Elliot Rodgers, but if he was on the spectrum, then his frustrations make a lot of sense from that perspective; from his perspective, he tried to do everything he thought he should and clearly that's what fucked him up. But that's "if", because if he was on the spectrum, he clearly also had some kind of psychopathic or antisocial tendencies (as in the personality disorder and not being some kind of loner) as well and probably shouldn't be associated with autism per se, as much as the public would love to do that, I'm sure, because they already do and did to me in the past with the mental health stuff.
B) neuroplasticity is something you have, too, Gren. Which is why I brought it up. it's science.
C) neuroplasticity is the ability to grow...literally that we can change our brains, including our thought patterns. none of what you are ascribing to me is what I said nor intend.
The impression you've put out is that you're an act.
I prefer to think that it’s better to be active than passive and that passion is generally something to be encouraged. Everyone’s made mistakes, but that shouldn’t hang over their heads forever and it shouldn’t preclude them from wanting something and doing whatever they can to go after it. That’s just part of being human. Thinking of your passions in terms of what you “deserve” or “don’t deserve” never gets anyone anywhere and leads to a stale life.
Even if you ate seven babies for breakfast every morning, I don’t see how you could be faulted for wanting a girl, or for wanting some chocolate, or doing anything you could to get a girl or some chocolate. If you felt bad about eating babies, what does not getting a girl/chocolate do for you or anyone else? The best you can do is stop eating babies, maybe try to make what amends you can to the families. Not getting girls/chocolate just has no relation to what you do or don’t “deserve.”
Like, at bottom, taken to its furthest extreme, the desire to "get a girl" is indistinguishable from a desire to chain a girl up in your closet - if you can get a girl to stick around short of chaining people up then there's no need to chain people up, and if you fear the consequences of chaining people up or it feels "wrong" to you, you're gonna resist that desire anyway.
So if instead of "eating six babies every morning," your crime is being a congenitally ugly, disgusting monster, you can't just stop doing that crime. And while you're still "doing" the "crime" it's impossible to stop doing, you don't deserve to "get" a girl, because they won't ever gravitate themselves towards monsters like they would towards normal people - not unless you literally start acting like a monster and violating them, and I don't want to start violating people. I don't want people to violate me for being a disgusting monster.
So as a basic condition of survival, I have to oppose basic "human" desires in myself, because I'm not actually a human. It's a basic act of self-preservation. I will never be able to act like humans do. Sorry, but some creatures just cannot exist unless we live like slave-moralists. Necessity demands it.
Elliot acted the way he did because he was born rich and privileged, and hence he could probably "get" whatever that he asked for. But he couldn't buy friends or a girlfriend. He felt entitled, and that's why he reacted with rage when he couldn't get what he "asked for". It was his upbringing that made him who he was.
Can you read?
Nah, if you have sexual activity then you'll want to do it again and again. It's literally addictive. How far that addiction takes you or doesn't take you depends solely on your ability to discipline yourself.Your crime is your desire to lock a girl up. It has nothing to do with what you look like. Nobody "deserves" anything. You're not entitled to having a girl just because you're born a male.
Sexual crimes just result from an uncontrolled sexual appetite. People who can control this appetite can allow other people's consent and agency to trump this appetite, but the fringe cases who fly off the handle simply lack the self-control to let a no be no, and choose instead to physically overpower people.
The outcomes are different for different psyches, but at bottom, the primal instinct is the same: it's a hunger. All lust is a rape waiting to happen. There is no "good" lust.
Just like normal hunger exaggerated to a ridiculous degree will make you a cannibal.
Again, I don't see how wanting a girl or trying to get a girl is a crime, even if you'd also be satisfied with a girl chained up. And even if you've deformed your face or something, ambition is attractive and you can probably get someone, even if it takes a while. Unless you're also wheelchair-bound or dependent on others in some way, perhaps, which I admit would probably lower your chances considerably. In any case, as long as you don't kidnap anyone they'd have no reason to treat you like a monster.So if instead of "eating six babies every morning," your crime is being a congenitally ugly, disgusting monster, you can't just stop doing that crime. And while you're still "doing" the "crime" it's impossible to stop doing, you don't deserve to "get" a girl, because they won't ever gravitate themselves towards monsters like they would towards normal people - not unless you literally start acting like a monster and violating them, and I don't want to start violating people. I don't want people to violate me for being a disgusting monster.
If you aren't human then where did you come from?So as a basic condition of survival, I have to oppose basic "human" desires in myself, because I'm not actually a human. It's a basic act of self-preservation. I will never be able to act like humans do. Sorry, but some creatures just cannot exist unless we live like slave-moralists. Necessity demands it.
It's obvious. It makes more sense to lose the desire.
The things getting in the way of fulfilling your desire aren't the fetters. The fetter is the desire.
When you desire nothing, you are free.
I would rather have desires. Going after them makes interesting things happen; staying at home all the time makes my brain rot.
Why not just kill yourself then? It seems easier than living, and there's less risk of contracting desire.The things getting in the way of fulfilling your desire aren't the fetters. The fetter is the desire.
When you desire nothing, you are free.
It is as though you tell yourself: It's all some utterly bad world and nanashi is one-dimensional and has one, tiny identity, and you UTTERLY know nanashi. And anything you didn't know is a horrible lie that someone tells you. And you shouldn't accept the science that people grow, including that brains grow. And you should hide in your 'totally bad' tiny world and sulk.
none of that is reasonable. it's really shoddy thinking. You can reason better than that.
Seriously, Gren, the paranoid and self-defeating narrative you keep telling yourself is trapping you needlessly.
You're robbing yourself.
... What happened to this thread?
I don't know a lot about incels, but hearing a talk from a meditation teacher who was midway through a year of celibacy vows (as part of monastic vows) she and her partner had taken on, and how it was helping her to feel free from the layers of social forces that existed between her and her sexuality, was transformative for my conception of celibacy, what of it I could 'handle' and how it could give me something rather than take something away...
you can hear the meditation teacher duo talk about their experiences here , once the year was up: https://podcasts.apple.com/in/podcas...=1000486463524
Any person who is half of the things you claim to be would be well aware of lost causes, and would never indulge in this aggressive naivety you insist upon shoving down people's throats.
If you think that a "normal" desire of wanting to "get a girl" somehow turns into wanting to "lock a girl up" because you can't manage to keep them around for long enough or something, then I'd find that to be dubious. Even so, that seems to be more about having insecurities about somebody leaving you or something, and so you'd have to resort to force and violence. So it has nothing to do with the "normal" desire of wanting to "get a girl", rather it has more to do with 1) personal insecurities and 2) lack of conscience (and hence sociopathic desires). The insecurity here is about prioritizing your own anxieties over the other person, so this has to do with some kind of extreme self-centered thinking. Of course there is the perspective that lacks any kind of moral thinking that doesn't even make sense, such as that you personally fear the consequence of being locked up, but you still want to lock another person up. It's a failure of even the bare minimum of "the golden rule".
Even if you're unable to "get a girl", that doesn't somehow turn into "wanting to lock a girl up". The latter is simply about lacking a moral or conscientious perspective, and hence it's sociopathic. It'd be like admitting that you're a sociopath.
I think that my point here is to "have a moral perspective that counteracts immoral desires or actions". Your argument is that an otherwise "normal" or "healthy" desire turned into the extremes will morph into an evil desire. Well perhaps, but even so there's no excuse to oppose it from a moral perspective. If you lack it, then you are simply anti-social and sociopathic. It'll also start to create some obvious contradictions, such as that you personally fear the consequence of being locked up, but you'd still want to lock up another person.
Most people have some form of "evil" desires, but they don't act on them because they oppose it from a moral perspective. If you think that your suppression of wanting to "lock a girl up" is extremely difficult and self-sacrificial, then you're simply doing what most people do on a daily basis. Ok, then you'd go on about how you're "not normal". Perhaps. But this all just seems like some kind of extreme self-pitying at its core.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Can I just reiterate my point that making an ASSBURGER have to act like a normal PISSBURGER is unhealthy because it means living your life as a persona that comes with all sorts of issues and baggage. Carl Jung talks about this; and not all things in the brain are neuroplastic in this regard @nanashi. For example, I can't simply create new connections to get rid of a significant neuro-difference that I have and even if I did, it might drastically change who I am anyhow or come with lots of unfulfilling baggage to drastically go against my nature. It's like if somebody straight was forced to be gay or something, most people agree that sexual orientation isn't really a choice, but maybe you could make it one with an insane amount of effort and behavioral conditioning; but in the end that wouldn't be natural and that definitely would cause more issues than it would solve. Suffice to say, we aren't all completely blank slates. So point now made, I think I'm steering away from the topic, which seems to be about incels solely and not this, so I'm going back to observing.
Last edited by lkdhf qkb; 03-14-2021 at 06:09 PM. Reason: grammar
I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb
Life is soup. I'm fork
Social conditioning - that's forced upon people. So even "moral" people only grew up that way because they were forced into that mentality.
Outside of this, I conjecture, the main glue that keeps societies running like clocks is mutual deterrence - everyone fearing force from everyone else if they slip up.
In both cases, it's force, either soft-force or the implicit threat of hard-force, that gives all morality its backing. Frankly I don't find the line of "sociopath" very valid if a sociopath has no qualms against using violence, if the very precondition of social existence itself is also violence.
“Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?” He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must “serve a higher cause.” – Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is – a purely egoistic cause.
Men got a cock, women typically don't.Then maybe you should tell, why the vast majority of women do not rape. Maybe here is one reason: perhaps it's about not objectifying the other person.
You don't have a body and a mind, you are a body! So you couldn't change male behavior unless in the process you eliminated what made them male.
So to even address the very question of why men do some things and women do others is enough to invalidate the inquiry at the very outset. It's a useless question.
Last edited by Grendel; 03-15-2021 at 04:01 AM.
I don't think it's possible to rape or violate the other person if you recognize that the other person has feelings or consciousness, and by having those feelings that person does not want bad things happening to them.
You could say that men are more "forceful", and hence they're more likely to commit crimes. But even then, it's the moral perspective that decides an action to occur or not occur. The force could be used for either good or for evil. People who commit crimes lacked a moral perspective.
"Morality" -> how scared you are - how much the risks outweigh the benefits of defying your superior.You could say that men are more "forceful", and hence they're more likely to commit crimes. But even then, it's the moral perspective that decides an action to occur or not occur. The force could be used for either good or for evil. People who commit crimes lacked a moral perspective.
So people only do "bad" things when they feel at impunity to grow and expand - when they aren't already too afraid for dear life to rock the boat.
When they aren't beaten hard enough.
"Evil" comes from confident people. The anxious seldom take extravagant risks.
Yes, I've also worked as part of a treatment team for people with profound cognitive and or behavioral conditions (including Dark Tetrad traits).
I propound over and over that people (virtually ALL people) have the capacity for great evil, YES that little girl. YES, that human aid worker. YES, that religious worker. YES, that nice Jewish gay boy. YES, that cop. YES, virtually everyone has the capacity for PROFOUNDLY EVIL ACTS.
People get weirded out when I say that, but virtually anyone can rape, murder, and torture.
I'm probably the anti-thesis of what you call me on this issue (naive).
Extensive, hard science, real world, peer-reviewed research IN CONCERT with my own work in the field is why I point out the hope.
I'm not having a WISH.
I'm not sitting down in defeat because I've gone through some hard things like you seem to have and losing hope.
I'm just referencing the actual scientific literature findings which together with my actual hands-on experience as both a member of a treatment team for clients and as a client, myself, indicate that there are ways forward.
If you're not ready to hope yet, don't demean and throw your poop at those of us actually doing the work.