It's an ergodic stream so there are several bits in thereOriginally Posted by Adam Strange
It's an ergodic stream so there are several bits in there
OMG y u no use capital letters!? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
uh....no...literally you cocreate your brain.
and you aren't going to think you deserve and become entitled about humans just because you start having confidence
in who you are.
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.
@nanashi
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.
A) i am neurodiverse
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.
see my response to Gren.
It’s interesting to me that you used the phrase “don’t deserve” here when you’ve talked so much about how morality is BS. I think your mindset is self-defeating.
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.”
That desire or behavior is sociopathic, no matter what you look like. And if what stops you doing that is the fear of being locked up, then the more so for being sociopathic.
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.
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.
Thoughtcrimes are slave morality. Or Christian morality, anyway. I don't see any use in ascribing morality to passions; it only ultimately matters what you do. Even if you do want to chain a girl up, there's nothing wrong with only trying for a girlfriend.
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.
No, desires aren't really good or bad in themselves.
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.
I hope to soon.
Because you want to be apathetic, or is there something more that's wrong?
What makes it vile? What would a better planet look like to you?
You're being unreasonable. You're presuming my existent identity is (rather than shared) 'expanded to fit narratives.' That's the SOLE possibility you entertain.
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
There's no point in discussing this further. If you honestly expect me to believe you really think thatall neurologic and psychologic debilities can be patched up by "rewiring" with self-talk, you must be too sheltered from the extreme bleeding edges of the human condition to be ready for a conversation. "Evewyone can be good if we just give them a chance uwu!", no they can't, any real rehabilitator would be harshly aware that lost causes are a thing.
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.
Pretty sure that your error here is about conflating "getting a girl" with "locking a girl up".
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.
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.
LOL, simply put: a narcissist. Entitled. But these days social maladjustment is often misdiagnosed as autism thanks to general nature of pop psych which spreads inside professional sphere as well. They really should put the sensory sensitivity requirement in it.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
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.
Six sp.
You have feelings, the other person has more or less the exact same feelings as you do. Treating the same things differently is having double standards, which is contradictory. You can rationally understand this without much social context. People rationalize bad behavior by placing their own needs and feelings above others'. Or they could try to lower the other person's importance.
Then that answer is "they rape because they're men". If you think the question is useless, then no new knowledge is created, which makes it even more useless.
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.
So, should they treat you worse than them? Or are you too special and unique for them, and hence superior? Or should you and them both simply treat each other equally?
I have a background in behavioral psychology, have studied psychology, and have had mental health conditions treated. You used a logical fallacy called "all true Scots"....it goes something like this, 'My point is true because anyone who was a real specialist would say it was true.' .....that's not an actually sound point that could rationally convince us. It might be a tenuous belief, but it's not reasonable.
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.
This thread is most definitely about incels and most definitely about neuroplasticity and about ethics and atrophied empathy and most definitely not about some 'erase healthy neurodiversity' conspiracy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
