@Fruck's banner p

Fruck

Lacks all conviction

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

Fruck is just this guy, you know?

Verified Email

				

User ID: 889

Fruck

Lacks all conviction

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

					

Fruck is just this guy, you know?


					

User ID: 889

Verified Email

It's a bit sad when you think about it - the greatest generation got world war 2, the boomers got the free love revolution, and millenials got... gamergate. (Gen x get nothing, as is tradition.)

I think my hobby horse and tribal "enemies" somehow made firefighting less effective. How did you write level before surface in the last sentence? It's breaking my brain. Did you construct this post with the cut-up method?

Huh this is a puzzle to untangle. If you have looked into the Butler shooting and not trusted the media and you aren't a crypto leftist or unable to speak English, then claiming the secret service successfully protected Trump is truly comical. And hey, the FBI successfully saved Gretchen Whitmer yeah? What a success!

Moving on, I was indeed beginning to suspect you were a crypto leftist. Turning that tweet into the incipient rise of fascism is that fucking crazy in my view. But my original image of you is as someone on the outskirts of the pmc class who sees centrism as a useful heuristic for navigating reality. Which is to say that you at the very least tolerate the progressive status quo, you just want it to be less intrusive. I view the progressive status quo as the civilisational equivalent of dating a girl with borderline personality disorder.

I can see how this is unfair to you, but you have to understand I've already lived through half a decade of monthly 'boy I was all on board the maga train at first but this latest tweet is terrifying' posts and tweets. Beyond that I really think you should wait until Trump has at least one disaster under his belt before you start worrying. On reflection though I was imprecise with my language, instead of saying that you trust the media, what I should have said is that you don't distrust the media. And if you think you do, you don't do it enough. Until your first instinct when you read or hear anything on the news or reddit or Facebook or X etc is to call bullshit, you don't distrust the media enough.

If Trump didn't turn his head at the exact second he did, he'd be dead now. Call it luck, call it coincidence, call it providence, it wasn't incompetence that saved Trump that day. You can, if you are naive or lying, claim incompetence put him in that position, which is exactly why pretending to be retarded has been such an integral strategy for the deep state. And it is also why the lead 'counter sniper' in Trump's SS detail was two years into his career, wasn't on counter sniper detail, and forgot his radio. And why that chubby cutie was playing hot potato with her gun. And why they blamed the local police. And every other insane detail from that fiasco.

As for the progressive status quo, it's because you keep buying into this ridiculous hysteria despite a decade of fake news declaring every saucy tweet Trump fires off the end of America and democracy. And never mind that the people we supposedly put in charge of promoting America and democracy abroad were primarily lining their own pockets but also helping fund groups that literally fucking hate America and democracy. And you don't mind it, because the media, which you inexplicably still trust, tells you it's just defunding trans operas and aids cures and you probably can't fix it anyway. You have to recognise by now that you are being manipulated. I mean how can you read the motte, read posts by people like @WhiningCoil and @jeroboam and me and not realise that "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." is a blatant appeal to red tribe values, in the same category as 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time' and '1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN'?

Edit: edited out a cheap shot

Turns out that there is no deep state waiting with sharp fangs and CIA assassins to stop the orange man as soon as he tries to actually do anything that hurts the Blob.

Jesus Christ. So unless the spooks succeed they don't exist, even if the last year has just been incident after incident proving they exist. Even if we now have plenty of evidence of the deep state and espionage shenanigans, the media said this is different so let's get scared for America again! Progressive politics just let a large swathe of California burn to the ground and the media told us blaming politicians was the height of rudeness, but Trump said something typically hyperbolic, that is both appealing to red tribe sensibilities and and agitating to blue tribe sensibilities so let's all lose our minds like msnbc suggests! Bel is right, you can call yourself a centrist, but the only answer you will accept is the progressive status quo.

Edit: fixed a link

What about debanking? Is there any symmetry there?

Rasputin's presence at court was toxic, as he seduced the wives of many high ranking people.

That was the thing about Rasputin - I've heard it said he could preach the bible like a preacher, full of ecstasy and fire. But he also was the kind of teacher females would desire.

And wasn't Oscar Wilde imprisoned because he sullied the marquess of queensbury's lad? Maybe it's just the height and age and my own ignorance of gay customs but I assumed Wilde was the top. Unless he was a power bottom.

Absolutely do a breakdown! Very niche drama from a particular subculture is the best kind.

Did you mean to write that you weren't a fan of his and I'm just parsing it poorly or did you succumb to fat finger syndrome like a lot of people today (I know I have, but I also noticed the insulting tax breaks and some other minor flubs)

So are you saying that the majority of the male feminists you knew turned out to be sex pests?

No they all stopped calling themselves feminists. One of them told me it was specifically because of the mfsp issue. But there was a joke at the time I'm sure you've heard - "of course I'm a feminist, I want to get laid bro". That joke stopped getting play shortly after the mfsp issue arose.

I just wrote about all the theories that both feminists and anti-feminists present as to why "all these male feminists keep turning out to be sex pests," and why I think they are basically Chinese robber fallacies. Unless you have some stronger evidence. It's not about my biases (because you are wrong about them). It's because there isn't really any evidence that I am aware of that male feminists are more likely to be sex pests (or that sex pests are more likely to be male feminists).

You wrote:

I doubt male feminists are more (or less) predatory in general, though. It's just when a particularly famous one (like Neil Gaiman or Joss Whedon) is found sticking his dick in someone he shouldn't have, it's broadcast widely because (a) they're famous! and (b) given their loud, performative feminism, which annoys anti-feminists, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall and holding them up as a "typical" male feminist when in fact they are not.

That is the theory you put forward in the just so format. You have no evidence for it. Your biases led you to proclaim that "given their loud, performative feminism, of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall etc." with the exact same weight and force as the anti-woke said "of course they're predators etc." You start from the position the number of mfsps don't exceed the number of regular sps and once you hit upon an answer that flatters your biases you stop, just like the anti-woke do when they go 'of course he was just a predator the whole time'.

I thought that was the point you were making originally, that we're all held hostage to our biases, by setting up a link between flattered biases and of course arguments and then using that exact same structure in earnest, like an irony double dip or something. But if you didn't do it on purpose to make a point, then by your own reasoning either your biases are flattered by that of course argument or the first half of your post is just nonsense with no explanatory power. I don't think that's the case. If you would like to lay out your biases I can reassess, but if you are going to continue to be vague and secretive about them for no reason I assume I'm right.

I think you are at the very least negatively predisposed to the anti-woke, but I am glad that wasn't the point you were making. I base this on your immediate recognition of the motivated reasoning used by the anti woke re mfsps -

of course they're predators; of course their feminism is performative; of course they don't actually believe what they're saying and it's just another tactic to get into women's pants; of course they act just like any other man and delude themselves that being a "feminist" absolves them."

coupled with the motivated reasoning you employ in your final sentence

of course the latter will delight in crowing about their downfall and holding them up as a "typical" male feminist when in fact they are not."

You say that based on no more evidence than the anti-woke say 'hey why do all these male feminists keep turning out to be sex pests?' but it must flatter your biases as you don't look any deeper.

If as it appears there is no data available on this, if for some reason academia are willing to write up thousands of studies on heteronormativity and androphilia and black feminism and queer theory, but are entirely incurious as to the intersection of male feminism and sex pestery, then all we can learn about are each other's biases, since we lack any evidence to change each other's minds.

As one of the anti-woke, I will tell you that I didn't latch onto the mfsp stereotype to explain why there must be something wrong with a man who'd embrace feminism - I do have some friends like that, but before the meme I thought male feminists were sycophantic, sanctimonious and misled but trying their best like everyone else. At that time, pretty much every man I knew called himself a male feminist. It was noticing how my pattern recognition system for believing stories about sex pestery kept getting tripped up if the accused was a male feminist that made the meme resonate.

Which is definitely bias, but informative bias imo which is why I call mfsp a stereotype rather than a just so story. I would do the same for your of course statement up there - I don't know think it's wholly accurate, but I think it points in the the direction of the truth, recency bias definitely plays a part. Reasoning from biases is never entirely accurate and only really works on these macro scales at all, but it's more realistic and useful than assuming we can't know anything without scientific evidence.

So based on this we should assume that the theory that there are no more mfsps than regular sps flatters your biases?

I'm going to upvote all your posts so you get out of the filter already, I promise that's the only reason though.

If we can break the katascopocracy and stop funding foreign coups and dictators that's good enough for me.

Yeah and I don't do it constantly.

The true analogy would be leading on, a gay friend. There is no ‘leading on’ a straight man.

No, it is men. I don't want to lead my friends on full stop. Before the normalisation of homosexuality (decriminalisation means nothing for this argument as the issue is societal stigma that didn't decrease prior to normalisation) the only friends I could lead on were female. Not literally of course, but in my head I put women into one bucket labelled 'people I should only get physical with if I'm trying to woo them' and men into a bucket called 'people I will never romance, so it doesn't matter'. After the normalisation, believing the media's lies, I maintained those buckets until I hurt my first gay friend by not reciprocating their affections and leading them on, and I put everyone into the first bucket.

And yeah I'm not surprised this argument is fairly new. The normalisation of homosexuality is fairly new. The red tribe gents who might have made this argument in the first place had no need, because they didn't go near those queers and homos in the first place, and like you say it would be gay to care about male intimacy. Meanwhile the blue tribers couldn't even ask the question, after all they aren't homophobes. So it only emerges amongst us freaks who don't fit neatly into a tribe. Add on top the fact that the establishment cares more about its message than the truth, and I doubt we'll ever see a study on this. I guess if you phrased it as somehow men's fault, like male homophobia has decreased male intimacy you might.

Huh I tried that and these don't exactly line up with what I'm saying, but I think they gesture in its direction.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10591-013-9249-3

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-014-0358-8

Corvos laid it out pretty succinctly. Societal embrace of homosexuality has negatively affected male relationships. I am less intimate with my male friends than I used to be, I can only be as intimate with them as I would a woman, because I don't want to send the wrong signals. Partly to society, to my family, to my girlfriend and other friends, but mostly to them, I don't want to lead them on any more than I would want to lead on a female friend.

You might not be doing it deliberately, but you are pushing the same line and attitude mate. Even with the revelations of the circuitous and incestuous nest of payola and corruption that has USAID funding the media to push its propaganda, and working as a cut out for the CIA to overthrow democracies (then bringing those tactics back home) your assumption is that any previous failed attempts must have lacked focus and drive, not deliberate sabotage by the people who would lose their job if it succeeded. And on top of that, you also don't like the attempt with focus and drive.

And the previous attempts I am referring to are all of them. Trump's first term, the tea party movement, Buchanan's attempt to rein in the neo cons - they always have heaps of momentum at the start, but because they are asking bureaucrats to reduce bureaucracy they get stymied by malicious compliance and feigned incompetence at every turn. Meanwhile the media - these days especially - fixates on every error and ignores any positives, ginning up hysteria and painting a false view of the world because their own bottom line is in peril too.

Huh, are you 25 or under then? I'm surprised because I kind of thought every man could feel it in his bones. Like, all the other things you mentioned play a part too for sure, but it seems indisputable to me that the tension and insecurity that accompanied the societal shift also played a part, because after the first gay friend I had propositioned me I changed my behaviour.

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I'm not well.

Previous attempts failed because they were sabotaged with the exact same appeals to decorum and proper conduct and empathy and compassion and coincidence and fortune and anything else that would fucking stick, and all of it topped with a heaping helping of 'while I've never looked into it or even thought about it you probably can't do anything about it and therefore shouldn't even try' as you peddle here.

Yes there are better ways to do things. Considering what has already been uncovered, the amount of graft and waste and just plain corrupt and autocratic bullshit we have already learned has been done in the name of the American people ENTIRELY in the dark, I prefer "incompetence". At least we can see when they fuck up.

Are you a man?

Yeah there were a lot of people in their late thirties iirc when this came up a few years ago, so late thirties early forties is the mean I'd guess.

I wonder what it is like to grow up with oldheads all over the internet.

It's a tough subject to tackle, because as the battlefield currently lies yeah, it's right wing. But if there is any objective basis to the political axis at all (a big if) I think it's hard to call the party that unites the likes of Rubio, Vance and Gabbard anything other than centrist. And like Igi says it's goals are the archetype of the national-liberal. I don't know what a natural right wing party looks like to be honest, I only know there hasn't been one since I became politically active.

This is not a "no one is right wing enough for me" argument btw, I am on the Trump train precisely because of this. Like @aquota mentions elsewhere, I also want an equilibrium between the right and the left. Further though I believe the most stable equilibrium puts the right in charge with the left as counterbalance, due to the personality types each side attracts.

You and I have different definitions of good porno if your idea of quality is a nude Bobby Fischer ejaculating every time someone says "those people". Compelling, sure - good though?

There isn't this movement of moderate, centrist liberals out there

I might be misreading you, but while I think you nailed most of this post chum, here you are wrong - there is, it's called the maga movement. Also I think actual moderate centrist liberals are definitely nationalist, it's the natural cultural foundation.