Harlequin5942
No bio...
User ID: 1062
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
The MSNBC article has a photoshop of a German youth rally throwing Nazi salutes with the subtitle 'Physical fitness and violent hypermasculinity have always been central to the far right' as a header to said article.
That's less a 'dog whistle' and more an airhorn going off behind you.
It's association, but association is not always dog whistling. "Punk rock is an important part of skinhead culture" doesn't imply "Punk rock is a skinhead thing."
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
Is someone not a cannibal if they only eat human flesh once a year?
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
men had authority over women in return
That's vague. Men had a higher legal status in some respects and in some situations, but a typical man in a typical historical society had absolutely no authority over any women, except his wife and daughters if he had any.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Russia is not going to dominate Europe, force of arms or otherwise.
It's in the process of conquering the second largest country in Europe and would have succeeded if Trump had been president.
It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't.
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
Yes, but that's still compatible with love not being an adult need. That something is very important doesn't mean that it's a need for happiness, life, or meaning.
Of course, I have no doubt that there are plenty of gay people with the delusion that they need love (everyone gets afflicted by this delusion, at least some of the time, some moreso than others) and like incels they are characterised by neediness. I've known gay people like that, just as I've known incels. Like incels, they would ironically have a much better shot at getting what they want if they started thinking of love as something that they strongly want rather than something they need. A strong desire is motivating and in the case of love can lead to amazing things from people. It can motivate action in the pursuit of a goal. A perceived "need" tends to lead to anger, depression, and unattractive behaviours. It tends to inhibit people from useful actions. And I don't mean "shower and smile" - I acknowledge that most incels would have to work very hard and tolerate a lot of frustration in order to find a loving relationship. I know I did.
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
And songs about drinking. I heard a song by Metallica recently called Whiskey in the Jar and I thought how such a celebration of alcohol consumption/violence would never be found in earlier, more civilized periods of Western culture.
When someone is talking about the 'sexual market place' in the context of dating in the western world they are obviously not talking about brothels and prostitution. You are not being rational or precise with language when you play these word games. It is at best obtuse and obfuscatory.
If someone uses "Nazi" to mean "conservative", then they obviously don't refer to conservatives, but would their usage really not affect their inferences or the inferences of others?
The point I'm making is extremely simple. Man A gets approached by women, gets replies on dating apps and in general finds casual sex and relationships very easy to come by. Man B gets none of those things. In fact women don't even look at him for longer than 2 seconds to decide that he is not attractive.
Man A doesn't need to think about his life goals in terms of what he needs to garner attention from women. Man B does. Man B recognizes that if he does not come by some form of 'thing' or 'currency' or 'bargaining chip' or 'whatever word you want' to balance out his apparent unattractiveness to women, he will likely end up alone or unhappy. Both of these guys might be similar otherwise, but their struggle is not the same. Both want sex and affection. One needs the 'thing' to even be able to play the game, the other does not.
True, different men, like different women, have to work more or less hard to get romantic success. (This is more unforgiving for women than men: almost any woman can get sex, but what people usually want is a loving long term relationship, and men tend to be the gatekeepers for that. A man can work to balance out his unattractive physical traits, whereas a woman's degree or money is unlikely to help her much with the opposite sex.) This is because people care about physical appearances. Physical attractiveness is certainly helpful for initial attraction, though things like conscientiousness and agreeableness seem to be more important for maintaining love long term, since the latter requires a lot of empathy and (rewarding) hard work.
Now, why is working harder to get what you want through labour, exercise, study etc., rather than largely getting it due to inborn attractiveness, not "masculine"? Stereotypically, I would have thought the opposite: a man who is admired by women through displaying virtues and competence is more "manly" than one who is admired by women purely on innate physical grounds. Consider a reversal: is there something unusually masculine about the story of a woman who DID win the affection of her beloved through her abilities and character, despite her plain looks and innately awkward personality?
I appreciate the appeal of gaining easy approval due to one's looks, but I see it as a more classically female way to gain romantic success. Even in nature, among animals that do mating rituals, it's the male that needs to prove himself through dances, chasing the female around etc. in order to mate. Usually, the female just has to look fertile and healthy, and perhaps not even that, even if the result of mating is the male being eaten.
Think Cinderella (be beautiful and agreeable, then someone will eventually be nice to you) vs. Indiana Jones (handsome man, but still only gets the girl by proving himself, proves himself by solving problems and by saving her from danger - sometimes repeatedly in the same movie). Obviously, the latter is more of a classically masculine archetype: the questing knight in European folklore.
This is also seems to be why "saving the man from danger" has more of a maternal rather than romantic feel when it's a woman doing the saving, whereas "saving the woman from danger" has more of a heroic and sexy quality when it's a man doing the saving, unless it's literally saving his daughter as in the Taken movies. And if a man can save the village/kingdom/world/universe, then he's that much more of a classically masculine figure, since he must display great virtue/competence to do so.
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
Art only has to inspire emotions in people.
Is that true?
If we could inspire the same emotions by taking the relevant pills, would art be redundant?
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
Women have spent decades not caring one bit about what men want or what hurts them
This is needlessly oversimplifying.
Even hardcore feminists (who I doubt are in this thread) don't argue that men and women are the completely the same, socially or biologically.
The biological differences in this case are obvious, but even socially: just about any woman coming on to a guy is a signal to hin that he's a hot piece of ass; just about any man coming on to a woman is a signal to her that she has an ass (and maybe not even much of that).
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
No, I noticed them.
Note that "X has a right to pursue Y" is not the same as "X needs Y." For example, there is a (defeasible) right of sane and non-criminal adult citizens to vote, but adults don't need to vote in order to be happy, live meaningful lives etc.
Strictly speaking, no one "needs" much of anything to be happy, which seems to be as much a function of life meeting your expectations as anything. Lower expectations enough
I agree up to "expectations". This is a significantly ambiguous phrase in this context. I might "expect" X in the sense that I hope that it will happen. Alternatively, I might "expect" X in the sense that I think that other people (or God, or fate, or whatever) is obliged to give it to me. Or that the world is an unfair place if I can't have X. The latter sense is the type of expectation that causes most anger, as well as a lot of unhappiness.
And I would say that happiness, in general, comes from one's own activity and its relation to one's experiences, rather than meeting expectations (in either sense) as such. Our mental reward system encourages us when we are doing actions that are subjectively meaningful: they are conducive towards a desired goal. Again, this is one sense in which incels shoot themselves in the foot: most of the happiness that you can have from sex comes from the pursuit, not the act itself.
Of course, if they say "I'm no good unless I'm having sex, and with the right sort of context, and with the right sort of person... etc. etc.", then they might feel temporarily better after boosting their egos by having sex under the right conditions. But what then? Pretty soon, they'd find some other noose to hang themselves with. "I'm no good unless my partner only has sex with me, and only thinks about sex with me" or "I'm no good unless I'm having sex with lots of different women" or "I'm no good unless I'm levelling up to a more attractive woman" etc. etc.
The same pattern occurs with people who have anxiety. Deal with one source of danger and what then? There's always some risk in life to be anxious about. Only once the delusion "I must be safe" is addressed can someone be consistently free of anxiety.
Similarly, only once incels are free of delusions like "I need to do/be/have certain things in order to be happy" will they be free of their unhappiness, anger, and depression. And like everyone else, they won't be free 100% of the time, but that's fine - nobody needs to be happy all the time to live a good life. Indeed, there are many times (bereavement, disappointment, combat etc.) when unhappy emotions are perfectly rational and helpful.
how realistic is it to have them drop their hopes of sex
I wouldn't suggest this at all. There is a huge difference between hoping for X and thinking that you need X.
Personally, I only started getting laid once I stopped thinking that I needed to get laid, and instead thinking "Wow, I really want to get laid!" I suspect that pretty much all incels would find the same thing happened to them, sooner or later.
As for happiness, I don't think that there's a political obligation upon others to make a person happy, though you might argue that there's an obligation to create a society where that person could live a happy and fulfilling life, if they worked their ass at it. I'm not convinced that incels don't already live in such a society. And I'm not saying that they are all lazy - just possessed by a dangerous illusion that they need sex to be happy. Ironically, if they were free of that delusion, they'd be more likely to get sex. Neediness is not attractive, at least to people with whom you'd actually want to be in a relationship...
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
No, but these also don't solve these problems - they (allegedly) mitigate them.
Harlequin5942
2yr ago
2nd is a useful category, but Ukraine isn't in it. Ukrainian GDP per capita is roughly the same as Sri Lanka, Peru, and Vietnam. It's no more than half that of countries that fit well in a 2nd world category, like Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland.
I thought you were suggesting that, if people don't have guilty conscience, they will react to threats by backing off. She didn't do that and he didn't do that.
She did have a potentially lethal weapon. That was his reason for pulling his gun her, after all.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Do you really think every guy in this 63% is an unreasonable neurotic mess?
No, but I also I don't think every guy in the 63% is willing to get laid with any woman. If anything, you have to be a neurotic mess to want to sleep with ANY woman.
I'm not saying that young men have it easy in dating (quite the opposite) but that's not because it's impossible for them to get laid (with women - obviously it's easy for them to find some man willing to pound their ass) but rather it's because dating is a matching problem where relatively few people want to match with young men, especially the neurotic ones - which is a high proportion of young men.
In my experience, this strongly reverses once you go under a certain age (an age at which most people period would have been married not too long ago).
At that age, I would imagine we are talking about lizardman constants for both men and women, in terms of their desire to marry?
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
The problem is that when female hypergamy is left totally unchecked (as it is now), the standards become so high that you can't meet them simply by being a hard-working guy with reasonable achievements. And even if you can, that takes time. Meanwhile the alleged prize waiting for you at the end of the tunnel already has a bodycount of 20 with guys who were born with a better jawbone or a few more inches of height. Not worth it.
It's really not that hard for men to get laid in the modern world, even if you're not good looking, and women tend to be more interested in getting married than men. Most ugly guys I know as friends have long-term girlfriends, but these are the types of guys I'd be interested in having as friends, whereas there are plenty of non-ugly guys I wouldn't be interested in having as friends and who don't (I don't say can't) get laid, largely it seems because of their neuroticism.
However, I agree that earlier marriage (at least involving men who grow up quickly - get a good job, a good trade, and have a reputation as a moral law-abiding god-fearing citizen) would be good. Promiscuity should be a reward of status for successful, artistic, or high-born men, like the old days.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Men are fair (at least as regards this subject of evaluating the distribution of characteristics). Women are equivalently not.
In the sense of "fair" as a uniform probability distribution, I agree. And I think this creates enough social problems / advantages to think about. On the problem side, men often have a feeling of being valued only for what they do and provide in romance, which can create the feeling of being exploited. (The male counterpart of objectification, perhaps.) On the advantageous side, for most men, they must achieve something to be regarded as attractive; moreover, the more they achieve, the more opportunities they have; for mentally healthy men at least, this can serve as a motivation.
People saying "if we don't stop him now, he'll take Poland" are fabulists. This is not a realistic scenario.
What about, "If we don't stop him now, he'll attack Ukraine again"?
Just because Russia can't beat Ukraine militarily now, doesn't mean that Putin can't try for a second bite in the future, with the same rationales.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
I am not being cute or trolling and don't know how to say otherwise.
Stop engaging in rhetoric and deflection, as opposed to defending your substantive claims or acknowledging your mistakes. This will remove the appearance of trying to be a cute troll.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
strongly imply that you think there is no ranking provided, and that the Bible states that all sins are equal. Further discussion has provided more evidence of this.
A comprehensive ranking and a ranking are different, right? I put in "comprehensive" exactly because I know that there are some Bible passages that could be interpreted as elevating some sins as more morally important than others.
For example, consider the set {1, 2, multiplication, blackbirds}. We can put two of its elements into a numerical order, but not all of them.
Sure, but tabooing the word "morality" for a moment, what exactly would the Bible need to say to convince you that not all sins are equal? "God dislikes some sins more than others" is covered in the Bible. "These commandments are more important than these other commandments." is covered. "You will be forgiven of some sins but not others" is also covered. I can't think of anything the Bible could say to contradict your point that it hasn't, besides using the exact same word that you are using.
"Equal" in what sense, given our taboo? Also, a sufficiently similar synonym would be a contradiction. After all, we're really talking about texts in Ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew, so any such term will not be the taboo word or a grammatical modification of it.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
It certainly factors punishments too, both divine and temporal. The Law of Moses punishes different sins differently, and Jesus on many occasions implies that the punishment for some sins is worse than others.
Hmm, that's a good move and a plausible argument. I hadn't thought about differences in temporal punishments. The other arguments you cite are less persuasive, e.g. shifting from "God hates X more" to "X is morally worse," given that it's not clear what an attitude like hate means for an omnipotent and otherwise incomprehensible being. So I don't think it's clear, but I grant that there is a plausible argument to be made.
But to claim the Bible preaches DCT
When did I claim that?
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Gay marriage has not opened the way to any age gaps that weren't already allowed between men and women.
Right, but that had entailed legalising sex between adolescents and fully developed men. Whether it's "normalised" it is more debatable, though, since normality /= legality.
If you call that pederasty, then we've already been living in the age of general pedophilia and been fine with it.
This is conflating attraction/sexual activity with adolescents with pedophilia.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Interpreting the war in Ukraine as a sign of Russian strength and capability is quite the contrarian take.
Indeed, but it's not my take: "It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't."
Russia has shown that it's aggressive. It would have been successful if Trump was president, because Trump is more favourable to Russia/Putin than Ukraine/Zelenskyy. That's why RT etc. likes Trump and dislikes Biden. And I say that as someone who also dislikes Biden.
a flat open nation
A flat open nation that has had massive aid from the US. Assuming that sort of assistance, I also have little worries about Russian expansionism, but the question is whether Trump would be true to his word and be less supportive of the Ukrainians etc.
But love is not an adult human need. A baby will die if nobody cares for it, but incels aren't babies. At their best, AFAICT, they are possessed by a powerful false belief that they aren't loved if they don't get sex from (the right kind of) woman, and that the world is awful if they aren't loved.
So inceldom has a lot to do with neediness, but not to do with basic needs. Just because someone is needy, it doesn't mean that any of their needs (for survival, happiness, a meaningful life etc.) is not being met.
More options
Context Copy link