confuciuscorndog
No bio...
User ID: 669
Sorry, but I don't really buy that you're some sort of amazing unicorn. I think your panties mentally drop when you see a guy who mogs your husband on traditional masculine axes same as every other woman, whether you want to admit it here or to yourself or not.
I also bet he scores a lot more highly on those traditional masculine axes already than you're letting on, which allows you to enjoy his "unbelievably adorable" side, and that if he didn't you might instead find it to be some combination of childish, infantile, creepy, and/or off-putting. (Let's hear his height, BMI, facial width, bicep size, jaw depth, ring/index finger length ratio, penis size, grip strength stats, test and estrogen levels, etc.)
Cute online persona though.
You asked to hear about my husband’s penis size.
Sure, why not? You're using him as a comparative example but you won't disclose the size of his hog? That is completely invalid in the world of male comparative rhetoric.
writing erotica
It's not erotica. If you were reading my erotica, you'd be looking at 20,000 more words minimum.
hyperfixated
I'm not hyperfixated on him. It's not even a "him", just an obvious masculine ideal proven by a simple thought experiment: If any man could turn himself into Super Chad Thundercock Infinity 3000 with the push of a magic machine's button, what percentage would refuse? Does anybody seriously believe it would be many at all, that even most "male feminists" wouldn't jump at the opportunity? Would you refuse a magic Super Stacy upgrade? Sex = money and power = greater acquisition of desires = enhanced satisfaction.
I’ve been unwilling to disclose anything further about my marriage.
Whether you find Super Chad attractive is nothing about your marriage. But it's fine, because we all can guess the answer based off of your failure to answer. Like you, I'm willing to let the evidence speak for itself.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I do know that Putin is to a degree evil (or at least partly a self-serving sociopathic careerist at best, which is essentially the same thing), but I also am nearly 100% sure that he still doesn't intrinsically despise my skin color, my natural expression of my secondary sex characteristics and masculinity itself, etc. and also probably doesn't hate or want to eradicate my heritage, culture, and traditions too much (minus the parts of it that have been hijacked by globohomo to destroy his).
Putin is just banally evil, a simple, corrupt apparatchik qua autocrat of the Russian security state who just wants to be free to LARP as Diet Stalin, take his share of the illicit cut off the top, and restore a bit of the Russian national pride he's made himself a venerated mascot of (and he probably genuinely, as genuinely as he can anyway, believes in it all some decent amount too, which is a majorly redeemable quality). Perhaps the world would be better overall if such people didn't exist (which they might not if globohomo didn't constantly put heterodox cultures under siege, causing them to desperately turn to perceived strongmen in self-defense), but they hardly ruin the planet.
Some 13 year old Iranian girl out there isn't twerking to vulgar and nonsensical dindu rap on TikTok and causing her anguished father to question every life decision he's ever made and contemplate suicide because of Putin. Some 10 year old boy in Venezuela isn't wearing women's clothing and dreaming of his future lifetime paid subscription to the proper functioning of his own endocrine system via synthetic pharmaceutical hormones because of Putin. Some decent enough 27 year old British lad wasn't guilt-tripped and shamed into having a heart attack leading to death from "SADS" sponsored by Pfizer™ because of Putin. Whatever problems Putin causes, he at least has the courtesy to almost always keep them in Russia (or in the case of a certain recent special operation, Russia Jr.). His flaws don't spread like a virus.
I still don't believe the WEF etc. is literally Satanic, because I don't believe in a literal Satan, but they do match most descriptions of the classic nefarious tempter archetype. With that being said, the whole hating my basic demographic characteristics stuff and constantly spreading society-eroding degeneracy stuff weighs more heavily on my mind, so I would say that either I'm heterodox among my fellows here or you're either strawmanning a bit or interpreting hyperbole (I've made a few "I HATE THE ANTICHRIST" posts in my day in response to the latest globohomo affront, but it's just a meme.) a bit too literally.
Though you're right about Jews ruining society, especially the gay ones! (Or should I want them not to breed?)
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
His girlfriend is going to hug him. She’s a woman, not a sociopath.
This is not true in a shocking highly number of cases (a sizeable minority at least, perhaps the majority in some demographics). I'm happy if you're an exception, but don't generalize too strongly.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm a man so no. If anything this all turns me off, because any amount of inadequate I am by comparison to Super Chad makes me feel less sexy and thus less sexual.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
To me the subject of men crying is pretty easy:
Imagine the ideal paragon of a masculine alpha male. He's got three hot young college girls bent over his bed in a foursome, drilling them and thrilling them with his rabid piston-like ramming and endless stamina, tossing them around like juggling balls. They love him. They'd do anything for him. They would rip a baby right to shreds right on the bed if they thought it would appeal to him or make him devote even a second more of his attention to them. They caress his muscles like a rare and invaluable diamond. They would die for him, kill themselves for him. He is their God because of his pure testosterone-fueled magnetism and charisma.
Maybe in another scene he's fixing a car, sweat and grease smeared across his brow, his 40 year old MILF neighbor that he's doing a favor for wishing she was in the first scene instead (and maybe she will be after the car is done). Maybe in another scene he's surfing, programming (a nice masculine, logical activity), kicking someone's ass, cleaning a gun, humiliating someone verbally with his impenetrable wit, or making millions of dollars.
But in any scenes of his life, is he crying? And if he is, is he letting a woman gawk at it?
So who would you rather be? Would you rather be him or would you rather be given fake pity applause by women for your "emotional sensitivity?" Sure, most of us here will never be that close to this perfect Super Chad Infinity, but would you rather get closer or further away?
And maybe you have a nice wife or girlfriend who is decent enough to tell you that there's nothing wrong with crying and it just shows that you're exquisitely in touch with your feelings unlike some other unenlightened caveman.
But when her fingers snake beneath the waistband of her panties in those idle moments, who is she fantasizing about? Again, who do you want to be?
Keep doing it. The mods here have gone back to their old ways of banning people for basically nothing beyond "This hurts my feelings.", so please do keep hoisting them on their own petard.
They have appointed themselves as the sensitivity readers of everyone else's posts, so there's no reason not to run your own through one and spread the word. Any disapproval they express is nothing more than their hypocritical butthurt at having competition they can't control.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Quit pretending that pointing out reality is "culture warring".
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Pretty sure your girlfriend isn't snaking her fingers beneath the waistband of her panties imagining you or Chad Thundercock writing code or reading books either.
No. But she's not imagining him surfing or fighting either. She's imagining him fucking, as all people (barring weird fetishes) imagine when they fantasize about somebody else sexually.
That doesn't mean the surfing and fighting don't still turn her on specifically though. It also doesn't mean that programming and reading books turn her off either. Most likely they will just get a superficial "OMG he's smart AND hot!" reaction from her, even if you're just reading Twilight and programming "Hello World". (And of course if you weren't hot the reaction to the same would probably be "What a creepy nerd! He's probably not even as good at programming as Chad!" even if you're reimplementing ChaCha20-Poly1305 directly in PPC assembly.)
Crying though?
Putin predates wokeness.
Wokeness isn't globohomo, just its current face with the mask slipped further down. Russia's been dealing with globohomo since at least Yeltsin.
That remains to be seen. He's certainly toying with the idea of nuclear escalation.
If globohomo didn't want nuclear escalation, then maybe they shouldn't have tried to boiling frog a fellow nuclear power with far more vile and underhanded kinds of escalation.
...and Georgia, Moldova, Syria, Belarus...
Moldova, Georgia, and Belarus also count as Russia Jr. (Stalin was even Georgian), and I don't see how he did anything negative in Syria. Or would it have been better for them if the US had succeeded in illegally couping Assad and turning the whole country into Libya? I'd definitely rather live under the relatively moderate Assad than under whatever random warlord moved into town that day. If I were a Syrian I'd like Putin even more.
...and a lot of Europeans weren't too happy about the grain and gas prices recently. We'll have to see how the winter goes.
Putin didn't do that to Western Europe. Western Europeans (to be fair more the governments than the average people) did that to themselves to try to own le heckin' Putler by... dying, I guess? All they had to do was admit that Big P has a point about NATO expansion and say they'd very much so like to keep purchasing his fine natural resources in a mutually beneficial economic relationship. There's no indication Putin would have been the one to say no. They played themselves here.
I'm not interested in the collective punishment of women for the current decline in gender relations.
I am.
I mostly want everyone to be happy, even given all our shared and individual foibles.
Nah. Blood for the blood God. Do not think you can cut my flesh and leave yours intact.
By and large, the people I meet that I like the most are the type predisposed to monogamous relationships or already in one. So call it a selfish, aesthetic desire for more people I like.
Contemporary San Franciscan polycules based in left-wing egalitarian ideologies are/will be nothing like men taking masculine inherently right-wing control (no matter how artificial) of harems. Unlike polycules, (polygynist) harems are, in a word, based (as they are inherently patriarchal).
Probably for reasons similar to yours: status tends to play a somewhat bigger role in women's mate choices than in men's, and synths will always be very low status.
Yep, basically my reasoning too.
Do you think the current structure of the dating market has been positive for women's well-being?
Short-term? Yes. Long-term? No. But the vast majority contributed to it as best they could by pushing it and defending it anyway. (No I don't believe women have the same agency as men, but whatever part they could play they did, like naughty children, though far more malevolent and with far less of an excuse. Punishment is thus warranted.)
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I don't see how it makes "no sense" that the order of outcomes which best achieves a general tolerance for a wide range of opinions here is quite obviously none at all > lower verdict > higher verdict. Seems like pretty basic logic to me.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I am sorry that you can't find yourself intellectually open to opposing views at this time. Have a lovely day.
The last line is literally just a mostly humorous rephrasing of a part of the post it's responding to:
And they don't care if civilization gets destroyed in the process, because civilization has been ruined by gays, Jews, and gay Jews.
Even if I were 100% serious (which I'm not by any means, as again, it's simply a reflection of its source material), if it's a weakman, then surely so is reducing your opponent's views to "because civilization has been ruined by gays, Jews, and gay Jews."
Other than that, saying that rap is one of the essential exports of Western society is not a weakman. I think any music industry statistic, whether it's listens on Spotify, sales, award show nominations, or anything else, clearly demonstrates that to the point of making it common knowledge.
As for "society-eroding degeneracy stuff", I will admit that is a vague phrase, but I provided concrete examples of it already above and "weighs more heavily on my mind" right after it makes clear that is simply me restating my primary concerns in regards to evaluating geopolitical competitors, not making an accusation that would require further support.
So no, it is not a "parade of weakman examples". Your post strawmanning and mischaracterizing mine is. (If cutting a two word phrase, a six word phrase, and two sentences out of a multi-paragraph post with no context, slapping them with a few buzzwords, and ending with a "Don't do this." admonishment fit only for a grade schooler (a communication habit (that you might consider changing as has been suggested to you or other mods dozen of times) that is very disrespectful by the way to the adults who choose to contribute to your now exiled community even though at this point without Reddit you need every one of us by far more than we need you) isn't fundamentally weak, then I don't know what is.)
Is it "boo outgroup"-y? Maybe a bit, but I don't see how it's overly so, given that it all serves to directly explain a perspective previously commented on (by someone not of that perspective), which is valuable, and because the general outgroup of this sub based on its common commentary seems to those who aren't entirely anti-Putin (like me). That is, I am the outgroup in this case.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm not sure what you mean by this at all. Am I supposed to be the one who is seething and bitter?
I'm confused. Would modern AI technologies not at least partially fall under the realm of NLP themselves? Or is that they are not the traditional tools of most of its academic realm and thus were initially dismissed until it was too late?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Regardless of whether they are just? So conservatives don't believe in justice in your view? Strawman much?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
You know, I incorrectly paraphrased myself. I didn't even say it was "too much" initially. I said it was "insane". Again, the fact that you think that only a reduced amount of X and not no X could follow from somebody saying that an amount of X is "insane" is on you.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
In my experience, crisis actor theories regarding events with small(ish) numbers of victims are common (particularly in regards to mass shootings) and not just with Alex Jones. With stuff like 9/11 there's just so many victims that these theories become so increasingly implausible (not that they aren't already) that they're not used. I don't think it's a moral barrier.
It's not just 'heterodox opinions bad' it's 'slanderous allegations against specific private citizens bad.'
As, for example, the treatment of Kyle Rittenhouse proves, the second only tends to apply nowadays in the context of the first.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
So in your opinion fisetin doesn't do much?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
You were advocating for a lower verdict, not for none at all.
No? I can prefer a lower verdict to a higher verdict, and none at all to a lower verdict.
Anyhow, you think are not seeing it action yet because you aren't familiar with how these things work; judges reduce excessive verdicts every day of the week.
That's great. Considering how ridiculous the jury's verdict is, the judge has a long way to go here.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Since I assume you're asking about online materials, I read here, CWR, /pol/ on various imageboards, various random Substacks, etc., stuff I'm assuming most people here already know about. What are you most interested in? I'm not sure I have any ultra-obscure links to share.
My favorite contemporary comedian is (surprisingly for a modern right-winger, I know) notorious mass shooter, terrorist, and Hamas fighter Samir al-Hayyid. Some favorite content of mine from him is (and they're all videos since he's not primarily a writer and his main piece of comedic writing, a book called How to Bomb the U.S. Gov't, isn't as easy to link to):
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=D2WwCzaGo9c
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=v_3UskhyDI4
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=ejluExvt-90
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=-K1AQKM7pXU
I do object to the notion that it's inherently "nerdy" in any meaningful sense to think that mildly (and I must emphasize the "mild" here) clever wordplay = funny. It strikes me as rather simplistic actually which is generally the opposite connotation of what you should ideally associate with "nerdy". And perhaps this is just me being a metacontrarian in a space like this but I mostly think that comedy, given that the feeling of being amused is inherently an emotional response, should strike primarily at the senses, not try to painstakingly backdoor itself in through flattering the intellect's ego with (again, actually rather simple IMO) ham-fisted "wit". (Yes, if you can't tell, I have never cared one bit about a media production that Joss Whedon has been involved with.)
Certainly I will grant that many people who identify as "nerds" (which is why I've never bothered) strongly disagree with me on this point, but when I say I don't consider it inherently "nerdy" in any meaningful sense, I mean that to say that I consider it more characteristic of the people who ruined "nerdy" stuff rather than the people who made it worth ruining in the first place. That is, you might call it a "pet peeve" of mine.
I also don't really relate to the "I could never write like this!" compliments. I could probably write the entire post. I just wouldn't, because I don't find it particularly valuable. I like a lot of Scott's stuff too, but comedy has never been his strong suit to me. It's all "wit" with zero instinct, soul, charisma, or personality. It's not the charmingly foolish jig of a jester who is willing to diligently answer the call of his profession and lower himself to getting down in the mud a bit like a pig to entertain you; it's yet another invitation from a smug "raconteur" to reveal yourself Smart™ enough to acknowledge how Witty™ he is. No real passion.
In my proposed dialogue, he thinks he's calling out to his brothers initially (and it is quite likely that his brothers were at a fellow black person's house and so he thinks everyone in the scenario is going to be black), setting his more casual tone (worrying as much about who else might be listening to what you're loudly saying also seems to be a less common black communicative habit). This maybe causes Lester to evince hostile or evasive behavior upon hearing it, causing Yarl to react similarly (or perhaps he's just unable to code switch so quickly between his "politely talking to White people" voice and his "talking to closer in age black brothers" voice).
Of course, to be fair, not all black people even bother using the "politely talking to White people" voice, especially nowadays. And some others also do use it more liberally, almost always when they feel there might be mixed company. But again, as far as I know (as I added to my original post, though only now as I was banned, as it originally got lost in an editing sweep when it was supposed to be moved to the end), maybe Yarl is Carlton Banks from The Fresh Prince. Statistically that's unlikely of course.
In any case it could be a factor. I want to hear the full and true story before I condemn. I was fooled initially by George Floyd, even though I should have known better post-Trayvon. Not again.
I never said you needed to be Super Chad. I'm not Super Chad, I have a girlfriend who isn't quite Super Stacy (though she's a decent bit more Stacyish than I am Chaddish, due to psychological manipulation techniques I learned from autistic men on the Internet), and we're pretty happy together. But it's obvious from certain tells that, though I don't think she has any plans or explicit intentions to branch swing, when she's around a man who mogs me her mind wanders as is natural.
And that's fair, because so does mine. Sometimes when I fantasize I imagine her and sometimes I imagine a more symmetrically babyfaced and plump-lipped milky pale cosplay weeb goth DDLG bimbo with a way bigger ass (which I'm sure secretly hurts my GF's feelings a bit since she has a pretty large one herself which is her obvious main immediate charm point at least physically as a woman, and she knows I'm a big booty addict), larger tits, wider hips, and longer legs (who is also shorter, as somewhat ironically, at least according to some study I read once, men like women who are shorter but also still longer-legged).
We still argue half-joking about my head supposedly "flying off my neck" to ogle a girl at Publix who had an ass the size of a baby stroller (and wasn't otherwise fat) tucked into the tightest yoga pants imaginable (which again pissed her off extra for the aforementioned reason that anal appeal has been her charm point since she realized at like 7, or so she says, and I'm an ass man). And I know she does the same when she encounters (comparatively rarer) rock-hard abs, just a bit more subtly since she doesn't have nearly as many autist tendencies as me. You can't negotiate with instinct and biology.
So no, I can't be Super Chad. But again being a little bit more like him seems to me like a worthier result than getting kudos from a woman for being Oprah material. Nobody is turning their heads to look at the guy who cries really well.
Basic question: On a sexual/lustful/physical/primal level, are you more attracted to Super Chad or to your husband? You tellingly refuse to directly address this issue.
That's just it. They're not your panties. They're the panties of all womankind, even those who don't wear them, even those who were around before they invented them.
More options
Context Copy link