Mr. Krinkle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 29,295
The definition of incels is not people with awful personalities. Because then alot of rich and famous people who have sex would be incels because they have awful personalities. Which is entirely subjective by the way.By definition, they have awful personalities. If they’ve gone the “red pill/blue pill” route, they’re subscribing to a mode of thought that is misogynistic and self-defeating
wow they described what they see from their point of view. good job.I thought this video was quite interesting actually. The speaker empathizes with the way these people get sucked into a cycle of negativity, egged on by others and their own desire for negative reinforcement. Calling the overarching ecosystem of videos “trash” doesn’t change this video’s pertinence.
TIL that you cannot enjoy art or online content made by people with differing political views from your own.I guess if you are an NPC level moronic marxist you would like that content, but if you are a capable of reason and independent thought, you will find that that is not content of any worth.
Your response was going so well until you dove headfirst into a classic misunderstanding of “postmodernism.” Please define postmodernism for me in your own words. No cheating and using Google.Postmodernism has rendered relationships meaningless and people are more hedonistic than ever. Finding somebody who isn't hypnotized and prioritizing mindless entertainment, politics and materialism can be challenging. I'm a gay man and I'm not celibate, but I wait a long time between partners because most men these days are utter trash. Seriously, there are too many basic ass bitches out there now, men and women alike. These hetero incels think it's just women and that's their biggest mistake. It's society as a whole right now
Not ALL women gave reproductive value. Throughout history women who can’t produce children have been divorced, killed, jailed.Incels are a natural thing. Men historically in many cases haven't been reproductively successful. We know from genetic analysis that we have more female than male ancestors. Women have an innate reproductive value while men are highly asymmetric in value depending on performance. Many women have been deeply unsatisfied with their hubbies throughout monogamy. They actually rather share a good man than have a boring one for themselves.
We're just not used to it, hence the hysteria on all fronts.
Not ALL women gave reproductive value. Throughout history women who can’t produce children have been divorced, killed, jailed.
And why do you say women would rather share a “good man” than have a boring one to themselves? Wouldn’t a woman want to keep and hold on tight to a good man? ( in this heterosexual scenario)
We’re not used to what? Settling for boring men? Is this your personal opinion?
I don’t particularly want to discuss anything you’re writing about. I just wanted clarification on what is your opinion and what you’re reiterating, or presenting as common knowledge.Of course not all women have reproductive value. Incidents and accidents do happen. I was discussing sex differences on a general level. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. If you think i'm leaning onto some "women have it so easy" trope, there's no need to worry. I appreciate the toil we stand on, from our ancestors of both sexes.
No, it's not my personal opinion. Why are you asking me that? Do you want me to corroborate?
Talking about the thing we're "not used to" i was referring to a more natural non-monogamous state. Culturally we expect monogamy out of habit, and when the expectation isn't met, that has social consequences. Was it unclear what i was referring to in that passage? I didn't intend for that to be unclear whatsoever. I thought it was obvious from the context and the fact that my posts pertained rather specifically and precisely to one relevant aspect of this topic.
Yes, a woman could want to "hold on" to a "good man". Do you mean women would prefer having one high-tier man each to sharing them? If so, that's a given, and not the choice what i was talking about. I was talking about the more realistic choice between a mediocre monogamy and another social order more to the end of sharing the top males. This is a real dilemma women have had through evolution. Of course they could hypothetically prefer to have one "good man" each, but that isn't realistically possible in this scenario. What do you wish to discuss really?
(There's of course the whole issue of how volitional these reproductive "choices" by women have actually been historically)
I don’t particularly want to discuss anything you’re writing about. I just wanted clarification on what is your opinion and what you’re reiterating, or presenting as common knowledge.
No. Not asking for sources. Just wanted to know what was opinion.So are you asking me for sources or not? It's really simple. I am happy to oblige that request if you're up front enough to actually make the request instead of just asking me whether my statements on human evolution are "opinion" or not.![]()
No. Not asking for sources. Just wanted to know what was opinion.
lol. Thanks for telling ME what I'M doing. lolYou're asking that question because you seek to invalidate my opinion but have nothing to say about any actual argument.
lol. Thanks for telling ME what I'M doing. lol
There is nothing to "fall for". I'm not sure why you're being so defensive and even insulting me. I was wondering where your information came from. You were making some very generalized assumptions.
I think you made your point. Lets quit with the veiled aggression and just move on.You were not "wondering where it came from". I asked you if you wanted sources, you declined.
You wondered if it was opinion. Weird ass loaded question.
You can watch whatever you want as art or for entertainment (i admit, CNN is a good clown show when there is an active war).TIL that you cannot enjoy art or online content made by people with differing political views from your own.
I really like that one Dali painting with the naked chick and the tiger. Guess I’m a fascist now…
Your response was going so well until you dove headfirst into a classic misunderstanding of “postmodernism.” Please define postmodernism for me in your own words. No cheating and using Google.
Your response was going so well until you dove headfirst into a classic misunderstanding of “postmodernism.” Please define postmodernism for me in your own words. No cheating and using Google.