I mean, a lot of people hate his style, but I think he’s a pretty good singer too. Once you get past the basic conceit that he sounds constantly crossfaded, he’s very expressive.
Waters, of course, is also a good singer, and doesn’t have that barrier of potentially sounding incredibly annoying.
He could be bullshitting, and he and his cronies are incompetent enough to fumble this even if it was true, but this theoretically would be a great outcome for not having more war in the region.
It’s probably just because they want to arm and train Azov II with even fancier weapons to do terror attacks or something.
That’s exactly what doesn’t happen usually, but it’s one of the best outcomes (the other good outcome is if it was a hit and the corruption was uncovered as an unintended consequence)
I think that’s a counterproductive response.
I think the stronger parody would be if you could only play as your own sex because anything else would be trans ideology
Maybe there’s a rock out there made, by complete chance, in such huge proportion of silicon that it becomes more viable, I don’t give a shit. It was just an aside anyway, pick another based on the same principle if you like. Why an obligate biped? Why this size? Why not a flying creature? Why not a rotationally-symetrical monstrosity? Why not an intelligent species that physically couldn’t really be engineers but happen to live on the same planet as creatures who can? Or who just get contacted by outside life that can? I’m a dipshit who mostly prefers pulp and cosmic horror (read: fantasy) science fiction, so I’m sure someone who knows more could come up with more and better prompts.
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t list a whole lot of traits that would be considered vital to having a fairly human sillhouette. There’s nothing here about obligate bipedalism, for example, or having just two legs in the lower part of the body at all. There’s nothing here about how the forelimbs are articulated, and whether it would look meaningfully like hands or an array of dexterous tendrils or something. And all this gritty realist speculative biology seems out of place when most sci-fi is basically a particular sub-genre of fantasy anyway. Even being generous to the sci-fi writers, supposing the universe works in a fundamentally different way from how ours does (breaking laws of relativity and entropy, commonly), why can’t some ecosystems work out to stretch your imagination of what could be an advanced species? It all seems very narrowly prescriptivist, even beyond the fact that this is fiction to the point of taking negative liberties with the bounds of what is truly realistic.
Edit: idk, it just seems obtuse. Like, “Advanced life can only be carbon-based because being that way affords these benefits” without considering that other models could provide other benefits (I’m sure you know better than I about the use of silicon-based life in speculative biology). And that’s if the subject is addressed at all.
That’s better than the alternative, but they should still not be killing people. There just isn’t a good reason for them to.
Killing people is almost always gratuitous for a fairly-developed country that isn’t at war. They should probably be killing fewer people, especially among segments of society more vulnerable than billionaires.
I support our rogues, they work hard to circumvent the combat mechanics
In a lot of cases (not the people here) it’s because they like having a woman they can oggle from every angle and exercise complete control over. See Shaun’s most recent video; if it’s enough to be a core conceit of reasonably popular video games, it’s enough to motivate g*mers in other games that treat their female characters just a misogynistically.
Plenty of people have other reasons, of course.
I certainly can’t help you. I think one thing that is good about therapists is that, even if talking to them doesn’t help inherently, they can often use their great amount of knowledge about you to recommend something that might help you more, like psychiatry or support groups.
But people have the ability to change for the better, they always do until they die, and that includes you. As a stranger on the internet, I have no idea how to help you, but I am certain that you can be helped because you’re a human who can communicate and take in new information.
Yeah, it’s easy in high school and even easier as an undergrad, but there’s a precipitous drop immediately after that, at least for me (though I have to imagine it applies to many other people).
Conflating that with people who actively wish death on women is wild.
I was going to say that if you accused me of equivocating, I swear on me mum. The extreme right and the extreme left are both extremes, people who adhere to either are extremists. Extremism isn’t an ideology or a value, it’s a descriptor of how an ideology relates to the status quo (i.e. being really far away). Unless you meant I was equivocating liberals [on a leftist website] with incels, which would make less sense. I just didn’t know you were a lib since almost no one with a HB account identifies that way.
Excuse me?
I should have phrased it more carefully, but I wasn’t actually referring to you with that comment. Remember this is all based on you responding to me saying other stuff, there was more context than just us talking, and it’s a bad habit of this board (and, admittedly, people in general) to make hasty assumptions about their opposition. I’ve been getting in trouble with using the general “you” a lot; I need to figure out how to signal things more clearly.
I wasn’t weighing in on whether their conversion ideas were legitimate or not, merely saying that some people talked about pursuing it.
I was being facetious, I apologize if I upset you. It might have been insensitive of me. I’ll remove that part.
I think the logic goes that lots of dudes want, whether by social conditioning or natural libido or whatever, to fuck anything that walks. Lots of women, for the same reasons, don’t. Therefore, if someone wants to have sex, they should have sex with men. It’s not about gay men being more libidinal than straight men, it’s about men being more libidinal than women. Again, their logic, not mine. Hopefully you don’t see this as defensive, since it’s not like conversion is a key pillar of their ideology, it’s just something that pops up conversationally here and there.
I never excused their actions, I merely want to understand it causally and sometimes to help others make sense of it. The problem with their ideology is that it is reactionary, not that it is extremist; we’re extremists, too! I get how you take me for an apologist (though I’m not), but I don’t get how you took anything I said to be a “whataboutism”.
I’m not particularly aware of the violence it has caused beyond the mass shootings, but I’ve read some of their violent fantasizing on their board and I won’t reprint it even with a CW. I know that this is a dangerous “culture” (network of cults) with a bad ideology, the point isn’t to say that it isn’t bad. But if you’re really serious about acting against them, it’s important to understand how they work and where their motivations come from, you can’t just make shit up or hastily string faulty inferences together and then have it be unassailable because challenging this negative claim is de facto apologetics. It doesn’t make any sense.
Now of course, if you read my dumb rant (which I don’t encourage, I think it’ll just upset you), I do admit that I personally feel bad for the more sad boy contingent of them, just as I feel bad for a friend of mine who got brought into a more literal cult and now recruits more victims, even though I also condemn their actions and basically everything they do or think at this point. However, my feelings might motivate my attention to this issue, but I do not justify anything with those feelings as that would be absurd and no one here would even understand it, much less agree. It would also be poor reasoning. Ultimately, what I want is the best outcome for the most people, which statistically means mainly that people should be protected from incels, but it also means that – insofar as logistics allow it – the incels should be put in re-education camps rather than on death row, and they don’t need to repent first, they just need to be put somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone and then learn why they should repent.
This paragraph i’m referencing, nope nope nope.
I understood before, but the particularly offensive content has been removed
By the way, you don’t need to apologize for voicing concerns, it is a good thing to do.
I wouldn’t really know since I’ve only ever had “traditional” relationships, but I’m pretty sure they still exist. Most of the people I know (which is now mid twenties at the youngest up to near 40) are in romantic relationships or want to be, it’s not just hook-ups out there. Like, don’t get me wrong, thinking about how to find a way to get into a romantic relationship again makes me want to CW, but that’s partly because it was already really difficult for someone like me and it’s getting more difficult as I get older . . . Anyway, of all the things we can blame them for, I think not wanting to fuck men and now wanting to, idk, whip and step on people? is really it. Incidentally, one of the veins of discourse in the incel community is basically doing conversion therapy to become gay because they believe that it’s way easier on average for a dude to get laid if he’s gay. I’ve never seen someone report that the converted themselves, though.
The other side of this is that they’re so misogynistic how the fuck do they expect to get that romantically close to someone before they realise how awful they are?
Well, they didn’t become such sickos until after they already had their negative experiences, at which point they’ve usually given up and made sexual frustration their religion. There’s no contradiction in this specific point, even if there’s a lot of short-sightedness, dehumanization, reaction, etc.
Edit:
The level of intimacy they yearn for is created over months, the sex is usually much earlier. So perhaps part of the problem is that they mentally have the cart before the horse, the order of things that are supposed to happen is incorrect in their heads and therefore they fail the whole dating thing because it doesn’t match with the material reality and issues occur interacting with others over this.
Not to keep playing reverse “Spot the Contradiction,” but you need to remember that these are people who generally have never had a girlfriend. Period. They might get a first date or two and then get ghosted. In the context of a first date, do you think that for a het woman, a man more interested in emotionality than sex is somehow a red flag? Like yeah, if he’s trauma dumping to you while you’re at the diner and you don’t even really know him, that’s probably not gonna fly, but if anything I would think emotionality that is somewhat in check and deprioritizing sex would be considered substantial positives for these guys as candidates. Unfortunately for them, most of them never even got that far and the other ones found some other way (probably prioritizing sex in many cases) to fuck it up.
I was offering it mainly because I thought it wasn’t the case. People usually don’t spend significant portions of their life in a funk without there being some diagnosable mental problem involved (whether inborn, traumagenic, or otherwise).
You’re not just a miserable loser 
and I like your posts.
They could also spend a modest sum and get off that way. There are at least two major things that I think you’re missing:
A lot of them want a partner who they can be emotionally intimate with, not just someone to fuck. A simple proof that doesn’t involve us both needing to look at their forums is that they have a popular acronym “KHHV,” or “kissless, hand-holdless virgin” which I think is used partly to emphasize their literal distance from women, but also to communicate closeness they are lacking besides the sex. If all I want is to fuck people, what do I give a shit about holding someone’s hand? This is also part of why trad shit so easily gained traction there, because it was basically viewed (falsely) as a guarantee to have a partner that you could emotionally invest in and they wouldn’t leave you (there are many ways this is wrong, of course)*
The second thing, as I mention in my dumb rant in this thread, is that incel communities are highly predatory cults. They prey on the mentally ill, racial minorities (particularly Asians), and literal children. They take your trauma** and convince you that it’s just what the world is for someone like you. It’s not about whether you can objectively access sex (again, escorts exist), it’s about hating yourself and, through that, hating everyone outside of your new group of “allies”.
Also, like, nothing against kink, but a fair number of people – especially the sexually inexperienced – are really not into basically any of it. Also I think the huge number of subs is more a gay community thing (I’ve been told there’s a top shortage), but I wouldn’t know since I’m one of those vanilla hets.
*While I believe these pieces of evidence do point to my conclusion, I recognize they are unconvincing. The real reason I believe it is because I spent some time on incel boards (I was never an incel) and the level of sentimentality about relationships, about being told “I love you” and so on was off the charts.
**in the former two cases. With the kids, it’s just straightforward ideological grooming
Removed by mod
I think that the current generation generally don’t care about a thousand year Reich or they have some pastoral fantasy of it in the vein of Jefferson. I think they just want money and personal power and then eventually they die. What do they care about the subsequent 700 years or whatever it is? They got theirs.
And I think this mindset is prevalent in less blatant forms in other imperial core nations, they just haven’t reached the advanced rot or the US. Just look at the UK.