Random Thought of the Day

[Doseone]

It would be nice to just cuddle with someone.

edit:
God would be very dumb to give people freedom and then be mad when they use it to do things he doesn't want (especially since he is supposed to know what they're going to do beforehand). It's honestly such a silly belief system.

[Nyctophilia]

I ended up editing that post so many times. At this point just making a new post I guess lol because I came back to this video a couple of times and I hadn't watched all of it when posting but wanted an example of that group in the debate. The funny thing is I find people like Anita Sarkeesian quite annoying but the men who do the reverse just sound even more retarded and annoying these days probably because of the incredibly petulant way they try to argue all their points. The only people agreeing with that YouTuber are people who are commenting things like this:

heterosexuality is normal and being normal is good

Which is fine because according to all of you we're winning and also most women prefer gay 'twinks' now. Enjoy being normal.

I'm so glad that you're bringing attention to this problem, last night i was playing celeste when madeline came out of the screen and injected me with estrogen while i struggled and begged her not to trans my gender but she said "I am going to give you gender pronounce and communism" and killed me. true story.

I hate it when that happens.

my favorite part of modern video games is when they say "it's wokin time" and woke all over the straight white males

Fun Fact: You can kiss other guys in this game, making the protagonist LGBT. It heals you just the same as kissing girls.

You're getting a lot of [BEEP] for this take dude. But I agree with you, I?m tired of people forcing Portugal on me.

I almost feel bad for him. But not quite.

bro trying to sound like he's making an anime villain monologue crying about stuff like "gay flags in Call of Duty"

He went all in on the mummy issues and forgot the rest of the recipe:



Yes this isn't anime but whatever he's talking about video games anyway.

none of the people they're trying to appeal to care about video games and they never will.

pls what? literally every gay person i know (and i doubt you've ever even met one) loves video games.

No they don't.

Lol this guy is obviously trolling.

i love this video bc it shows that you can consume a ton of media and never develop a lick of media literacy.
i love that, i think that's neat. like a dehydrated horse who refuses to drink on principle.

For me it's the part where they always have to invent conspiracy theories like 'gay people don't enjoy video games,' 'almost everyone really agrees with me' and 'I'm the only target audience that could possibly exist' when basically every millenial has played video games at some point... They also often conflate poor writing and game design with the inclusion of minority characters and the option to romance whoever you want in a game every time they do this. They're so bad at getting their point across that they just come across as sexist, homophobic and transphobic, even if that wasn't the intent but tbf it's often part of it. They often are irritated by the inclusion of eg: muscular female characters.

I'll never buy woke videogames again. Last month i was half asleep at 3am and heard some glass shattering, so i went and checked what was going on and i found my copy of The last of us Part 2 stabbing my dog with broken glass. With tears in my eyes, i said: "The woke mob can't get away with this anymore" so i grabbed the game by the throat, and before ripping it in two pieces i whispered: "We are out here, we are hidden, waiting to strike. No matter how many of you there are or how much politics you shove down our throat, we are going to take you down and stop this madness. We are... Conservatives". After going through that trauma i decided i needed to relax with some tranquil and non political videogame so i booted up Fallout 4

Someone should make a video game about this and send it to him.

This actually isn't as far down that rabbit hole as you can get. The most far gone people are convinced that they're going to basically build concentration camps soon for straight white men. This doesn't bother them as much as the idea of black men and Muslim men having sex with white women though.

As I say he's pretty far gone:

Peterson has more red flags than a communist parade

It's pretty colonial to spend more time criticising countries that aren't your own but I often do anyway lol. I still ultimately feel that the women in those countries should be dealing with the men there though because if they don't learn how to do that Western women can't try to fix their men for them forever... Quite patronising too.

Also men all across the world might even have agency (in theory,) but it seems they just don't and are facing a 'crisis of Masculinity' in most countries that aren't aggressively Islamic... From China to the United States. Mysterious.

Edit: I mean it goes back to this quote again:

https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/po...gender-nullary

There's a hilarious overlap between the people who get mad about preferred pronouns and those who call for a return to "traditional masculinity." The idealization of some Hollywood-ified tradition isn't the problem; if you want to roleplay a fursona, go ahead. No, what's pathetic is the begging. Rather than be a man, in spite of the system, you demand validation from the system for aspiring to be a man. Being against identity politics is the new identity politics. That's why right-wing culture warriors are so into the idea of crybaby millennials it's comforting to believe that you're actually strong (since you don't drink from plastic water bottles) and that anyone getting laid is actually xeno-estrogenized. Even if this was true, obsessing over it, masturbating to it, using it as an excuse for self-pity and inaction that makes you a _ _ _ _. Four-letters. Multiple choice. Maybe hangman will teach you something.

It's paradoxical. But I guess when those kind of men stop caring about what other people think they just turn into annoying Islamists and fascists (and other hypermasculine ideologies,) in theory anyway. So do I prefer the whining to that? I guess I prefer the whining tbh.

Meanwhile in Fascist Italy [some crap Evola said about women.] Still lots of Western fascists around online now. Occupies more attention because of proximity.

I think they can do it, people in the Middle East did it before anyway. They won't get any thanks for it though:

https://cbmw.org/2000/09/01/androgyny/

Like the ancient pagan Sodomites pounding on the door of Lot's house millennia ago, the modern gay movement is gathering at the doors of our churches, our academies, and our once traditionally "Christian" culture, demanding entrance and full recognition.

Throughout time and across space, the pagan cultus consistently, though not exclusively, holds out as its sexual representative the emasculated, androgynous priest. Mircea Eliade, a respected expert in comparative religions, argues that androgyny as a religious universal or archetype appears virtually everywhere and at all times in the world's religions. Much evidence exists to support his judgment.24

The clearest textual testimony in ancient times comes from nineteenth-century BC Mesopotamia. Androgynous priests were associated with the worship of the goddess Istar from the Sumerian age (1800 BC).25

Their condition was due to their "devotion to Istar who herself had 'transformed their masculinity into femininity.' "26 They functioned as occult shamans, who released the sick from the power of the demons just as, according to the cult myth, they had saved Istar from the devil's lair. "... as human beings," says a contemporary scholar, "... they seem to have engendered demonic abhorrence in others; ... the fearful respect they provoked is to be sought in their otherness, their position between myth and reality, and their divine-demonic ability to transgress boundaries."27

I don't think religion is the only factor though... This isn't a spiritual thing no matter how much you try to argue it is:

Nisu, literally meaning "mud-sculpting," is a homophone of nisu 逆苏, which could be translated as "reversed su." In examples of nisu, the gender of the celebrities or fictional characters are altered, with the majority of nisu creators being young women who imagine their male idols to be female. There are a variety of ways to engage in the culture of nisu, mainly through creating and circulating fan-created pictures, videos, and fanfiction on social media platforms like Weibo.

In a way, the trend is a response to China's crackdown on effeminate men in the entertainment industry, a campaign launched in 2021 as officials believed that the nation's overprotected teenage boys were becoming physically and emotionally weak, leaving China with a "crisis of masculinity." For some Chinese fans, nisu's radical feminization of male idols offers them a comparatively free space where they can negotiate their understandings of gender and express their own (usually sexual) fantasy.

I've said all this before though.

I mean it's stupid that you have to roleplay this stuff with Christians and that includes Jordan Peterson really because he does believe a lot of this stuff:

https://cbmw.org/2000/09/01/androgyny/

The physico-theological mechanism seems to function as follows: androgynous persons, whether homosexual or bi-sexual, are able to express within themselves both sexual roles and identities. In the sex act they engage both as male and female, equally as penetrator and penetrated, the "hard" and the "soft"129-and thus taste in some form or other both physical and spiritual androgyny.130 As in classic monistic spirituality, they have, on the physical plane, joined the opposites, proving and experiencing that there are no distinctions. Just as the distinctions inherent in heterosexuality point to the fundamental theistic notion of the Creator/creature distinction, so androgyny in its various forms eradicates distinction and elevates the spiritual blending of all things, including the idolatrous confusion of the human and the divine.131 This seems to be the very same logic that brings Paul to a similar conclusion already in Romans 1:18-27.132

^ I mean no? Being bisexual or homosexual or even androgynous doesn't automatically mean you're a switch with those sexual positions.

The deconstruction of the Biblical God and Biblical sexuality as a philosophical and ideological programme is already deeply embedded in our collective unconscious. Some powerful leaders see the future as the brave new global world of sexual and spiritual pluralism, where liberty of self-expression in these areas is the essence of human progress.151 One could even imagine a society of pagan religious syncretism where bi-sexuality and homosexual androgyny would be the spiritual and social ideal, the sexuality of choice for those in power, while heterosexuality would be tolerated, considered inferior, and strictly controlled-for it has happened before.152

Clearly God is interested in sex, or Satan would not be so passionately committed to its deconstruction. To destroy God's created structures, the Evil One rips from the body politic the sexual distinctions hard-wired into creation to recall the deep truth about existence-the absolute distinction between the Creator and creation.

It seems to just be a really magical-thinking-adj way of saying that some people are androgynous and also narcissistic (so view themselves as some kind of God.)

Though promoted as an issue of civil rights, the homosexual/androgy-nous revival is not merely contemporary civics or chic theory. The close connection between pagan esoteric spirituality and androgynous sexuality, evident across time and space,91 demands that we not ignore the spiritual dimensions underlying the contemporary scene. In the light of the above evidence, it should not be surprising to note that the revival of pagan religion in our day is accompanied by a powerful reappearance of pagan sexuality. In other words, homosexuality may be less a modern question of biological destiny or civil rights than a necessary practical outworking of age-old pagan spirituality.92 It is becoming more and more manifest that a particular religious commitment is always accompanied by a particular sexual theory and practice. But this is not to suggest some scarlet, conspiratorial thread connecting the dots. The connection is logical, theological, and inevitable. A monistic view of existence will work itself out in all the domains of human life, and especially in the domain of sexuality.93

You might as well argue that heterosexuality stems from Christianity. Oh they might argue that lol. It reminds me of this guy on twitter who was arguing with Christians and then he realised and said something like (paraphrasing because I don't fully remember) "I assumed that Christians were atheists about most other Gods/religions that existed, but I'm now beginning to realise that they actually do believe in all the other Gods but just think they're evil demons which is more absurd than I thought."

Also the bolded part is ridiculous considering there are pagan fascists and some neo-Pagan religions are pretty dimorphic like Wicca. I think LGBT+ people are drawn to those religions because they often identify with magic/shamanism/witches etc but a lot of neo-pagan European religions aren't especially tolerant of LGBT+ or androgynous people and it's not exactly built into most of these religions from what I've seen. Often people go digging further to try and distance themselves from Christianity which is hegemonic in Western countries. A lot of people have some drive towards spirituality and ideally want one that doesn't demonise them for existing.

edit: Really it's just this scene except most of these guys are in their 20s or 30s I think:

Progressive liberal cities are the ones where you can make the most money. They are also higher-crime, dirty, crowded, full of homeless junkies and the nice "enclaves" are insanely expensive. Conservative-leaning cities are cleaner, quieter, more affordable, more decent places to live and especially raise a family, but you won't make much money there. And the nightlife may not be nearly as "hip and buzzing" as Los Angeles, San Fran or NYC.

Extremely conservative cities have tons of violence, too. Memphis is terrible, the entire state Louisiana has tons of violent crime, Mobile, Alabama is dangerous, too. This idea from the Right that conservative areas are sanctuaries is ridiculous. There are terrible liberal cities, and there are wonderful liberal cities.

I doubt political ideology is the most important factor in violent crime. I think it can correlate but it's not the underlying cause. It seems to be mostly down to population density, diversity and poverty/class background of the people living there. All these things contribute to atomisation and desperation which fuels crime.

I also think it's difficult to socialise people into social norms when they deviate too much from said norms. This can be based on a variety of traits like race and ethnicity, and neurodivergence, and gender + sexuality which is probably why non-binary people are more antisocial than trans people who are more antisocial than cis people (at least they found that in teenagers, but it's a bit early to say for sure across age groups,) likewise there's been little attempt to acknowledge bisexual people even exist and they're more antisocial and have more substance abuse issues than homosexual people, who have a higher rate than straight people afaik but I think it gets complicated and varies between studies especially regarding homosexual men.

Seems like class and income is more important than race too in predicting criminal behaviour. Gay men seem better integrated in Western society? Earn more and better educated etc and seem to have a lower rate of antisocial behaviour in a bunch of studies, but not all studies. Also varies in terms of personality traits.

Bisexuals seem to be consistently shown to be more antisocial in personality...:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886921004177

Bisexuals were more psychopathic and narcissistic than heterosexuals. The only significant findings in within-sex comparisons showed that self-identified bisexual women scored higher on all Dark Triad traits than heterosexual women. The findings support the gender shift hypothesis of same-sex sexual attraction in bisexual women, but not in lesbians nor in men.

I think it's sometimes worse for bisexual women so that's 'fun.' Except I'm non-binary (though that doesn't suggest anything positive based on that one paper...) And I don't really identify as bisexual so it's OK. I mean I'm definitely not monosexual but the whole who is and isn't bisexual discourse game is annoying especially in afab people where it seems like almost everyone is just aroused by both sexes anyway. Plus it's only elevated compared to cishet women (how do they even measure that group besides identification then?) But I've seen other studies where they base it on factors other than self identification and still find deviations from the norm and then others where things like this only apply to people who are mostly straight if you use the 'kinsey scale.'

An additional concern might be social desirability. Those who are members of sexual minority groups may under-report information about their health relative to heterosexuals (Savin-Williams & Joyner, 2014). However, the Dark Triad traits are not known to be particularly linked with socially desirable responding, with narcissism having only a weak link (e.g., Raskin et al., 1991). Indeed, the very nature of psychopathy might lead to a greater willingness to endorse and report socially undesirable behaviors given psychopathic individuals tendency to violate social norms (e.g., Jonason, Koehn, et al., 2020)

I am pretty edgy lol.

Besides these results in women, we are unaware of any studies that have analyzed the Dark Triad traits across the sexual orientation spectrum (i.e., including bisexual men, and ideally also "mostly heterosexual" individuals). In one study, homosexual men scored lower on Machiavellianism (d = 0.11), narcissism (d = 0.17), and psychopathy (d = 0.42) relative to heterosexual men (Barelds et al., 2017). In women, the only difference of note was the slightly higher psychopathy scores in homosexual women (d = 0.15) relative to heterosexual women (Barelds et al., 2017).1 Overall, these results support the gender shift hypothesis of homosexuality.

Oh no. They're almost onto me. Still non-binary/don't id as heterosexual either though. You can't figure me out. (There actually is already a study that shows something like this that separates bisexual women by kinsey scale lol. I'm too lazy to dig it up though. I read that paper a while ago.)

In conclusion, our study improves what researchers know about dark personality manifestations as a function of sexual orientation. With data from over 40 countries including three self-reported labels for sexual orientation, we showed in sex-aggregated analyses that bisexuals had higher Dark Triad traits than heterosexuals. Differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals were limited to Machiavellianism, which was more pronounced in homosexuals. These results directly contradict the prosociality hypothesis for the evolution of homosexuality and support the gender shift hypothesis only in women. In contrast, the results may be more consistent with a life history model (Luoto et al., 2019a,b; Xu et al., 2019) and/or with observations about minority stress, suggesting that with greater experienced harshness of sexual minorities (i.e., non-heterosexuals), engaging in Dark Triad trait approaches to life might help non-heterosexual people stay safe, avoid detection, and get what they want from their lives

Why does no one do research on non-binary people? I need to know how 'evil' I am!

Role models for people like me:



And every female batman villain is bisexual. Are they doing this on purpose lol?

Oh god and I'm English. It's really adding up.

At least I'm not The Joker. Mild evil themes. Like mild science fiction themes (that's my favourite rating of all time) Australia is so funny:



If I was willing to commit to a tattoo (or a gender, or a sexuality,) I think that would be funny.

*buzzfeed how evil am I quiz*

Lol.

Should probably take a buzzfeed quiz for neuroticism too. But I already know the answer to that one.

This is biphobic:





Lol no but. I actually don't know how they define left wing authoritarianism in that study because casually I'm pretty sure he considers 'supports trans kids' and 'is non-binary' counts for him lol.

By the way I just need to highlight that that paper I posted is titled this:

The dark side of the rainbow: Homosexuals and bisexuals have higher Dark Triad traits than heterosexuals

Well if you're not going to take this seriously...

Like a gay Pink Floyd tribute band. I haven't watched this video but what:



I don't like that film. Return to Oz is better.

Can you imagine if I spent as much time working as I do on posting [BEEP] here?

[Nyctophilia]

This is biphobic:





Lol no but. I actually don't know how they define left wing authoritarianism in that study because casually I'm pretty sure he considers 'supports trans kids' and 'is non-binary' counts for him lol.

^ lol I just realised at one point the guy responds to what he's saying and is like 'there's nothing wrong with that' :')

He's trying to build the case that left wing people are feminine psychopaths. I'm wondering in what directions he's going to take this in coming years.

He's also brought up people who are sociosexually less restricted have higher degrees of dark triad traits.

I don't think he'll ever explicitly make this connection because it's too outside the overton window for him but for now he's happy to make the connection with sociosexual orientation instead.

From wikipedia:

Individuals who are sociosexually unrestricted tend to score higher on openness to experience,[7] and be more extraverted,[8] less agreeable,[8] lower on honesty-humility,[9] more erotophilic,[10] more impulsive,[11] more likely to take risks,[11] more likely to have an avoidant attachment style,[12] less likely to have a secure attachment style,[13] and score higher on the Dark Triad traits (i.e. narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy).[14][15] Higher masculinity[16] and eveningness[17] in women is related to unrestricted sociosexuality. High self-monitoring is also associated with unrestricted sociosexuality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.[18]

Individuals with an intrinsic religious orientation (i.e., religion as an end) tend to be sociosexually restricted, while those with an extrinsic religious orientation (i.e., religion as a means to achieve non-religious goals) tend to be unrestricted.[19]

Bisexual women are significantly less restricted in their sociosexual attitudes than both lesbian and heterosexual women. Bisexual women are also the most unrestricted in sociosexual behavior, followed by lesbians and then, heterosexual women.[4] Gay and bisexual men are similar to heterosexual men in sociosexual attitudes, in that they express relatively unrestricted attitudes relative to women. However, gay men are the most unrestricted in sociosexual behavior, followed by bisexual men and then, heterosexual men. This may be because gay men have more potential partners who prefer short-term, casual sexual encounters.[4]

So here's another viewpoint he seems to have. From this link but I've heard him discussing this before in videos but I stumbled on this link while writing this post:

https://podcastdisclosed.com/harming...n-podcast-366/

�� Key Takeaways

Liberal individuals enforced lockdowns while conservative individuals rejected mandates, as fear brought out left-wing authoritarianism more prevalent in those with low verbal intelligence, female gender, feminine temperament, and dark tetrad traits.

^ most people in the UK agreed with lockdowns and there was no political divide in agreement vs disagreement whatsoever so ???

There are a lot of things that are less divided in the UK that others seem to take for granted in the US. Jordan Peterson is very America brained because Canada differs from the US in various ways too.

I was wondering if anyone in his audience were discussing any of these things. Found this thread but it's a few years old:

J Peterson stops making sense if youre bisexual

But then they didn't expand on that at all haha but that's great.

Found some demonisation of poly relationships which is more recent and more typical (not so much this thread as the responses):

Dr. Peterson, I've lately started looking for a serious partner, want to establish a committed relationship with a person I trust and love, but have come to a challenge. I'm a bisexual man, mainly dating men, and most people I meet seem to be in some sort of polygamous or polyamorous relationships. I'm a monogamous person, it turns my stomach to think my significant other having intimate relationships with someone else (with or without my presence. The problem is that whenever I try to explain this to someone I meet, saying that I'm not into "sharing", so to speak, they always seem to have a better argument of why it's rational and why we shouldn't restrict ourselves whenever we want to have something. I'm an intelligent person, but this topic is very hard for me to conceptualize, as to why should someone say no to their desires.

I cannot speak of the family, as it's too early in dating so it doesn't make sense at such an early stage. I tried talking about trust, but it's disregarded as the other person would say I look down on people and that's the reason I can't trust them or that I have trust issues. There's the argument that I don't want to be with someone else, but I can't say this in full honesty, because there have been times whilst being in a relatuonship, that I've been drawn to someone else sexually. They [my argument opponents] would say - if you have the desire that's basically cheating, so you shouldn't tell yourself no.

I still feel like it's not right for me, that's not how it should be in my relatuonships. But not having it properly conceptualized makes me feel like a dinosaur in these sorts of arguments.


P.S. - I talked with my psychoanalyst about this and she disagrees with the notion that people can be happy in polyamorous relationships, however, I'm not entirely convinced that NOBODY can be happy in these sort of relationships. I've met people with years on their belt in such relationships and this makes it specifically hard to argue through.

Could you please shed some light into this argument?

Huge fan, thanks in advance!

I don't think this is something you can debate with people you might have to just accept being alone unfortunately if you can't find anyone who is monogamous.

Personally not interested in open relationships. I might be OK with a poly relationship but it would have to be like some weird impossible situation where we just are all into each other and it's still not an open relationship. Also fine with monogamous relationships. This is assuming I was trying to date and found someone I was compatible with lol... Impossible for different reasons.

Then there was this response:

You talk too much about stupid shit. Polygamy does not work well for society at large because what happens is you get child brides and discarded sons.

This leads to roving bands of young men with no prospects and no stability. This leads to gangs and terrorists as well as young women getting raped by older family members they are forced into marriage with. It does this every time. IT DOES THIS EVERY TIME.

As for the personal relationship, if you think getting cuckholded is good for your psyche, you're already too far gone. If you're in fact a woman then your man is just avoiding commitment to which end you're a fucking idiot.

Polyamory is just fucking around with a fancy name. Those people are not sane. They're psychopathic, and you would do well to stay the [BEEP] away from them.

They are ACTUALLY psychopaths. They tend to USE people in ways that are dangerous and unhealthy. REALLY:

STAY THE [BEEP] AWAY FROM THOSE PEOPLE.

Roving bands of young men lol. I don't see the child bride thing happening tbh if anything the opposite moreso over time people just putting off marriage indefinitely or getting married later in general. Age gap relationships are less and less accepted too even among adults. I don't like ageplay as a kink but I think the reason it's popular recently is because age gap relationships have become increasingly taboo in the mainstream and a lot of fetishes are based on things that are taboo.

Also their post is really intense and emotional. And everyone in the thread seemed to forget he's talking about the gay male community basically lol.....

Lol:

Real helpful stuff here. Top notch. Truly mind-opening.

But tbh that's what Jordan Peterson sounds like to me most of the time like very similar to this just one step less emotional.

Some dichotomies are in fact black and white. Some slopes are in fact slippery. Some things are just a bad idea.

Fucking around is all of those. Calling it "Polyamory" does not change that. Calling it Ethical Non-Monogamy (or ENM) does not change that. The name of the thing does not change the reality of the thing and calling it "Ethical" does not mean that it is.

Some things are not complicated. This is not complicated. It is bad. They are psychopaths in the most clinical sense. They are dangerous and everyone should avoid this like a PLAGUE because in the long run it IS.

I don't think so it's on a spectrum. I don't have much interest in casual sex for a number of reasons. I don't think my lack of interest in pursuing that is a sexual preference I have though. I think it's because of my anxiety/awkwardness/insecurities, dysphoria surrounding sex, and not finding most people attractive, also concern about stds... Like under different circumstances I could probably find it fun with people I'm actually attracted to on occasion. I don't think I need an emotional attachment, especially with women. If I was in an environment where attractive women were magically into me I guess I'd be interested. I guess it's the same with guys but there are way less I could find sexually attractive (I think? I don't get that impression irl but I do online. I mean at this point I barely go anywhere or pay that much attention to people. Maybe I'll try and do that next week at the very anxiety inducing thing I'm supposed to be going to,) and I'm more likely to be romantically into men if I'm sexually into them. Also maybe might prefer an fwb thing with women sometimes if they have a really hot voice. I dunno a lot of stuff could be appealing in an ideal, safe imagination sense. Like threesomes are probably way more awkward in reality. You know maybe I just don't know what I want :') "they were right" [BEEP] you. No but it is really complicated by my feelings about gender and other factors. It's not that important to me though so I wouldn't prioritise that over a committed relationship. Also it's all very hypothetical because of all the other crap.

I'm not opposed to poly relationships in theory either. Just seems unlikely I would find a poly relationship dynamic I was happy with but I liked shipping 3 characters together in fiction or reading fanfiction like that from time to time over the years (multiple men and one woman mostly.) Also... No one really wants to hear this but there does seem to be a gender difference in that sense at least with straight men (but gay men have less sexual jealousy and seem to deviate in multiple ways so wouldn't automatically assume this applies or even that it applies to all heterosexual men because there are specific traits I think that are required in combination):

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...24490609552311

An unrestricted sociosexual orientation (the endorsement of casual sex) has been found to correlate with undesirable behaviors and personality characteristics more so in men than in women.

There were a number of indications that an unrestricted sociosexuality is associated with problematic and potentially dangerous attitudes and characteristics in men, but not in women. First, we found that relatively unrestricted men believe that relations between the two genders are hostile and adversarial and believe inaccurate and often victim-blaming myths about rape; these attitudes have consistently been shown to relate to aggressive sexual behaviors (Dean & Malamuth, 1997; Osland et al., 1996; Spence et al., 1991; Truman et al., 1996). Relatively unrestricted women did not hold these problematic attitudes.

completed self‐report measures of sociosexual orientation, sexual conservatism, rape myth acceptance, adversarial sexual beliefs, attitudes toward women, sexual behaviors, and perpetration of sexual aggression. Participants also wrote five brief stories that were scored for power and affiliation‐intimacy motives and two sexual fantasies that were coded for the theme of dominance. For both men and women, an unrestricted sociosexual orientation was correlated with behavioral items indicating earlier life experiences with sex, a greater number of lifetime sex partners, and more frequent sexual activity. For men, an unrestricted sociosexual orientation was linked with higher levels of rape myth acceptance and adversarial sexual beliefs; more conservative attitudes toward women; higher levels of power motivation and lower levels of affiliation‐intimacy motivation; and past use of sexual aggression. For women, an unrestricted sociosexual orientation was associated with sexual fantasies of dominance and lower levels of sexual conservatism.

I've definitely come across people anecdotally with this personality type (I mean obviously, Andrew Tate is an example that's right there.)

Some of these negative traits seem to be mediated by beliefs about gender. Fancy that:

The most distressing finding in this study was that an unrestricted sociosexual orientation was strongly related to a greater use of aggression in sexual relationships for men. Unrestricted men reported a history of using aggression in their sexual relationships to a greater extent than did restricted men. However, the relationship between sociosexuality and sexual aggression was moderated by coercive attitudes. For men who rejected coercive and stereotypical statements about women and sexuality, sociosexuality was unrelated to sexual aggression, but for men who endorsed these beliefs, an unrestricted sociosexual orientation was related to increased sexual aggression perpetration.

Apparently sociosexually unrestricted women are more likely to have fantasies about dominance but I haven't anecdotally noticed that as a trend. There seem to be sexually submissive women who are into having sex with lots of men and things like that (like casual group sex with lots of men also.) There aren't a lot of women who talk about dominant fantasies in general and I think a bunch who do online are more inhibited irl. But I guess there probably are a bunch who are more extroverted and have more sex as well around. I mean it's not going to fucking annoy me like the Andrew Tate's of the world lol so I wouldn't notice as much.

This paper's discussion is very stereotypical lol:

A second possibility is that the women in our sample possessed higher levels of one or more unmeasured moderating variables. According to this explanation, both unrestricted women and men will aggress sexually unless a moderating
attitude or trait is present. For men, one important moderating variable was coercive attitudes. Sociosexuality was associated with sexual aggression only for men who had high levels of coercive attitudes. For women, another variable might be more important. One possible candidate variable is responsibility. Winter (1988; Winter & Barenbaum, 1985) has found that the aggressiveness associated with high power motivation is often absent in people high in responsibility. There is also some suggestion that people have been responsible for caring for children (in our culture, mostly women) tend to score higher in responsibility. Perhaps the women in our sample had relatively high levels of responsibility, and it was this responsibility that kept the unrestricted women's aggressiveness within the realm of fantasy.

A final possibility is that sociosexuality is enacted differently in women than in men. Men may play out their sociosexuality as narcissistic Don Juans, expressing little or no empathy for the women they encounter, perhaps even trying to hurt and humiliate them. Women, on the other hand, may enact their sociosexuality in a manner similar to that displayed by the Samantha Jones character in the television program Sex and the City. Samantha is shallow and unable to commit emotionally, but when having sex, she thinks of her partner's needs as well as her own. She fits Reise and Wright's (1996) characterization: fun, self- absorbed, and shallow, but not hostile, violent, or unkind.

Literally bringing up fictional characters lol....

We can think of several explanations for the gender difference in the correlation between sociosexuality and aggressive sexual behavior. The first explanation concerns measurement issues: the aggressive sexual behavior inventory was designed to measure men's sexual aggression against women. It may be that women's sexual aggression against men takes a different form than men's sexual aggression against women, and that a different scale is necessary to measure female sexual aggression accurately. We note, however, that Zurbriggen (2000) found correlations for women between this scale and relevant personality variables, suggesting that the aggressive sexual behavior inventory can be a valid measure of sexual aggression in women

^ That would make sense though and seems like an issue in research.

In women, sociosexuality was unrelated (at the zero-order level) to sexual aggression. Instead, it was related to sexual fantasies of dominance. By engaging in casual sex, unrestricted women are violating the traditional feminine gender role that emphasizes monogamy and emotional commitment. In their fantasies, they are also violating the traditional gender role of compliance and passivity and are reacting assertively and aggressively.

I also think this means that actual harem dynamics would be quite rare at least in 'WEIRD' populations - which all this research almost certainly is based on and likely doesn't apply everywhere else (and of course they've not been that common here for a long time.) Because I think most unrestricted women won't tolerate the power dynamic. And those psychopathic guys are mostly trying to trick virgins into fucking them anyway. I don't even know if these two populations interact all that often lol.

Anyway...

TBH as crude as you put it, you're not wrong. It is sad that people will not listen to what you're saying because it's "not nice". Rather they should hear it for the simple thing we all know...that it's true!

I just don't think it's that uncomplicated actually but there are definitely some people you should stay away from.

No man aims to come home to his woman and ask "hey honey, did you get to meet some random dudes at the bar today and have an exciting group orgy? That's great, glad you had fun. Brought home some Chinese so we can watch Star Wars 13 together and cuddle. Ooooh, you smell like semen, go take a shower girl." And any man that does find interest in that is not the kind of man that will devote himself to provide and protect for that family, because inherently speaking, that family can be replaced in a matter of minutes by anybody else that is willing to spread their legs.

Yeah but again they're not women he's talking about. You're having to default to heteronormative gender roles and research shows that only straight men experience more sexual than emotional jealousy and there are differences there.

The point is that either it IS crude or rather it's so basal that the very idea that we're even having the conversation should have us shitting our britches or grabbing the torches and pitchforks.

This is OLD. It's thousands of years old for western society. We just don't do that. The exceptions are always considered BAD.

Being that the West beats the [BEEP] out of the "East", I'm betting it's better this way and we should not [BEEP] with such core precepts... Also a bunch of other reasons, but this one is sufficiently ominous.

Please calm the [BEEP] down.

Seriously lol:

It only goes one place. That place is child brides and terrorist militias. This [BEEP] does not exist in a vacuum. The whole social order thing, the SOCIAL enforcement of norms even to the point of LAW is explicitly to prevent such atrocities.

They are psychopaths. It is a clinical term and I SAID AND MEAN it in the clinical sense.It's not a well understood term but it effectively ends up meaning the Machiavellian portion of the triad more than anything. They USE people as one uses tools or animals.

It's the sort of [BEEP] that has a man OWN SLAVES, FATHER SLAVES VIA RAPE, and then SELL HIS CHILDREN. Because the reality is that HE KNOWS THEY ARE PEOPLE! His brain does not FORGET that little detail. It's not magically hand-waved away in the mind. He still KNOWS it in his core. He can't NOT know. It's older than breathing. "Those are mine. I made those."

And yet he does it, because he's a psychopath that can turn off that connection, that core programming, to get what he wants. Same deal. These people want sex. They use people for sex. They turn off that human connection to get what they want.

This seems like a hyperbolic assumption. There are so many variables to consider as well and cultural norms and policing. Those cultures involved less policing of men than we do now so I don't think men are going to get away with that on any significant scale.

You really can't look at any other country or time period and make a definitive conclusion when there are so many potential variables.

Anyway I guess his sort of intense reaction to things is spreading to at least some of his followers. Maybe not everyone who deviates from x, y, z norm is completely evil? I dunno.

I mean I don't mind if people think I'm kind of evil because I think that's accurate but they have to get the percentage right.

Also this is pretty fascinating:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....78023119836000

Recent research challenges the universality of the dominance penalty and suggests that race and gender intersect to differentially shape reactions to authoritative behavior. In particular, research that takes an intersectional account has highlighted distinct reactions to dominance behavior exhibited by black Americans compared with white Americans (Livingston and Pearce 2009; Livingston, Rosette, and Washington 2012; Pedulla 2014). For example, Livingston et al. (2012) showed that black women who demonstrate high levels of competence face less backlash when they behave authoritatively than do comparable white women or black men. One explanation for this is that nonwhite women receive more lenience for their dominance behavior because people with multiple subordinate identities experience social invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach 2008 ). Thus, nonwhite women's behavior is generally less seen, heard, or recalled (Sesko and Biernat 2010). Another (not necessarily competing) explanation emphasizes differences in the content of prescriptive stereotypes for black and white women. The argument is that race and gender intersect to create unique stereotypic expectations of black women that are more in keeping with strong leadership styles (Binion 1990; Reynolds-Dobbs, Thomas, and Harrison 2008 ). In this conceptualization, because stereotypes hold black Americans to be more aggressive (Sniderman and Piazza 1993:45), black women?s authoritative behavior is read as stereotype consistent, whereas white women?s is read as stereotype violating and thus more likely to elicit backlash.

Because gender relations are hierarchical, displaying appropriate femininity means conforming to norms that prescribe lower status and deferential behavioral interchange patterns (Berger et al. 1977; Ridgeway 2011). Violating these behavioral norms leads to the dominance penalty that research has documented for white women (Rudman et al. 2012). Likewise, because race relations are also hierarchical and black men are seen as prototypical of their race, research has shown that black men face a dominance penalty and have been shown to be more accepted as managers and leaders when they possess less traditionally masculine attributes, such as being gay (Pedulla 2014) or baby-faced (Livingston and Pearce 2009). But nonwhite women occupy dually subordinate race and gender identities. As Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz (2013) put it, they are "doubly off-diagonal." Therefore, their dominance behavior may not be perceived as norm-violating in the same way as it is for white women and black men.

Our results also have practical implications. We find that the white woman receives a dominance penalty and the Asian woman is perceived as less fit for leadership regardless of behavioral style. The fact that behavioral style does not attenuate gender bias in this study suggests that when competence is firmly established, white women may not avoid backlash by being nicer and Asian women may not avoid questions about their leadership by being more assertive. Future research should investigate whether there are conditions in which behavioral style might reduce the impact of negative stereotypes.

We also find that Asian men do not experience bias in this context. This is good news, but it is important that future research examine whether our findings would hold in other workplace contexts. Asian men are well represented in the technical workforce of Silicon Valley but underrepresented at executive levels (Gee, Peck, and Wong 2015). Because Asian men are stereotyped as more feminine and deferential than other men, workplaces that privilege aggressive leadership styles (e.g., law firms, Fortune 500 companies, technology startups) may be sites for bias against Asian men.

In this study, we focus on the effects of intersectional "invisibility" in workplace contexts in which women of color are evaluated for job promotion. We argue that even in contexts when the candidate is seen or cannot be ignored (e.g., when the candidate is the only person applying for a promotion or when giving a presentation), being dually subordinate and nonprototypical on race and gender can mean that the content and quality of his or her contributions are less likely to be remembered. This relative invisibility presents freedoms and binds for women of color. One ironic freedom is that acting dominant, a behavior that violates gender stereotypes and often triggers backlash reactions against white women, less often rises to the level of being noticed and punished. It is less likely to get coded as a gender norm violation (Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz 2013). This is in part because the success of women of color is less threatening to existing status hierarchies. Social dominance theorists have long argued that discrimination is greater against out-group men than women because men pose a larger threat to the existing status hierarchy (Sidanius and Pratto 1999). Rudman et al. (2012) showed that backlash is not simply a negative reaction to counter-stereotypical behavior but is a negative reaction to behavior challenging prescriptive stereotypes that function to maintain men's relative advantages. Thus, even when nonwhite women's dominance behavior is visible, it may not elicit a backlash reaction because it does less to threaten the status hierarchy.

Experimental studies focused on evaluations of black female leaders provide evidence that the advantages and disadvantages of intersectional invisibility are related to subgroup stereotypes. For example, because stereotypes hold black Americans to be less competent than white Americans and hold women to be less competent than men, black women are punished more harshly for poor performance than their white and male counterparts (Rosette and Livingston 2012; Settles 2006). However, when black women's competence has been firmly established (e.g., with an elite graduate degree), they face less backlash for authoritative behavior and are evaluated as better leaders than white women (Livingston et al. 2012; Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach 2008 ). Stereotypes of black Americans as strong, aggressive, and masculine overlap with expectations for prototypical leaders. As such, highly competent black women leaders' relative invisibility may protect against backlash, while stereotypes about their more assertive interpersonal style might make them seem like a better fit for leadership. If this is the case, it has implications for groups, such as Asian Americans, who are stereotyped as highly deferential and feminine.

Second, by expanding the scope of recent intersectional inquiries to include reactions to Asians and Asian Americans, our study has implications for how the content of various racial stereotypes differentially shapes disadvantages. Although women of color may struggle more than white women to be heard and seen in the workplace, stereotypes that associate Asian Americans with subservience and black Americans with lower competence have different implications for how visibility and invisibility affects performance evaluations. For example, research shows that black women who lead successful organizations are evaluated comparably with their white and/or male counterparts, while black female leaders of failing organizations are evaluated more harshly (Rosette and Livingston 2012). In contrast to black women, whose visibility is heightened by a competence-related error that aligns succinctly with stereotypes about their race (and gender), Asian women?s invisibility appears to be exacerbated by stereotypes about their subservience (hence unsuitable as leaders), even though they are stereotyped and perceived as competent.

Our results also have practical implications. We find that the white woman receives a dominance penalty and the Asian woman is perceived as less fit for leadership regardless of behavioral style. The fact that behavioral style does not attenuate gender bias in this study suggests that when competence is firmly established, white women may not avoid backlash by being nicer and Asian women may not avoid questions about their leadership by being more assertive. Future research should investigate whether there are conditions in which behavioral style might reduce the impact of negative stereotypes.

So basically competence is pretty important for black women. White women are penalised for expressing dominant attitudes, black men for being masculine, and Asian women are always viewed as less capable leaders. Asian men don't seem to experience that bias at least in the roles they were looking at.

For example, prototypical members are more likely to be recognized and categorized as group members, and their contributions are more likely to be recalled than nonprototypical members of social groups (Zrate and Smith 1990). As a consequence, those who most closely embody the prototypical American man and women (i.e., white men and women) are the most strongly associated with gender stereotypes and, ironically, are expected to behave in more gender stereotypic ways (Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz 2013).

I actually don't find most of these findings surprising though honestly besides the one about Asian men I would have assumed they'd experience some penalty. Doubt anyone's really done research on this in the UK but would be interested. I think in the UK especially accents are a huge deal.

[Nyctophilia]

The editing on this video is annoying (also the thumbnail) but it's really interesting to see where the line is with people and Jordan Peterson like this guy was annoyed by his response to Netanyahu:

I struggled with depression for so long, and I always looked up to this guy, I was pretty disgusted when I saw his tweets! Absolutely disgusting

But these tweets don't seem out of character based on stuff I've seen him say.

Of course people don't pay attention to him all the time but yeah it's sort of weird that he's been talking for so many years now and people are still like 'this shows his true colours' only in 2023 lol. Realistically that's probably not the case and just for effect.

he gave me the creeps from the start

He never really provoked that reaction from me. He comes across as someone who is caring and empathetic but also very neurotic. At least on the surface but when you dig deeper it's a kind of selective empathy. He misunderstands certain topics he talks about a lot or misrepresents certain things like some of his comments about trans kids. I can also see Gabor Mate's point though about how he encourages repression and that he has a lot of rage. It didn't occur to me initially but he seems angry a lot and also just very emotional in general obviously. I don't really want to criticise him for that though especially because:

Hes like a like a girl who couldnt handle her emotions. How could you advocate "send them to hell" as a public figure after pretending to build bridges between religions

...but it seems contagious in his audience to some degree. Like that poster on reddit from my previous post.

Also he's never really been a fan of Islam and has said that for years. So yeah with I think with one recent exception I vaguely remember where he made some video addressing Muslims the pattern from him is in general to not do that with Islam.

He was always a psychopath, his mask just fell off
And I'm glad he showed his true colors. So many sheeps were worshipping him already

Really... He goes about with machine guns killing innocent people? He is a man with no feelings at all for other people. A psychopath. That is a FACT is it? What a ridiculous thing to say.

I don't think he's psychopathic at all but he's obsessed with calling other people he disagrees with politically psychopaths (though the definition isn't just people who go around killing people no,) and I think it over his issues with people on social media where he was being harassed by certain anonymous accounts on twitter... Though a lot of those accounts at the time were actually far right I guess and anti semitic which I think is also why he's taking this issue so personally because it's kind of lumped together for him. But since then he's just been on a quest to frame all his critics as psychopathic and narcissistic and also to dehumanise people with some of the language he uses. Like Trudeau is a narcissist according to him and Elliot Page. He's especially bothered by Canadians I guess.

Ultimately I don't think he could be a very good psychologist because I don't think you can have this kind of intense aggressive fear and anger response to certain types of people and personalities and be a good psychologist. I mean it's a common response but not everyone can be a good psychologist. How are you supposed to work with psychopaths, or even people with psychopathic traits, or even politically left wing people, male feminists, some men who attend female protests I guess?

Some of the men I've seen at female dominated protests would make my blood run cold

"We're your allies"

I don't think so
You bloody psychopaths

[quote tweeting someone who quoted him saying 'if you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of.]

bisexual women, possibly other bisexual people, people who are sociosexually unrestricted, women who use instagram, trans people who talk openly about their transition with a significant online following, people who post anonymously online - the list of people he calls psychopaths and narcissists (sometimes interchangeably,) is getting longer and longer lol. How are you supposed to work with those people If you view them in the way he does? He just compartmentalises or?



Jordan are you talking to me or the guys I want to [BEEP]? You can talk to me but I can't allow this cockblocking. He's also not a traditionally masculine man in some ways so it's getting a bit old.

Apparently he was legally required to take social media training which I don't understand the legal specifics of that so not addressing that but it does make sense that he might benefit from that and also a therapist ironically.

Also that twitter thread lol where he talks about male feminists:

Stoicism is a characteristic of tough men. The inability to control emotions is a characteristic of weak men. Biology has time tested these attributes.

...You were quoting Jordan Peterson...

Presentation = kind, supportive

Motive = gaining an edge on courageous men

^ this image is dumb. There are obviously species of animal where certain male morphs disguise themselves to avoid detection and aggression from other males like certain snakes or this species of bird I think are fun:

This cryptic male, or "faeder" (Old English "father") obtains access to mating territories together with the females, and "steals" matings when the females crouch to solicit copulation.[11] The faeder moults into the prenuptial male plumage with striped feathers, but does not go on to develop the ornamental feathers of the more common males. As described above, this stage is thought to show the original male breeding plumage, before other male types evolved. A faeder can be distinguished in the hand by its wing length, which is intermediate between those of displaying males and females.[39] Despite their feminine appearance, the faeders migrate with the larger lekking males and spend the winter with them.[40] The faeders are sometimes mounted by independent or satellite males, but are as often "on top" in homosexual mountings as the ruffed males, suggesting that their true identity is known by the other males. Females never mount males.[11] Females often seem to prefer mating with faeders to copulation with the more common males, and those males also copulate with faeders (and vice versa) relatively more often than with females. The homosexual copulations may attract females to the lek, like the presence of satellite males.[41]

But the examples they use here are all species where they predate on other animals for food and then just male feminists. Well they're not eating the women, generally speaking. Also the bird species comparison wouldn't work because they're very popular and not invisible anyway much closer to trans women and chasers. The rapey orangutan comparison Jordan likes to go with would fit better with the stereotype they're going for, but I think this explanation makes more sense to me:

"I see trad people, walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're trad."

[...]

Combining the two to suggest that our politics are in part both innate and biological might seem like a leap, but it's far more supported than is commonly known. For example, the closest we can ethically get to controlled human genetic testing is through twin studies, and the numbers bear out that monozygotic twins are much more likely to share the same political temperament than dizygotic twins.

This suggests that if someone is predisposed towards conservatism, but is raised in a 100% progressive environment, their innate political tendencies are still going to come out. It would be similar to a gay person who cannot change their sexuality despite being raised in a strictly Christian environment. If there is no room for reflection and self-expression, it may result in a life of repression and denial. This is best exemplified by the loudly homophobic priest who's eventually caught doing meth with a gay prostitute.

A big sign that we are onto something is that this stereotype has already found its millennial counterpart: that of the vocal male feminist who is discovered to have creeped on or sexually assaulted women, aka the Whedon Effect. It's a trope that has appeared in the ultra-liberal scene of Hollywood, as well as with opponents of the loudly-claimed-to-be-misogynist GamerGate. Note that I'm not implying that conservative tendencies imply misogyny. Rather, I'm suggesting that a man who is predisposed to acting in a dominating or paternal role towards women but represses it, will likely turn into an abuser when their urges boil over, as their protective stance turns possessive.

For reference, male feminists falsely embed themselves in the male hierarchy by becoming active in women's causes and lying in wait to prey on vulnerable, trusting women.

How would that embed them in the male hierarchy?

Anyway women including feminists generally tear the men doing that apart especially these days:



This is a pretty great song about Twiggy Ramirez actually:



She was in an abusive relationship with him and he raped her allegedly.

aren't feminists the ultimate in predators disguised as victims though? The male feminists steak your thunder and will never be accepted by you. Meanwhile female MRA's are accepted whole heartedly. Curious 🤔

Well no one can decide who the real predators are apparently. Not even Jordan Peterson. Just as long as it's someone you ideologically disagree with. Lol. Feminists are often quite disagreeable though so they are probably less trusting on average especially of men... But the more aggressive activist group aren't necessarily the targets. He also can't seem to decide what women should do with predators:



I guess Tumblr will just stick them in a terrarium and hand feed them lettuce like a turtle. Or go on a joint murder spree with them. Either/or. Too edgy? Almost.

So, not really male feminists but rather predators. Are you saying that males who support feminist causes, by their very nature predators?

Yes. Why?
Men are predators

(this tweet was written by a man btw.)

Glad we cleared that up guess there's no issue then.

Police will tell you that consistently the worst murder crime scenes they ever see involve homosexual men.

Very relevant to this thread. Homosexual men are known for trying to have sex with women. And this isn't even true.

Dear God this circle on twitter are retarded.

They want women to be afraid of big burly men but big burly men have been protectors for all of mankind

Well I think women tend not to be attracted to really big builds because that's sort of novel especially body builders. I've noticed women associate certain builds with narcissism or other negative traits. Lol obviously there's also a study for that (not really surprised it's the UK lol....):

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...ions-Among-Men

The present study tested the hypothesis, derived from feminist perspectives on body image, that men's greater endorsement of sexist attitudes and objectification of women would be associated with their own drive for muscularity. A total of 327 British men completed scales measuring their drive for muscularity, sexist attitudes, hostility toward women, objectification of women, and key demographics. Results showed that greater drive for muscularity was significantly predicted by stronger objectification of women, hostility toward women, and sexist attitudes, once men's age and body mass index had been taken into account. These results suggest that oppressive beliefs held by men are associated with a desire for a more muscular physique. Implications for theoretical models seeking to explain drive for muscularity among men are discussed in conclusion.

That sample size seems a bit shit.

I don't remember ever seeing a really muscular guy irl. No stray influencers wandering around demanding I rate them 10/10 here lol. I probably have at some point but I just can't think of a time where I really noticed. Except for once as a kid when this guy who might have been the world's strongest man came to school and pulled a bus on his own. I might have imagined that though.

And there's an association between high testosterone and infidelity supposedly (London again yup lol):

Men with high testosterone are more likely to cheat on their partners, new research has suggested.

Meanwhile in women, the hormone has been linked with solo sex, or lesbian flings. While there are many theories about why men and women cheat, new research has shed some light on the role that increased levels of testosterone in men could play in that particular sexual behaviour.

"Testosterone's marked link with masturbation among women, in the absence of an observed link with aspects of heterosexual partnered sex, may be seen as consistent with the notion of a stronger moderating effect of social factors on hormonal influences on women's behaviour."

So you're saying the thing that people generally bring up as meaning you have low testosterone if you're a man actually means you have high testosterone if you're a woman? That's hilarious.

Although I suppose it would make sense. If you consider it a continuum which is probably not how that works, and also don't think that stereotype regarding men is even backed up by anything.

This is true. They are usually conniving little snakes that are continuously plotting their revenge on Alpha males and the women who love them

Tbf I'm not a feminist really (never claimed to be either,) and I think it's fun to plot revenge on 'alpha males' too lol. But that only really started after I started reading alpha male (tm)'s amazing opinions online.

I don't think I can take anyone who calls themselves an alpha male seriously. If you have to refer to yourself as such no you aren't.

[Doseone]

Ignorance is what makes the world interesting. If we knew everything, life would be boring. There is value in discovery. There's nothing like experiencing something good for the first time.

[Nyctophilia]

Femboys are fundamentally incapable of being attractive. This rancid degenerate crossdressing sub"culture" makes any sane person sick to their stomach.

We should honestly ban 'femboyism' immediately, and put these disturbed individuals in psychiatric hospitals.

I don't know this seems excessive I think they're trying to get people to post pics. Can never take this seriously on twitter at this point.

Also F1nn5ter responded to this saying 'counterpoint' with a photo lol. Of course.

Because women wearing pants is not disgusting. Men wearing dresses however, is.

No but I agree they should wear crop tops and mini skirts or short shorts.

Wrong. I'm disgusted by these degenerates. But contrary to what some people think, I support gay rights.

Many such cases.

Lol the same account:

Tomboy fetishism is just men broken by motherly abandonment, yearning for the motherly warmth they never had, by wanting to [BEEP] it.

Wanting a "muscle mommy" is just another modern psychosexual Freudian slip. There's no way a man without mommy issues would ever desire this:

I see you're branching out.

Exactly. I have friends who are into tomboys. And they all have mummy issues, and admit to that lack of warmth in their childhood being the source of their tomboy fetishism.

Doesn't really make sense as tomboys aren't motherly or warm at all.

Goths are so trashy it's almost unbelievable. They're degenerate, debaucherous, covered in tattoos, and addicted to drugs.

How anyone can be attracted to these obscenely salacious madwomen who bask in wanton paganry is beyond me.

The never ending bait continues. Just pointedly going for all those meme subcultures that were made into fast food takeaways. And he's still very wrong. Also ignoring male goths mysteriously. And posting images that aren't stereotypical gothic fashion and just alternative. And no mention of music. 0/10





Is it because they have an album called Pornography lol?

Give me your eyes that I might see
The blind man kissing my hands
The sun is humming, my head turns to dust
As he plays on his knees
(As he plays on his knees)
And the sand and the sea grows
I close my eyes
Move slowly through drowning waves
Going away on a strange day

It does sound like a surreal Dali painting too I suppose.









This is the gross, internet, California, USA-ization of goth.

A real goth girl is pale, walking the moors in widows weeds, while the Cure's "Charlotte Sometimes" plays on the soundtrack.

No A Forest, Burn, The entire Pornography album, Disintegration etc.

Also I see he's one of those guys lol:

Soon a large majority of Gen Z women will be single, lonely and childless by the age of 30.

If we don't ensure that Gen Z women get married and raise families, Western Civilisation will end.

Their happiness is our cause. If we let them die alone, the West will perish with them.

We must first and foremost tackle cost of living. Already, a majority of 30yrs in England are in the aforementioned demographic. If something isn't done soon, Neo-Liberalism will have destroyed the West.

You could start by not going after androgynous men and well everyone else under the sun.

Lol he keeps tagging the sigma female like she's going to agree when she spends so much time working out and her entire persona is built around female masculinity...

The sad thing is he isn't really trolling.

i think he wants kira to see this guys

Lol definitely.

[Doseone]

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will: https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scient...dont-free.html

Hinduism knew this thousands of years ago. From the Bhagavad Gita:
"All activities are carried out by the three modes of material nature. But in ignorance, the soul, deluded by false identification with the body, thinks of itself as the doer."

[Nyctophilia]

Goths are so trashy it's almost unbelievable. They're degenerate, debaucherous, covered in tattoos, and addicted to drugs.

How anyone can be attracted to these obscenely salacious madwomen who bask in wanton paganry is beyond me.

No one cares about goth men. And I'm attracted to women.

Citation needed.

I'm still annoyed by this honestly and the fact he didn't even acknowledge the music. He's some kind of reactionary socialist but thinks of tomboys, femboys and goths as being this capitalistic very online 2D memeplex thing like 'goth ihop' that are purely fetishes and hasn't even acknowledged the fucking music.... Because if he sees something sexual or that can be sexualised he's incapable of separating the two. It's ironic. Especially from someone claiming to be a 'democratic socialist.' Since it's just a capitalistic way of viewing things. He only knows the 'goth ihop,' type memes.

And I genuinely prefer bigots who hate gay people to people who just hate androgynous people like women who build muscles and men in dresses. They are always the worst kind of delusional hypocrites. 'You can be gay as long as you're not gay' since on average homosexual people have more androgynous brains...

Femboy is just a term people invented because there was no non-insulting version of tomboy and it was instantly turned into a fetish thing since it was created post internet so they were basically fucked from this pov. If you only view feminine men as some kind of hypersexual degenerate thing like they don't exist outside of that, you're really telling on yourself.

He retweeted someone saying that he misses when 'tomboys were just women who wore men's clothing.' Firstly women who work out a lot and try to build muscles have always existed. And they're so retarded they don't even realise that they just accept whatever is seen as normal now. That's how limited conservative people are. 20-40 years from now most of this will be normal and they're going to be freaking about something else.... Also the way most cishetmen hate androgynous men has always pissed me off. And is the real reason a lot of people want to destroy you. So learn quicker.

Also this [BEEP] keeps going on about the UK so I assume he's from the UK and seems nationalistic and anti-immigration somewhat white nationalist-adj, which isn't surprising since his politics are an incoherent mix and Americans follow a pattern even if it's dumb.

We should ban all medically unnecessary breast reductions

"I base all policy decisions on my personal sexual preferences."

I'm trying to avoid being blocked by this guy lol so I've only said a few things to him. People are really trigger happy with blocking. I just find people who are intolerant but keep banging on about Islamists to be racist hypocrites. Do you want Islamism/Sharia culture or Islamism/Sharia culture light with White/Western branding?

Neither thanks!





It takes me less than 5 minutes on twitter now to find people talking about IQ. Like it's constant and all over the platform. This never used to be a major discussion topic:

Can you predict IQ based on grades? One meta-analysis suggests the answer is yes. It found that the correlation between IQ and grades was r = 0.54. That means a scatterplot of the data would look like this:

I bet the dude at 145+ IQ and GPA of 2.3 is an interesting character.

And the person in the 80s with a GPA of 3.8 must be the king of the Grinds!

The correlation is better for people with IQs below 105. Which jives with my experience of public school.

Above 130 interesting.

If you were target shooting, you wouldn't be happy with that group.

Almost no correlation.

It didn't correlate that well for me since most of my grades when leaving were C so average. I got a D in maths the first time I took it at GCSE too. But I scored 119 last time I took an IQ test which tbf I think is upper end of average but then you'd expect more B's I'd think. There were also wide disparities between most of my mock exam results and the final grade. I put in no effort in Religious Education but came out with a B but got like an E or something in the mock exam. That only counted as half a GCSE though but we were all forced to take that course which is really why?

Also was predicted a low grade in graphics but got a C (I was really bad with most of the exams but my coursework got like B grades and maybe an A at one point can't remember, but that was less percentage of overall grade than exam I think can't remember now.) I was predicted an A* in history and got an A on the mock exam and got A* in all the coursework, but got a B overall because I obviously messed up that exam. Think some of my other grades were low too? But can't remember now. I was predicted a B in science at one point because I was good at biology but less good in other subjects but I got a C. So predictions weren't great in general for me. And also I'm really inconsistent with exams. But it's probably more that some teachers were biased ni one direction or another lol.

But my IQ also increased over the years and who knows when it did most likely after school. I just think it's useless for many people.

Instead of trying to pursue something related to religious education of history though I just tried to study game development related topics and then dropped out of society and became a YouTuber haha. Don't do that.

Reminder, IQ is a better predictor of job performance than grades or years of education/degrees. A high IQ high school grad is usually a better employee then a low iq PhD

Defying your rules again. I think personality is more relevant in most cases.

Need to compound with conscientiousness to see more of the picture.

Yeah something like that because I find it almost impossible to make myself do anything (sometimes even things I enjoy,) and I was also bad at planning and just came up with unrealistic goals for various projects etc. Possibly undiagnosed ADHD.

It means that 54% of grades can be explained by IQ. The other 46% is presumably study habits, educational history, effort, etc. in short IQ is the most important factor, more important than anything else.

That's only about 50% then.

this just backs up what we already know:
Asians highest IQ, grades, income
blacks: lowest IQ, grades, income

It's not very intelligent to structure a society where people's self worth is tied to their intelligence and income.

In fact none of what you are doing in this tweet thread is remotely intelligent.

Someone knew that:







Notice a pattern? (I actually think the education system is more like the prison system though lol, especially if you come from a not-so-great town.)

If you maximise competition among unequal people you create an unstable system that will inevitably collapse. 'Please don't kill us' they secretly beg as they continue to brag and view those who don't succeed in life with contempt.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd assume the people who are doing this, are doing this (either subconsciously or consciously,) specifically to destabilise the society they live in or to destabilise other countries. Possibly because they're bored. You can't really play a zero sum game with society though.

Twitter seems particularly set up to encourage envy and to destabilise various cultures. Especially America because Americans use that website the most. A lot of people globally have contempt for America and Americans.

And the richest man on the planet, owns the website.

Hmmmmmmm.

Unfortunately twitter isn't the problem. Twitter is a symptom.

[Nyctophilia]

Also I've had various skin issues for years (esp on my face, also seems partly hormonal,) and had some issues with eye cysts in my early 20s that are back atm which is annoying. I have this microwavable eye bag thing that worked last time in getting rid of this lump I had that was stuck around for a long time even after it was no longer sore.

I tried various things suggested to me by doctors and this eye cream stuff and nothing really worked but then I stumbled on that eye bag while googling things and it worked which was good timing because they were considering surgery lol. I didn't want to do that since it was a mostly cosmetic issue at that point. I think I heard them mention that I have blepharitis. For some reason this only came up when I went to the hospital and not my GP the several times I did before then.

I think the reason one of my other methods didn't work was because it didn't reach the right temperature. I was just using hot water but it wasn't hot enough.

Anyway hopefully the soreness + swelling goes away soon.

[Nyctophilia]

It's not very intelligent to structure a society where people's self worth is tied to their intelligence and income.

In fact none of what you are doing in this tweet thread is remotely intelligent.

[...]

Unfortunately twitter isn't the problem. Twitter is a symptom.

It's not just the IQ thing the website really is just an endless stream of this sort of thing now:

This generation is completely doomed. They can't even hold a 9-5 job without having a mental breakdown.

It's much much worse than this. I employ them and I could tell you a story about 1 they/them/he/thing that went nonverbal on us mid shift, due to a small customer question, and communicated by typing in notepad on phone and showing us.

Did you type back saying 'YOU'RE FIRED!'

Unfortunately no. It's really hard out there for small business. We rely on the young labor force and they're essentially unreliable. You pretty much must accept anything remotely functional that applies, and then allow nature to take course; while you suffer.

Resumes with pronouns go in the trash. It's a really easy way to screen out people who are toxic to a positive and operational workplace.

People pointed out that person is probably autistic and yeah they probably are. But he's got a response for that lol:

There are people with special needs, and then there are people who put themselves on the spectrum. You'll just have to take my word that this was 100% self-diagnosis and bafoonery.

Actually most aren't diagnosed especially if afab. What they noticed is trans and especially genderqueer/non-binary people often have a high rate of associated traits and symptoms when tested:

Traits associated with autism and gender variance co-occur even among typical children, a new study suggests1. The finding may ease some of the skepticism about the overlap between autism and gender nonconformity.

They've now found this in both clinical and non clinical populations:

But most previous studies have probed the relationship among people who sought gender-related medical care -- often for gender dysphoria, a condition in which the 'mismatch' between gender identity and sex assigned at birth causes significant distress. That cohort doesn’t represent the full scope of gender-diverse people, says Aron Janssen, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved in the work.

"It's so vital to understand this question outside of the clinical context," Janssen says. “A more naturalistic study with this many participants outside of a clinical context really does provide a lot of support for this overlap.”

[...]

Most of these studies analyzed either autism traits among people who visit gender clinics or gender variance among people diagnosed with autism. By contrast, the new work reveals an association between gender variance and autism traits among 6- to 12-year-old children in the general population.

The study is the first to suggest this “more ubiquitous pattern,” says lead researcher Doug VanderLaan, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Toronto Mississauga in Canada.

About 30,000, or 5 percent, of the cisgender people in the study have autism, the researchers found, whereas 895, or 24 percent, of the gender-diverse people do.

Gender-diverse people also report, on average, more traits associated with autism, such as sensory difficulties, pattern-recognition skills and lower rates of empathy -- or accurately understanding and responding to another person's emotional state. And they are five times as likely to suspect they have undiagnosed autism as cis people are, based on one dataset of 1,803 people whose survey included this question.

Some studies have indicated that autistic women have lower rates of heterosexual orientation than autistic men do.[22][21] This was also corroborated by an online survey conducted by the University of Cambridge and published in Autism Research. That survey suggested that autistic women had a wider range of sexual identification than both non-autistic women and autistic men. Younger respondents had a higher likelihood for reporting themselves as homosexual than did older respondents.[23] According to a 2021 review, some studies indicated that autistic women were about three to four times as likely to be bisexual when compared to non-autistic women.[21]

Steven Stagg and Jaime Vincent of Anglia Ruskin University concluded in September 2019 that some of those seeking advice and help for their gender identity may be autistic, whether diagnosed or not, with these abilities impeding possible support, and urged clinicians treating individuals who are transgender or non-binary, especially those assigned female at birth, to consider whether they have undiagnosed ASD.[43]

Other researchers have noted the prevalence of autistic traits among those who identify as non-binary or genderqueer.[43] Two Warwick University researchers, utilizing data from 446 UK adult respondents, concluded in January 2016 that, based on their sample, genderqueer individuals were more likely to be autistic than any other group with gender dysphoria.[49][50]

In a 2021 study on autistic camouflaging, gender-diverse autistic adults were found to use more autistic camouflaging than cisgender autistic adults.[56]

A January 2023 study on trans and non-binary adults found that higher autistic traits and higher gender minority stress were correlated with poorer mental health outcomes.[57]

This is often true btw my brother's friend is actually diagnosed autistic and he has a really high pitched voice and also had a bunch of feminine interests when we were teenagers like enjoying fanfiction and being into crystals at one point like nerdy masculine interests, but also nerdy feminine interest:

MCCLURG: Dr. Lawrence Fung is a psychiatrist at Stanford University. He is studying why people who are transgender or nonbinary are also more likely to have autism. He says hormones may be a factor.

FUNG: Females on the spectrum seem to have more testosterone and masculine features on their faces. On the other hand, males on the autism spectrum - they have more feminine features.

MCCLURG: For example, clinicians have noticed that males with autism can have a high-pitched voice. Fung's research also shows that the brains of autistic men and autistic women are different. The part of the brain responsible for sensory and motor functions may hold the key to this sex difference. Eventually, neuroscience could help explain why people with autism are more likely to question their sex assigned at birth. There is a clear overlap between these groups, but a lot more research is needed to understand the roots of what could be at play. Danielle Sullivan is curious what scientists will discover about her lived experience.

The last time I saw him irl in 2018 he just randomly started talking about how he felt like he couldn't express himself back in high school in regards to his interest in fashion etc, among other topics.

Even putting aside trans and non-binary people (and he isn't part of either group,) there seems to be a significant overlap between gender non-conforming traits and interests and autism. Which makes this general argument so shit.

And I'm really tired of people not taking genetic female people seriously in general. The person who uploaded the video that Ian is complaining about, was also a woman. Everything is framed through this lens where it's like 'you're just making [BEEP] up because you're an evil/bad person.'

That being said this still pisses me off more:

It's disgusting, that's why. Men are supposed to dress like men, not perverted misogynistic images of japanese schoolgirls.

We should honestly ban this debauchery of femboyism immediately, and put these rancid hippies in psychiatric hospitals. Preferably in solitary confinement.

Leave them alone. You fucking prick.

The vengeful aspect of my being is sort of glad that US (and UK,) culture is collapsing. Or it would be if I felt they'd learn from it. No one will, the same personality types will persist and these attitudes will probably always continue.

This is unsustainable and it's just been getting worse since the 70s:



My dad was talking about this younger guy he used to work with (currently about my age.) The last time I visited. He said he was always a good worker with him but not with this other older guy who would always complain about him. He eventually went on to get a much better job too somewhere else but developed substance abuse issues. My dad felt it was because of personal issues he had with his mum having casual sex with various men which she'd bring home, which I guess he must have brought up to him at some point.

My dad is very critical too and was always complaining about other people he worked with, so it's not just that he had low standards in general lol.

Why don't you give us your full name and your place of work so that we can decide who was in the write or wrong after you get reported for discrimination against an autistic person.

Keep calling them things. Fuq these people who don't run a business and don't understand how these pronoun clicks damage the workplace. No fucs given. It weeds out the ones who can't get their hands dirty.

You mean cliques? I'm so glad I never even tried. Well I guess I did for a brief period academically, and then dropped out of this shit.

Reminder that if you're trans 1 in 3 people in the UK won't hire you if they know.

I was actually looking for this tweet though:

By any objective standards, Hamas is a far-right, reactionary, theocratic, fascist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, antisemitic group.

The fact that many Western Leftists sympathize with it, promote its propaganda, repeat its talking points, and/or make excuses for it, will be remembered by future historians as one of the most bizarre features of the 2020s.

So they deserve to be killed and we should all become pro war when we're not? [BEEP] off. Especially [BEEP] off since you're transphobic and have posted lots of transphobic stuff over the past few years.

Half the people living in Gaza are under 18 too which is pretty insane.

There is nothing bizarre about it. The one, the only thing uniting the left is a hatred of white people, and they absolutely consider Jews to be white. Every single "principle" the left has goes right out the window as long as they hate whites.

This is such a ridiculous and incorrect analysis of most people's viewpoint.

Victim complex much, brah? Also wow, the amount of fucking people replying to this who actually think they are smart is fucking embarrassing. As someone who probs talks about iq a lot I'm surprised you're not ashamed yaself having these troglodytes in ya menchies

Oh yes. Definitely.

This was just me today lol:



It's a shame Ethel Cain doesn't like her older material (under other names,) because this one track is great. Like Lady Gaga fused with witch house lol. She took them off spotify a while ago though, and doesn't want people sharing them around I think (unclear though. I think her position on that has changed over time.) I get why she doesn't because it's not serious and silly/comical but it's very entertaining. And I mean this exists:



I think she's scared of being defined by stuff she doesn't think is her best work.

[Nyctophilia]

I agree, female villains are supposed to be safe edgy quirky girlbosses! They can't *actually* be reprehensible and disturbing that's not disney wholesome marvel chungus!!

can we get some more female villains that arent pedophilic groomers

people don't want villains they want grumpy edgy anti-heroes lmao

Yeah or anti-villains.

The Hays Code and it's consequences.

Because of the Hays Code, positive portrayals of homosexual characters were barred, and the only characters in fiction that could be perceived as homosexuals had evil roles and were punished throughout the work.[12] Thus, villains became noted in particular to have effeminate characteristics, behaviors or gestures that could be perceived as LGBTI.[13][14] Disney characters have attracted attention because their films are popular among children.[15][16][17] Examples include:

Governor Ratcliffe in Pocahontas, who is the only male character with makeup, braided hair and bows, and wears pink.
Ursula in The Little Mermaid was inspired by the drag queen Divine.
Scar in The Lion King, who has mannered[clarification needed] gestures.
Captain Hook in Peter Pan.
Hector Barbossa in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
The character 'HIM' in The Powerpuff Girls, who dresses in a tutu and heels.
The Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, as an anti-hero.

The idea of non-explicit [BEEP] coding likely stems from the strict regulations of how [BEEP] characters were able to be portrayed in the early days of film-making. In 1930, the Hays Code was established as a standard for what was allowed to be shown on the big screen.[1] According to the code, films were not allowed to portray "perverse" subjects such as homosexuality, which inevitably led to the portrayal of non-explicit [BEEP] characters. The trend of the inclusivity of [BEEP] characters in a subtextual way likely bled into modern portrayals of [BEEP] characters. One scholar, Jo Johnson, argued that Jerry in the Tom & Jerry cartoons had an androgynous design, even if feminized, and noted a possible homoerotic subtext between Jerry and Tom, especially when there is cross-dressing.[2] Johnson pointed to the 1966 short "Jerry-Go-Round", by Chuck Jones, as having a coded same-sex relationship between Jerry, who was gendered by Jones as female, and a female elephant who wears a pink tutu. She argued that the episode's ending could be read as a "prophetic depiction of Gay Pride".[3] Cade M. Olmstead, an interdisciplinary philosophy scholar, built upon Johnson's work. He argued that Tom and Jerry "subverts normalized gender and sexuality structures" through theatrical play and performance, transgressing the normal construction of gender.[4] Despite the [BEEP] coding in "Bugs Bunny" and "Tom & Jerry" cartoons, as scholars Deborah A. Fisher, Douglas L. Hill, Joel W. Grube, and Enid L. Gruber noted, before 1970, almost no gay characters were on television, and they remained relatively absent "until the 1990s".[5] Continuing from the late 1980s, villains in Disney films which were [BEEP] coded appeared in this decade.[6] Commentary on the treatment of LGBT+ characters in film is made in the 1995 documentary The Celluloid Closet, and is one of the first instances in which the idea of [BEEP] coding is presented to the public.[7]

Disney especially is bad when it comes to agentic female characters who aren't villains. Like Aurora in Sleeping beauty is the most attractive Disney princess (I said what I said she's a 2D character,) but realistically do you want to be Aurora or do you want to have a castle and shapeshift into a dragon to fight the boring guy who no one's going to remember because he's the cartoon equivalent of a Ken doll? Exactly. A lot of people don't want to be Aurora or the various male Disney characters. The most interesting thing about the new Barbie film is it encouraged people to identify with Ken.

I mean a lot of people find the idea of living in the woods, detached from everything an appealing fantasy too. (Like Aurora very #cottagecore.) And a lot of people identified with Matilda as a kid but they were still self inserting as Matilda a lot of the time. Obviously because you watch it when you're a kid, but also because she has magic powers in the work and had various other positive traits that people find aspirational. The villain is still the most masculine female character in the work. Archetypically speaking it's like if someone took Maleficent and made her a kid and the protagonist, added Aurora back in as some kind of feminine mother figure, and then just created a super butch female character who is the new villain. She had to be female and a child because imagine a similar dynamic with adults and it just would never happen in the West. It's like if Loki was suddenly the hero in Marvel and saves ??? (because there's no really feminine characters in the MCU,) from Thor who is evil.

Closest thing I guess (spoilers):



Oh this doesn't have all the bits in it I wanted. It's impossible to find some clips without spoilers in the thumbnail and title.

"you really are the worst, brother"

He's also a comic relief character whose power is reduced in the MCU for story telling reasons. He barely uses magic and predominantly relies on other tools and daggers in the MCU. He shouldn't really be that weak compared to Doctor Strange for example. The same is true for a lot of other characters though in the MCU like Wanda and The Hulk. Probably all of them to some extent I'm not a huge comic book fan but I think they're all disempowered for MCU storyline to varying degrees.

Obviously Squirrel Girl would defeat Thanos as one of the most powerful Marvel characters.

Cracks me up.

All of her adventures within the 616 are canon, which means she’s canonically beaten Thanos and Doom (on multiple occasions); and she’s canonically defeated most of the major superheroes and villains on Earth.

She has canonically claimed to be Unbeatable, on many occasions, and Thor agrees with that assessment. (They are canonically mutuals on Twitter.) As for whether it’s possible for her to be beaten, well… that’s the sort of negative thinking which is not conducive to superheroism. If you go around calling yourself Beatable, then you’re already halfway toward failure.

Could anyone beat Squirrel Girl? We can’t say for sure. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, that doesn’t mean it’s literally impossible. We’ll have to wait and see.

Tbf you don't want to [BEEP] with squirrels:



And this is why Studio Ghibli is much better:



Dragons aren't evil, bishounen characters, more likeable and less 2D male characters who often have character development, female characters can be complex characters who are also not evil. Sassy black cat.

Disney improved over time (and I'm not watching recent films either,) but since they started making films earlier a lot of them are archaic and unappealing.

If you deviate from various tropes Jordan Peterson will apparently have an aneurism:



You don't think women like stories where they save other women? Or men? Really? You don't think this is catering to some desire in a certain demographic of people (not you.)

At least Frozen is new and not rebooting the past. That's a negative cycle people are stuck in right now.

I actually kind of disagree with his assessment of it. It's definitely not an archetypal story in the basic sense, but that doesn't mean that it's bad. It probably was written with the goal of subverting the damsel in distress trope, but that's also not inherently bad. If that makes it propaganda, then it's pretty wispy propaganda. I mean hell, what's wrong with telling a story where the "male hero" doesn't save everything because he's not the main character? He's just there because it's fun to see Anna develop a relationship with someone along side her own adventure that he gets tangled up in and helps with. As long as the overall story is worth telling, it's all fine. Evidently Jordan doesn't feel that Frozen's story was worth telling. I admit that it's not exactly an epic tale that resonates with your sole, but does it need to be?

Yeah no that's not allowed apparently. Everything has to appeal to Jordan Peterson or it's bad lol.

Jordan: I've got something comical to say...
Me: Oh great!
Jordan: The only chance juvenile orangutans have of mating is rape!
Me:

Still the best part of this video.

1:56 I've never heard a better explanation of beta males.

As a guy who used to be incapable and scared of competition, I resorted to making feminism a focus in my life to win some sort of approval from women. It's gross, dishonest, and weak. Focus on yourself, and do what you want/know is right.

competition is for animals that don't do new stuff. and when not enough animals in the society do new stuff, you get the orangutan situation. only one orangutan grows to full size wat? smh

there is nothing new under the sun.

were the engineers who created the iphone thinking and behaving the same way as the engineers before them? lol.

i get what you mean about human nature, but there is always room for creativity. if we all thought EXACTLY the same, then we wouldn't have anything new on this planet at all. no new technology, no new concepts, philosophies, attempted methods of government, etc. i'm not saying the attempts at newness succeed all the time. most of the time they fail, because most people don't go along with it because of basic human nature, like you said

I don’t know what your point is. People have always been the same and we’ve always been competing.

You said there was nothing new under the sun. Then we agreed that there was new stuff, like technology. I think most people throughout human history have been competing, but there is a small minority that eschewed competition in favor of just creating new stuff so we didn't have to compete for the old stuff. I myself fall into the latter category, what about yourself?

Granted, I think that small minority has always been present, so maybe you're right, that's not necessarily new, but the stuff they created was and is new.

No they're right and the obsession with zero sum competition is actually the thing that's destroying the west too imo. I wouldn't expect people who use terms like beta male to really get that though.

People who make new stuff compete too.

They very rarely have this mindset. I actually don't think you can create if you're fixated on competition. Competition is most people's focus now. Most of the people who are super rich and competitive in society steal other people's ideas too honestly.

Disney chronically has dysfunctional families missing the mother or father, in this one both parents are killed off early. Then the older sister attacks the younger, twice, the second time killing her. But the theme of the movie is, let it go. And, as in the remake of Sleeping Beauty, the main male character is the real bad guy. In this one the Prince, in Sleeping Beauty the Father. In fact the father in Sleeping Beauty remake Rapes the evil Faerie (justifying calling God evil although made up in His case), Cuts off her wings (throws satan out of heaven) which makes the woman so angry she steals the baby (to protect her of course). She is cold and distant as a parent, teaches her witchcraft and gives, eventually, loves first kiss. Getting her to attack her own father in his ivory tower (Tower of Babel style "let's storm the castle, and take heaven and kill God.") Lucifer perceives himself to "enlighten" mankind which is really to teach us to sin. In Frozen the Prince (lets say God again) is jealous of the Princess' power and wants to marry her only to get it, then kill her (God knows you shall not surely die, but shall be like Him knowing good from evil - portraying God as jealous of mankind, ridiculous but Eve then Adam fell for it). And of course they did die. Have you met either one?

What drugs do you take?

Maybe I should watch this lol. I haven't watched Maleficent but I know that a lot of older films are essentially just demonising non-conforming women and [BEEP] people so new works often reverse that and many people are uncomfy. You don't need drugs either (as I don't do any lol.) You just have to listen to the crap Christians write (I'm pretty sure the person commenting that YouTube comment is a Christian though the way they've written it makes it slightly confusing,) and that you can find in many places online and what people do with certain archetypes. Satan alternates between being a feminine or perhaps female character aspiring to be treated equally by men, and an outgroup male who threatens ingroup men by 'seducing their women.' And obviously the groups can overlap in the case of a lesbian and the serpent in Eden which is often conflated with Lilith. That's basically it and that's the game everyone is playing.

We had a bunch of hens without a rooster, and one of the hens rose to the top of the pecking order and then she actually grew spurs. She still laid eggs btw, but she also had spurs and the other hens followed her around

That's useless for Jordan Peterson's purposes lol. But while we're all circling around this. This was one of the biggest mistakes the west (tm) ever made:

I really think it's absurdly overblown to call anything that deviates in simple archetypes to be propaganda for the simple reason that it deviates from the norm, especially when disney has already made a massive profit off of these standard archetypes time and time again. What's next, the evils of Shrek? The genetic talk may very well have proper backing, but it didn't really need to be included, as it's essentially a part of an entirely different discussion they're having. I find it fascinating that while Peterson talks about bettering yourself and having the capabilities to be healthy and secure a proper masculine place (and he has very well-thought, positive, methodical ways of achieving that), he also creates in-groups and out-groups that are defined and have a eugenicist like edge. Additionally, there's the ideas he brings forth of taking responsibility for what's around you, yet in the same breath, he will blame generally unnamed boogeymen or "post-modern neomarxists" as the cause of problems. However, my idea might be from just the clips I've seen of him. If anyone has any links to videos that prove me otherwise, I'd really like to see. He's helped a lot of people I know and respect get more in control of their lives, as well as just being an admired speaker within my circle of friends.

His real outgroup is a certain subset of non-conforming and/or powerful feminine people and women because he's scared of emasculation:









This isn't a coincidence because he's a Christian.

Pretty fun though.

Also every storyline anyone comes up with is re-written inside individual people's heads according to their own interpretation and preferences and then they find people with a similar interpretation online and discuss that and create fanfiction and fanart etc. Obviously that predates the internet by a long while but the internet increased the amount that was happening. So most of the stories written by and for men have been re-written by women now who wanted something different from the work and also saw something different in the work. And when you grow up with stuff like that you realise that it doesn't matter anyway. Because you can adopt whatever lens you want for any fictional work. And he absolutely hates that subjectivity but it's going to happen and it happens because not everyone is like him. So this idea of like Frozen upsetting some sacred gender balance in fiction I mean there was no such thing.

This is from a long time ago:

As one of the earliest "fandom" subcultures to emerge, Star Trek and K/S have attracted the attention of academics, particularly those of slash fiction. Henry Jenkins argued that "fandom" subculture, including fan writing, allows underrepresented groups to express their own interests and anxieties via a dominant cultural phenomenon. In this process, fan writings rewrite the original media by expanding on, emphasizing, and filtering the content to various extents. Jenkins claims that the way K/S reappropriates the Star Trek narrative and characters to the fan’s own interpretation is thus done by all fan writings, not just K/S.[22]

Many academics have suggested that K/S slash fiction is not about homosexuality or sex at all. Joanna Russ argued that the women who wrote K/S slash fiction were exploring a want for an idealized relationship where both partners were truly equal, unbound by gender norms. This kind of relationship was difficult to imagine in a heterosexual relationship, and thus K/S was born.[23] Lamb and Veith similarly claimed that an equal relationship was challenging to write into a heterosexual model, and K/S united masculine and feminine traits of both characters to create an "androgynous" combination. Then K/S slash fiction is about transcending gendered norms and relationships.[24] Falzone has suggested that K/S "queers" the original Star Trek narrative, which serves to liberate one from traditional beliefs and, specifically with regards to Star Trek, better imagine the prejudice-free utopia that was envisioned in Star Trek: The Original Series. It also enables fans to push back against corporate media’s control of accepted narratives in the Star Trek universe.[25]

Never shipped them though personally even though I went through a phase of being really into Spock lol. I mean I'm a really bad fan who got into his character because of the reboot trilogy LOL. So by that point Spock/Uhura just made more sense. I'm not in general a big Star Trek fan really although I watched some of the next generation as a kid.

I also used to read lots of slash fanfiction. If I was going to ship him with a male character it would be Bones probably? I often ship people who are rivals or don't get on that well together because it's more interesting. Like Cloud/Sephiroth, L/Light from Death note, Ann/April from Parks and Rec, Jesus/Satan, Ted/Am from I have No Mouth and I must Scream. It's getting worse archetypally send help.

Although I was really into Merlin/Arthur fanfiction at one point and then Loki/Darcy are basically the same character in a lot of ways, also Langley (X-files)/Spencer Reid doesn't really fit that archetype at all. So not always. This isn't an exhaustive list of every fanfic pairing I've read/characters I've shipped there have been so many over the years especially as a teenager tons, but some examples.

It's just this over and over again lol:



So after decades of this, people want villains they can identify with like The Joker, Riddler, Patrick Bateman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Sephiroth, and Loki.

There are other cultural trends too like younger people sympathise more with Frankenstein's monster now and vampires, where as past generations don't.

"Mister writer sir, can I have some girl villain but don’t make her villain, just make her mean but don’t make too mean just make her sweet old girlboss, but remember she’s still a villain mister writer sir!"

This is actually 50% of villains lol (regardless of gender):





Most people realised they weren't supposed to identify with heroes a long time ago lol.



This is basically like an attempt at therapy:

[Nyctophilia]

I think this might be the most random video I've ever stumbled on and at the same time it makes a lot of sense that I was suggested this:

Midwest Emo but it's Jordan Peterson Finally Snapping

He doesn't think feminine people should be monsters. He only thinks masculine people should be monsters. If they're powerful in ways he disagrees with then he dislikes it. He also conflates female promiscuity and success on instagram - an image based site - with reputation destruction which if anything is more common on twitter. Surely it happens on every site but it's definitely more typical of twitter.

So the more women get power the more the world crumbles into chaos?

😂😂😂😂 when a religious text predicted that uncontrolled women cause the destruction of their societies- wonder if they had experienced this somewhere tens of thousands of years ago.

Congratulations ladies. You have taken down Western Civilization. When the barbarians breach the gates your calls for help will go unanswered.

Have you heard of a self fulfilling prophecy? If not I'd suggest watching the movie Antichrist.

Female participation in society continues to be a mistake.

??? You mean the almost 50% of the world who is female? Slight minority I suppose. This is why men who are against male homosexuality are dumb.

As of 2021, There are 3,970,238,390 or 3,970 million or 3.97 billion males in the world, representing 50.42% of the world population. The population of females in the world is estimated at 3,904,727,342 or 3,905 million or 3.905 billion, representing 49.58% of the world population. The world has 65,511,048 or 65.51 million more males than females.

It seems like a small amount percentage wise but when you see it put like that that's a [BEEP] ton of men who under no circumstances could get into a committed relationship if we were actually monogamous. Before you even consider anything else it would simply be mathematically impossible if they are heterosexual.

Anyway you're participating constantly if you have the ability to communicate....

These are all comments on Jordan Peterson short videos btw. If I want to read unhinged comments (and I do,) I can just look on these videos. The second best source after just browsing twitter:

I am well versed in this. My husband was a higher ranking NCO when in the Army. In charge, always on. When he got out it was obvious he would take a higher position similar to what he was doing in the Army. Left for work by 10AM?ON THE DOT!!

It was about a 35 mile drive one way. He was ON until about 9:30-10PM when he made the trip home. Never made time for us, always about the job. Pretty much ruined our marriage but we did not divorce. He finally retired but he was always antsy, like he should be doing something. I saw an old picture of him today and he looked exhausted. It was in his eyes. No joy, only resigned acceptance. I cried when I saw it.

Unhinged responses to above comment:

And no matter how much we work and provide, we are almost NEVER appreciated. It's one of many reasons men have stopped dating or left the country. Not many hear have any love, loyalty, or respect, they only want "someone to pay for me" and give nothing back. Not worth it. They need to get a job, live alone and pay for themselves FOREVER, just like they wanted. And since they frequently CELEBRATE the record sue - weee - syydes of men and boys, we should do it too. Come on, get those number up, 5 10 100 times more! You wanted to be like men, you got it, your DIS - POSE _ UHBLE now, just like us. You all deserve it.

Almost none of you say a word about how we 've been dee - moral - ysed since Kindergarden and most of you joined in, so you deserve the same exact treatment. GET THOSE NUMBER UP!

So more blaming the men, get out there and do everything yourself, work and live alone and pay for yourself, FOREVER, just like you wanted. And get those sue - wee - syde numbers up to match ours so we can CELEBRATE it just like you do!

Sorry to disappoint you but cisgender women will probably never commit suicide at the same rate as men for several reasons but one is that they're more likely to believe they have inherent self worth.

You should try not to need women sometime but literally. Not in the 'I'm going to go abroad REEEEE. Please kill yourself.' Sense lol.

Please be considerate and avoid China btw if you're not homosexual. They fucked up their gender ratio due to sex selective abortion. If you don't he might create another rap and nobody wants that:



It's honestly one of the worst things I've ever heard. (Still.)



---

I don't know if YouTube ads are targeted but it's very confused about me. I get ads for men's clothing (I mean it actually said 'men's clothing' in the ad) and pregnancy tests. I guess I'll wear men's clothing if it fits. I rarely buy clothes in general. That expensive mushroom cardigan I liked was also technically a man's cardigan but it was a feminine enough design that that wasn't clear.

And also obviously:



And there's absolutely 0 chance of me being pregnant unless I get raped lol. Even when I was in relationships with men we didn't have intercourse.

Then there were like 'buy this house' ads even more confused.

"Vintage clothes for men."

I usually use adblocker on YouTube and I have it turned off atm and it's creeping me out. I don't want pregnancy test ads.

I remember someone saying at one point that the ads are really targeted and could tell when people were pregnant before they knew so I'm like. 'Am I pregnant?' Why would the aliens do this to me? Is this like a Mary situation? This is going to make all that Jesus/Satan fanfiction I read years ago pretty awkward.

In fairness I do like 'vintage men' I guess:



"We noticed you've hatewatched lots of Jordan Peterson content and also Rush music videos and 80s music."

🤣

If I listen to this 500 times do you think it will start suggesting me bdsm stuff?



Shocking that it isn't already. Not sure if they're allowed to advertise on YouTube though, prob not unless it's an adult rated video. It's still just 'vintage/retro clothing for men.'

No I don't drink Jack Daniel's either haha. I think maybe I did once? But it wasn't mine. But maybe it was some other whisky. I don't remember I also got very drunk that time so I was drinking lots of stuff and I haven't drunk any alcohol in like....... I don't know now but it's been many years.

I don't think they're all targeted anyway some seem pretty generic or maybe based on the video I'm currently watching or something.

[Nyctophilia]

Lol someone just commented on one of my videos saying they saw a gif of [something insane] and immediately knew it was from one of my videos. Well they were right...

Now I kind of want to know what context that gif was posted in lol.



This is a great song.

Also this:

[Doseone]

I've been looking through the r/amiugly subreddit and 90% of the people posting are attractive. lol.

[Nyctophilia]

It's kind of depressing that most kids are probably going to learn about rape before sex now. When I was a kid I learnt about anal sex before other forms of sex and that was unusual I guess, but things have gotten a lot worse.

Like just thinking about how gross I thought sex was (no learning about other types didn't help as a kid,) if it wasn't for erotica I read online I'd probably have an even worse impression because we barely had sex education and what I got over the years from my mum and from text books was all kind of weird and clinical. Then just imagining the kind of kid I was (anxious, + an avoidant attachment style increasingly common personality type now,) compacted with the reality of like Andrew Tate etc which 1/4 of boys are quoting. I imagine most adult women won't want sex at all in the future because when you have an estrogen dominant hormone system you really don't have a particularly strong drive in the first place most of the time, especially as an adult. Like mine was a lot stronger as a teenager (I felt kind of singular in this regard too, no girls I knew really talked about sex at all,) and then that mostly disappeared later. Even then it's probably not enough to overcome all the social bullshit happening now.

I actually masturbate quite a lot, but when my anxiety was worse I mostly stopped and at other stressful and busy periods of my life I did it less. It's supposed to be a fairly good indicator of your actual sex drive (at least if you're female but I can think of some arguments against that. Like I wouldn't say I do it because I need to most of the time.) But in some cultures women don't masturbate much at all due to repression. When I was a teenager every girl denied doing it too but these are anonymous surveys I'm talking about. They really don't do that and they probably don't have a very strong desire for sex at all.

It seems depressing. Also it's bad for your health not to masturbate because orgasms reduce stress + reduce risk of having a heart attack.

Just remembered some tweets I stumbled on during my twitter binge the other day:

Ladies, this is why you should only sleep with women until Mr. Right comes along. Also, butt stuff does count, so don't listen to your catholic school mates. 🙏🏾

I reject all women who have slept with more than 3 men.

Vile.

Actually that's Andrew Tate tweeting that so it's a great argument for why every woman should immediately sleep with at least 4 men to be safe.

Then all women who have not been with 3 men or more should reject you, based on the same standards.

Way ahead of you.

There's some universe where I'm less bothered about piv sex and I have a threesome with a trans woman and some guy Andrew Tate thinks is beta in front of him while he's forced to watch. I'm not hot/feminine/neurotypical enough to make this hurt as much as I want it to though, so maybe I somehow manage to rope in a very conventionally attractive woman into this too who is a virgin. Then maybe I don't even have to have sex she can. And then I make him suck the trans woman's dick.

In this universe every cis woman has had sex with multiple women and less masculine men, and nobody will have sex with Andrew Tate (unless as described in scenario.) And this wasn't delusionally narcissistic enough so I'm also king/queen for no reason at all.

Andrew said he'd [BEEP] a trans woman who looks like Megan Fox. He brought up choking trans women too when he went into elaborate detail.

Oh good point brain girls will be just fine.

Fuckboys won't be. 😏

This post is like 'the duality of man.' Lol. It starts where it starts and then ends here. Edit: Nope obviously. Also delusionally optimistic about procrastination.

We do a little sadism as a coping strategy.

There's actually a third dimension and that's if I think about Andrew Tate in the abstract I think of like this hyper masculine annoying archetypal figure. He represents a lot symbolically. But then when I watch him on video he seems very unmasculine physically (aside from the muscles,) and in general. I mean it's obvious but it's all facade and a huge joke. In some ways that's disappointing and you almost feel sorry for him. But I don't want to feel sorry for him because I want to destroy him.



He doesn't have a slang term for a trans guy so he just uses 'girl' for this hypothetical 6'5" super masc 'Hulk Hogan' person with a [BEEP] he's talking about who I don't think I've ever come across but presumably the question was trans guy vs trans woman and he went with hypothetical extremes. I think there might be some women that height or at least over six foot, but they're not trans. Never heard of a trans guy who was 6'5" actually, though there could be one somewhere. Being trans and then medically transitioning too is incredibly rare on it's own. A lot are apparently shorter than average according to one doctor. He also noticed trans women tend to be taller than average but very slim. There are probably biological and sociological reasons for that. Edit: I kind of defeated my own point here lol cause I drifted off topic and you do get masculine trans men and obviously trans men who straight men wouldn't want to fuck. Like the guy in this video is trans:



But I guess it's very unlikely that someone afab would have all of those traits he mentioned simultaneously because of the amount of prenatal testosterone exposure + circulating testosterone I think it requires in combination (can't just have one or the other,) and because you're talking about like several incredibly rare traits anyway. They wouldn't be a cis woman and then a lot of trans men don't fit that type as I mentioned - a significant portion are actually the opposite - they're shorter than average compared to women. So that person might exist somewhere but there are way more trans women who look like Megan Fox than trans men who are Hulk Hogan and that guy's probably stealth anyway. But 99.9% of the time that kind of person is going to be a cis guy and incredibly rare for a cis guy.

Like what is this hypothetical where Haf??r J?l?us Bj?rnsson is a girl lol? This forum is going to mess with the formatting of his name so I mean the actor that plays The Mountain on Game of Thrones.

1/10 means ugly, it doesn't imply masculine.

no one thinks masculinity is hot estrogen and femininity is what?s the most attractive that's why the race with the most testosterone has the least attractive women and the race with the most estrogen has the least attractive men in society's eyes

So you're saying the Human race are lesbians? I agree. (Oh I just read the second part about men. I just blocked it out LOL because it wasn't entertaining + is kind of incorrect lol. In terms of reproduction and in terms of kpop fangirls. If you read it literally they also contradict themselves in the second half.)

I still like how everyone from my home town is insane.

Today in YouTube ads:

"Ukrainian women. Get a chance to be happy today. Thousands of Ladies are Waiting For You."

Seems like the appropriate level of bleak dystopia. I got this advert while listening to this song LOL:



It's also asking me if I feel the last video ad was relevant to me because I keep skipping them lol. It wouldn't matter if they were unless it's a film trailer or music video it's not really going to interest me.

'Ukrainian women for sale.'

Yeah but (putting aside the seven + issues with that advert,) the Ukrainian women aren't in a music video. Or look like someone who is. I mean I didn't click the link so I wouldn't know lol.



This isn't even a music video and I'm only attracted to her voice. Oh well lol. It's also a remix the original is very good, but I like this too. Actually I think most of this remix is worse and very generic sounding imo, but I like the beginning.

You know this YouTube. It's why you keep suggesting me videos of people with glasses and such.

Edit: I was suggested this video recently and I lol'd because he's wearing glasses. I don't know if they're his because I think she also wears them sometimes:



"So you're not attracted to F1nn5ter but what about with glasses?"

Well played. But also, still no-ish. This isn't a thing lol it's just some personal meme/conspiracy I've invented to entertain myself. Also I'm unironically watching their content now and part of me doesn't like that at all lol. I also dislike how a lot of adults online are a decade younger than me now (not sure how old Icky is, but F1nn is 23,) and I have the brain of like a 14-24 year old. At least Contrapoints is older than me. Lol that's it Contrapoints and Andrew Tate and then a sea of 60+ year old men and 21-24 year olds. Actually Shoe is my age - 32 (everyone thinks she's in her early 20s too,) and I think MoistCr1TiKaL is almost 30. And some other people. The political YouTubers and streamers are often 29 or 34 (it's really weird how so many people can be the exact same age like a cluster of people,) but that genre is obnoxious too.

Also I feel like a lot of people would consider this a huge plot twist because of his content + internet persona "obviously he's a closeted trans woman," but I'd be unsurprised if it turned out he was a trans guy. I don't think he is, but it wouldn't shock me. Trans people online will often try to signal that they're the opposite sex trans person to [BEEP] with cis people and also give advice to do that sometimes where possible as a form of extreme stealth. This is controversial though obviously. (Because it gets trans women killed because some cis men are retarded and violent.) F1nn actually includes a lot of subtle (or not so subtle depending on who you are,) indicators that he's secretly a trans guy or wants to be seen as a trans guy and also secretly a trans woman to make his sex ambiguous. (Though tbf I don't think he edited this video since this is his girlfriend's channel but I noticed some things in another video clip I watched too.) It's quite clever although it's annoying a lot of people mostly trans women from what I noticed on twitter (I mean a lot like him as well I think, but they don't like how he makes his sex ambiguous.) Guess it's kind of ironic his girlfriend is trans.. Lol...

And the poor transvestigators lol they now think most of Hollywood is trans because of this sort of thing. (Lol it's like an arms race.)

I mean this is a never ending piece of discourse on some parts of the internet:



I was superficially aware of it for some time now, but I've only in the last month actually bothered to watch any of his content. And honestly mostly just because of his girlfriend. They have an interesting dynamic and she's cute (I'm not attracted to her really but sometimes I just like watching cute people, superficial.) He mostly streams on twitch which I don't use.

I do think it's funny because I've seen him blur both lines. But I think most people don't notice because trans masc people are invisible. Like in the video here in addition to taking the 'am I a trans guy quiz' there's a point where he says 'I bled so much today.' And his girlfriend says 'out of context that sounds weird.' He's not injured so why would someone be bleeding? Then you're supposed to use your imagination.

I'm afab non-binary and Finn has actually helped me feel a bit more comfortable with my pre-medical transition self. I?m not a girl but I look like one. Finn isn't a girl but he looks like one and has fun with it. Idk it's just made me feel a little more comfy in my body as it is rn.

same. i feel like i present pretty masculine but that's not how i feel. i think it opens up a conversation on separation of gender identity and gender expression but we're barely even allowed use gender in a sentence online without dogpiling so 🤷

That gets ignored as well lol.

I have sympathy for him because it's really fun to [BEEP] with 'masculine' guys this way and you can see him respond to Andrew Tate on twitter, and if I had more self confidence and I was on testosterone so I had a lower voice, I'd probably be tempted to do something like that.

Pointing out it's a skill issue to Vaush is unfair though when Vaush says he's most likely on hrt because of how female he looks. Because a lot of people won't be able to get those results if they're amab there's a reason I relate to him (somewhat his stated ideal appearance is more feminine than mine lol,) and I'm afab. his features are incredibly neotenous and that's his bone structure mostly.

I know this is a coincidence but why is:

she looks like a 70's rockstar

She actually looks like an 80s rock star now. Pretty soon she will reach the 90s. I'm hoping she doesn't reach the 2000s. I was over the emo/sims 2 custom content hairstyles after I left the 2000s. This isn't a criticism btw (I guess it's a criticism of emo hair, not really lol just not peak aesthetic for me right now,) obviously everyone should look like this. OK not everyone just everyone I pay attention to in 2023.

It genuinely bothers me that these images are all different sizes but I'm too lazy to fix that. Also I mean it's a coincidence that her hair + glasses + style is loosely matching Geddy Lee throughout the years not that her aesthetic is matching the 70s and 80s. (But combined with like tattoos and hip hop/pop-punk aesthetics.) Since everyone is because of hauntology/nostalgia porn etc.

There's just no way Contrapoints didn't take her aesthetic (well set decoration,) from their old music videos or they had some mutual inspiration:



I mean technically it's all just tumblr aesthetics + photography but yeah.

Edit: Youtube: What if we use Mads Mikkelsen to sell you Carlsberg. No see because I know I'm like a walking Tumblr stereotype (I was actually dying my hair before that became a stereotype lol but I never had any of the very short haircuts so like 50% the stereotype,) but I'm not attracted to him and only got through a few episodes of the Hannibal TV show, and I don't and have never drunk beer. (I mean not by choice. I don't buy beer there we go.) Mostly used to drink cider. My favourite Mads Mikkelsen role was the fan made music video of multiple Solstafir songs. I bet this is age restricted or something I can feel it in my bones:



I was right. [BEEP] you lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZhf98IydQ0

I don't know what it's from originally.

Someone tweeted something funny in response to this earlier (well it was someone else tweeting the same 4chan post since several accounts have uploaded this for some reason,) where they were talking about how they played The Sims 2 when they were 11 and wanted to play The Sims 3 because they saw their female cousin playing it, and their cousin looked down on them and talked to them like they were a baby or something and then they became a 'stone cold incel' but they've since deleted that or that tweet has gone lol. I found this tweet was never a thing lol:



I love the 'also decorating and stuff.' :')

There's so many misleading comments like someone said 'If they removed the ability to burn and drown babies women would stop playing' and someone actually believed that was possible in a t-rated game series lol (a game series that used to have a pretty dark sense of humour that has been gradually muted over time.) It's giving this lol:

Although there is no sex in the game, characters appear nude when carrying out activities such as taking a shower. Their breasts and genitals are blurred out to avoid offence - but Thompson claimed hackers could get around this by using a cheat code.

The hackers with their cheat codes :') much hacking. Hacking is when cheat codes in video game. Fucking hilarious.

I can't remember now, but there might have been a cheat code at one point that they disabled when they realised. Either that or it always required modding. They left a huge amount of their debugging tools and unused/unfinished content in the game files, far more than in later games (unfortunately because it's fun to look through and mess with.) But they also look like barbie dolls if you remove the blur unless you download modded skin + genitals. So unless you think it's weird for your kids to play with dolls it should be no big deal (but if you believe this then you should also know Barbie does turn girls into lesbians so you should be careful.)

Old school video games are very interesting though:



Well mostly The Sims 2 and early Spyro games. I'm not paying attention to a lot of stuff. I mean it's interesting because there's a lot of beta versions that people are still digging up and other things to discover. With newer games they keep those things hidden a lot more and a lot of development teams are much bigger. You have to literally hack (not cheat code hack,) into their server to get access to beta/alpha stuff lol. and also to use The Sims as an example again the way they do certain things now in development are just less quirky/weird solution to x problem. Oh it's so boring, just leak the beta/alpha stuff man. No one wants your finished product. No but. Sort of lol.

There's some Russian language forum where they dig up various stuff about The Sims 2 and discuss potential beta versions of the game. The guy who started the thread there claims he once played a beta version of The Sims 2 that went missing. This might be bullshit because there are a lot of myths like this floating around for various games. But I'm sure some journalists had access to at least the Nightlife expansion beta, because I've seen some potential evidence of that myself reading old articles where there were community lots that didn't exist in the final release (and there's text references to a few lots in the game files,) but no beta version of the game has ever been leaked. ._.

This is what happens when you grow up playing demo discs from magazines as a kid lol. I was fascinated at the time by the difference between the demo version of Spyro and the final release. 'Why are the whirlwinds all green? 'Why are there gems floating in the return home thing?'

There are some fucked up mods around though (for the Sims 2 and other games.) So you can definitely do things equivalent to burning/drowning babies. There's actually a modded BBQ called omgwtfbbq, that allows you to cook and eat babies. I believe that mod was uploaded after the acronym people used to use seven internet centuries ago, but yeah. It was banned from most modding sites I think at the time.

Actually I made one technically but really just for something I was doing in a video. Someone asked me to upload it LOL (so they actually wanted that for their regular gameplay lol....) But I'm not good at modding and I hate reading/watching tutorials etc because of my attention span. So the process of making it led to some pretty broken things happening and I have absolutely no idea why since the broken things were entirely unrelated to what I was doing with the mod... It was actually pretty funny in itself. It did work in the end for my purposes and the broken thing stopped, but I didn't want to test it during regular gameplay or put in the extra effort in to make it ready to upload (because I don't care if I break my game, that's potentially part of the fun anyway, and have different standards for myself,) and there were a couple of other things I would need to figure out first as well.

Also not the 'female gamers' lol. Actually no one (OK most people,) plays The Sims for that reason that's more of a thing you do when you get bored (like when you run everyone over and then crash your motorbike into a wall so you fly off into the sea in GTA, or locking the butler in the freezer in Tomb Raider that butler made me feel bad he was so old and he sounded like he was really struggling. He should have been retired. And that's how I became a communist social justice warrior/part time serial killer lol no.) or to entertain other people. I also never really liked the building aspect as much as the gameplay but several people responding disagree and I think if you've only played The Sims 4 that would make sense because the gameplay is a lot worse in that game.

Procrastinating again.