Impotent rage is the default reaction for most men who have very little control of their life.
Its a pretty natural reaction to an extremely powerless world, that often disappears once the underlying cause is treated. In most cases anxiety and depression, which manifest incredibly differently in men than what we assume is the norm from women.
Most know it wouldn't actually make a difference, which is why they don't actually pursue it, it simply grants them a modicum of peace by pretending they could fix the problems they don't understand fully.
No, they've convinced themselves that it won't make a difference, because they're afraid.
I'll say upfront, I'm a quaker, I do not believe violence is an acceptable solution to problems.
That being said, I believe the power of one person to change the fate of the entire fucking world is unlimited... if they are resolved to trade their life for it.
What offends me IS when people post impotent rage, because it's pathetic. I never post these sorts of threads because I am content to exist.
I agree with not posting impotent rage and it being a little on the pathetic side, but some people need to vent to keep sane. I've got a degree in therapy, so I see the value in it regardless of personal feelings.
However, platitudes of "unlimited power to change the world!" aren't as true as you want them to be. Throwing your life away meaninglessly accomplishes nothing, but allows the people/government you hate to use you as a pawn in their designs by writing you into their narrative. Every person in the 1/6 event tried to make a statement and instead one died, a bunch are going to jail, and they are being used as justification for exactly what they were against.
Unless you just want to cause violence and mayhem, you should probably sort your own head out and try to apply it wisely instead of tantrumming your way into a grave used as a urinal. Random acts made in unstable moods are rarely the correct path.
Maybe you'd prefer Charlottesville as an example of an actual attempt at standing up for something then? How about Killdozer? Because there are dozens of examples I can just start pulling, but I'm sure you'd write each one off in turn with one reason or another.
But that's about as well as it goes to just go out and "do something" without resorting to actual violence and being buried even harder.
Basically, I have the highest respect for those who live for peace and passively accept the world as it hits them. After them I have respect for those who live for power, who seek to impose their agency on the world. They're beneath me, but I acknowledge that they live according to their philosophy.
The lowest are those who believe themselves to have no power. The "I can't change anything" "what good would it do" types.
I don't "love" violence. But I acknowledge freely that it works, and frequently works quite well.
If my position seems strange it's because I'm not a consequentialist. Most culture warriors (both SJWs and Pedes) ARE consequentialists. And it's in consequentialism that the whole "if I do this, I'll get killed/convicted and that would be bad" question becomes pertinent.
If every religious figure in history from Abraham to Jesus to Joan of Arc had been consequentialists then there wouldn't be religion at all (well, aside from marxism, the OG consequentialist faith).
Impotent rage is the default reaction for most men who have very little control of their life.
Its a pretty natural reaction to an extremely powerless world, that often disappears once the underlying cause is treated. In most cases anxiety and depression, which manifest incredibly differently in men than what we assume is the norm from women.
Most know it wouldn't actually make a difference, which is why they don't actually pursue it, it simply grants them a modicum of peace by pretending they could fix the problems they don't understand fully.
No, they've convinced themselves that it won't make a difference, because they're afraid.
I'll say upfront, I'm a quaker, I do not believe violence is an acceptable solution to problems.
That being said, I believe the power of one person to change the fate of the entire fucking world is unlimited... if they are resolved to trade their life for it.
What offends me IS when people post impotent rage, because it's pathetic. I never post these sorts of threads because I am content to exist.
I agree with not posting impotent rage and it being a little on the pathetic side, but some people need to vent to keep sane. I've got a degree in therapy, so I see the value in it regardless of personal feelings.
However, platitudes of "unlimited power to change the world!" aren't as true as you want them to be. Throwing your life away meaninglessly accomplishes nothing, but allows the people/government you hate to use you as a pawn in their designs by writing you into their narrative. Every person in the 1/6 event tried to make a statement and instead one died, a bunch are going to jail, and they are being used as justification for exactly what they were against.
Unless you just want to cause violence and mayhem, you should probably sort your own head out and try to apply it wisely instead of tantrumming your way into a grave used as a urinal. Random acts made in unstable moods are rarely the correct path.
No they didn't.
That was a collective "Grrr we are mad but we aren't going to do shit."
Maybe you'd prefer Charlottesville as an example of an actual attempt at standing up for something then? How about Killdozer? Because there are dozens of examples I can just start pulling, but I'm sure you'd write each one off in turn with one reason or another.
But that's about as well as it goes to just go out and "do something" without resorting to actual violence and being buried even harder.
Almost.
I'm pointing out its efficacy.
All morality is self-denial.
Basically, I have the highest respect for those who live for peace and passively accept the world as it hits them. After them I have respect for those who live for power, who seek to impose their agency on the world. They're beneath me, but I acknowledge that they live according to their philosophy.
The lowest are those who believe themselves to have no power. The "I can't change anything" "what good would it do" types.
I don't "love" violence. But I acknowledge freely that it works, and frequently works quite well.
If my position seems strange it's because I'm not a consequentialist. Most culture warriors (both SJWs and Pedes) ARE consequentialists. And it's in consequentialism that the whole "if I do this, I'll get killed/convicted and that would be bad" question becomes pertinent.
If every religious figure in history from Abraham to Jesus to Joan of Arc had been consequentialists then there wouldn't be religion at all (well, aside from marxism, the OG consequentialist faith).