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.
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).
See, I doubt that.
As I occasionally also say in the Christianity win, my attitude on this is basically put up or shut up.
If your life is so fucked that revenge is all you have to look forward to, what's stopping you?
What I'm saying is, it's a little disingenuous. It's big talk. A power fantasy.
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.
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).