/siberia/ - Off-topic

I think it all started when foot fetishists all came out of the closet

>>823413
name 1 person who likes feet you know

>>823402
>am i a schizo or is there a coordinated CIA psyop to try and normalise being a weird fucking loser?
No, that's a silly take. While it's true superstructures manifest horizontal conflict to subdue the proles, alienation in Western society is broadly a byproduct of hyper-individualism, which itself is a byproduct of a mode of production that emphasizes competition at both a social and economic level. Having little social capital to offer to people—looks, money, status, or neurotypicality—means little will be offered to you in return.

Incels have no incentive to follow societal rules. You follow societal rules because if you didn't, you'd lose your job, gf and friends. When you have none of those, following societal rules becomes optional.

>>823415
Quentin Tarantino

It's called misandry >>823214 <- That guy is humiliated and worse off than many situations I can imagine. You need values and you don't have those so you don't deserve them yourself.

>>823465
>Incels will
They don't exist unless they call themselves that. If you go around calling men incels then you're a misandrist >>823228 . If you're not a misandrist, you can be honest about it and advocate for a better gender ratio and fewer men.

>>823432
>No, that's a silly take. While it's true superstructures manifest horizontal conflict to subdue the proles, alienation in Western society is broadly a byproduct of hyper-individualism, which itself is a byproduct of a mode of production that emphasizes competition at both a social and economic level. Having little social capital to offer to people—looks, money, status, or neurotypicality—means little will be offered to you in return.
Utter bullshit. You're accountable for what you do to people.

>>823474
>You're accountable for what you do to people.
Says who?

>>823475
>Says who?
Well I guess if no one sees you do it

>>823415
Me

>>823477
Who are you?

>>823402
>theyre all connected somehow
>>821926 exact problem

>>823474
its liberal feelgoodism disguised as a crude form of materialism. these leftists will try to explain the rise in extremist ideologies by saying that the fascists are just poor hecking victims of society reacting to economic insecurity, like, no man, i think theyre just shitty people, but thats a much harder redpill to swallow because it requires reaching the conclusion that a shit ton of people in our society are emotionally unstable sociopaths

>>823402
With the increasing share of screens in our lives, not only for entertainment but professionally or pretty much everything, from groceries to taxes, people have less and less practice when it come to socialization, and that's getting worse with AI replacing people for advices and counceling.
In thoses conditions, being a weird fucking loser is organically becoming the norm

>>823479
I'm me

>>823483
>With the increasing share of screens in our lives, not only for entertainment but professionally or pretty much everything, from groceries to taxes, people have less and less practice when it come to socialization, and that's getting worse with AI replacing people for advices and counceling.
>In thoses conditions, being a weird fucking loser is organically becoming the norm
Not true at all. People deny and apologize for their personal preferences and end up becoming incompatible losers or worse, fucking social predators. "Fitness is fascism!"

It's not the technology, it's people and their vices.

>>823485
You really think deep changes in how peer pressure works won't affect people's behavior?

>>823499
>You really think deep changes in how peer pressure works won't affect people's behavior?
The screen doesn't change being fat, bad hygiene or having shit social skills. Last time I checked we've made a lot of progress in acceptance towards diversity and tolerance to people so it's not that. You would think that networking would be easier if everyone was lonely?

Shit people are fucking shit.

>>823499
>You really think deep changes in how peer pressure works won't affect people's behavior?
It does change one thing though, opinions are more extreme and cause more break ups

>>823503
>The screen doesn't change being fat, bad hygiene or having shit social skills
Yes it does.
Consider being repulsive in public: People look at you, scrunch their noses, sneer and whispers. Not good experience, you have an incensitive to change.
Consider being repulsive in a basement or totally focused on your phone: The only exposure to the judgment of your peers are mean words on the screen which you will get regardless what you do because whatever your life choices someone will criticize you for it. Why changing at all?

>>823482
There are plenty of shitty people who are treated amazing, and plenty of amazing people who are treated shitty. Moral attitudes is not enough of an explanation.

>>823508
>Why changing at all?
Because you want to hang out with real people

>>823508
>Consider being repulsive in a basement or totally focused on your phone: The only exposure to the judgment of your peers are mean words on the screen which you will get regardless what you do because whatever your life choices someone will criticize you for it.
If you want to hang out in some "involuntary bucket" IBs and forums then sure, that's your life. If you've got social needs, then you're the only one who can do something about that.

>>823511
Who's doing the judging here?

>>823513
The thing is, technology affect social needs. Regular social interactions become less necessary if you can work consume or pretty much do everything online. Not to mention AI agents giving the illusion of having unconditionnal supportive companions.

>>823529
>The thing is, technology affect social needs. Regular social interactions become less necessary if you can work consume or pretty much do everything online. Not to mention AI agents giving the illusion of having unconditionnal supportive companions.
Lose the weight, go to gym, learn to talk and hang out. If you've got needs then those same needs are out there too. AI and machines automate the trash that no one wants to do so if you want your value to depend on human inconvenience then go ahead. Be a luddite.

Leave the AI companions to obstinate losers.

>>823533
Stop virtue signaling for a second and try to get the point. The subject isn't why it's bad to be a loser but why there are more or them. My point is that technology combined with the type of society we have make being weird a viable life option from lessened consequences of social isolation, therefore, there is less weeding out loser behavior.
Before: Making effort to fit was necessary for survival and endorphines. Now, it is possible to get thoses without making the effort to fit. It's simply the path of least resistance.

>>823513
>Who's doing the judging here?
The point is gaslighting people about what’s an entirely subjective term is pointless. In reality, a lot of things in life are completely out of your control. You can’t choose how you look, where you live, starting socioeconomic status, etc. In a society that emphasizes competition, alienation is thus inevitable. Yes, your own effort partly plays a role, but only a minor one, as effort is mediated by supply and demand, as well as positive reinforcement. Take gymbros, for example. If everyone goes to the fucking gym, then the exchange-value of going to the gym becomes worth nothing in the social market. Thus, I can bust my ass off and have nothing to show for it. Lack of positive reinforcement will lead to a lack of effort and vice-versa. People who are successful in life often find success because they fill niches that cannot be replicated by the rest of the population. These niches are often things that are completely out of a person’s control, and the success they find is positive reinforcement that incentives them to work harder.

>>823543
>Stop virtue signaling for a second and try to get the point.
I'm not virtue-signaling at all. The only thing that really matters is that you exist and what you want. Things just are and will be, so you can choose who you get to talk about them with. Meditate on the well of infinite suchness.

>The subject isn't why it's bad to be a loser but why there are more or them. My point is that technology combined with the type of society we have make being weird a viable life option from lessened consequences of social isolation, therefore, there is less weeding out loser behavior.
I don't really believe that "losers" should be weeded out or forced. They're not going to reproduce but that isn't necessary for everyone. It's fine if they decide to exist for fun and then exit. If there's a chore that needs doing then sure recruit them.

>Before: Making effort to fit was necessary for survival and endorphines. Now, it is possible to get thoses without making the effort to fit. It's simply the path of least resistance.
That's chuddish without being on the right. Individuals shouldn't be forced into things whether that's on the right or the left. It doesn't all have to fit in together.

>>823544
>The point is gaslighting people about what’s an entirely subjective term is pointless. In reality, a lot of things in life are completely out of your control. You can’t choose how you look, where you live, starting socioeconomic status, etc. In a society that emphasizes competition, alienation is thus inevitable. Yes, your own effort partly plays a role, but only a minor one, as effort is mediated by supply and demand, as well as positive reinforcement. Take gymbros, for example. If everyone goes to the fucking gym, then the exchange-value of going to the gym becomes worth nothing in the social market. Thus, I can bust my ass off and have nothing to show for it. Lack of positive reinforcement will lead to a lack of effort and vice-versa. People who are successful in life often find success because they fill niches that cannot be replicated by the rest of the population. These niches are often things that are completely out of a person’s control, and the success they find is positive reinforcement that incentives them to work harder.
You're being too Marxist for your own good. If he was right, then he was and if he wasn't, then he stands corrected. If some social change fixes things and doesn't harm you, you don't need to be a reactionary to it.

>Take gymbros, for example. If everyone goes to the fucking gym, then the exchange-value of going to the gym becomes worth nothing in the social market.
It doesn't work that way at all, because you're reducing it to exchange-value alone. Some people want a longer term relationship and would be happy with an exclusive partnership. Some people actually appreciate individuals and the relationship history they have with them. The increase removes scarcity and reduces the market to personal needs and wants alone. There would be less desire to try to trap a gymbro into a long-term relationship and fewer gymbros tricking women into one-night stands.

>>823544
>Yes, your own effort partly plays a role, but only a minor one, as effort is mediated by supply and demand, as well as positive reinforcement. Take gymbros, for example. If everyone goes to the fucking gym, then the exchange-value of going to the gym becomes worth nothing in the social market.
There is one thing that needs stating here. If technology makes most of employment redundant and a lot of women choose non-exclusive sexual relationships, then the birth sex ratio of 50:50 isn't fair on men at all >>821926 . Look at the dating problems that Chinese men face.

Fewer men means training them to entertain women and to help raise the next generation.

>>823546
>If some social change fixes things and doesn't harm you, you don't need to be a reactionary to it.
That doesn’t refute the mechanism. If the change does not produce a positive reinforcement in some form (be it social, mental, or physical), then you haven’t really fixed anything for yourself. A lack of harm is only a continuation of the status-quo of being a loser.
>It doesn't work that way at all, because you're reducing it to exchange-value alone. Some people want a longer term relationship and would be happy with an exclusive partnership. Some people actually appreciate individuals and the relationship history they have with them.
The two ideas don’t conflict. If everyone slaves away at the gym, the exchange-value of slaving away at the gym collapses. That can be true even if people have a want for long-term relationships. The exchange-value of the former does not contradict the use-value of the latter.
>The increase removes scarcity and reduces the market to personal needs and wants alone.
No, it simply shifts scarcity elsewhere. Competition shifts to other traits.

>>823547
Partly. A male surplus definitely is an accelerant to male inceldom, but the main cause is the hyper-individualist, competitive mode of production that permeates the West. It has allowed women to become more hypergamous (in the short-term) and less dependent on the average OOFY DOOFY man overall. The future is unironically female and high-tier men.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EByqXjBo6Ig&ra

>>823402
>am i a schizo or is there a coordinated CIA psyop to try and normalise being a weird fucking loser? gooners, incels, alt right, theyre all connected somehow
you're schizo but not completely schizo. basically a sizable fraction of menfolk have always been reactionary losers. This is why in ancient times if you just promised a bunch of socially maladjusted young men in their 10s and 20s that they would get to rape women and drink as much as they wanted if they fought to the death on behalf of the upper classes, they would come running from their fields and cottages at the opportunity. That trick still works btw. It's called the military. St. Augustine even implied that if you don't have brothels men will just go around and raping everyone:

<Remove prostitutes from human affairs, and you will unsettle everything because of lusts

Gooning on the internet and being an annoying freak on twitter are actually less bad than it could be in that they are a relatively harmless release valve, and even more harmless than the brothels of St. Augustine's time. Think about it this way. People say all sex work is coerced and raped. Well… if that is true, it's clear some women make a lot more money doing sex work on onlyfans than they would in the streets or in a brothel or in a strip club, and the work is infinitely safer, involves much less and potentially zero physical contact with real men, and one 4 second clip if distributed can help a million guys release their sexual frustration. Does videographed pornography result in less rape? I think so. Let the gooners goon, for though it is problematic, it is less problematic than what came before.

>>823415
I have one friend who likes and engaged in foot fetishism with his ex

>>823482
>these leftists will try to explain the rise in extremist ideologies by saying that the fascists are just poor hecking victims of society reacting to economic insecurity, like, no man, i think theyre just shitty people
are people really "just shitty?"

a lot of the time they have brain damage from living in a society full of poison, reactionary propaganda, etc. you say they are not victims. well I say it is possible to be a victim and a criminal at the same time. The people who get molested are more likely to become molesters. The people who turn to violent theft because of poverty are not victims when it comes to their victims but they are still victims when it comes to society. Victimhood isn't a badge of perfect morality. there's no feelgoodism in acknowledging that a person who is a victim can also and likely will victimize others. often people upon being victimized in some heinous act will conclude "this is just the way the world is" and excuse their own shitty behavior since "I've got to defend myself in a cruel world, even if it means doing to others what was done to me."

Reactionaries are often-not-always victims of a superstructure which has brainwashed them. False consciousness is a real thing. If religion is the opium of the masses, reactionary thought is the cocaine.

>>823554
>The two ideas don’t conflict. If everyone slaves away at the gym, the exchange-value of slaving away at the gym collapses. That can be true even if people have a want for long-term relationships. The exchange-value of the former does not contradict the use-value of the latter.
Slaving away at the gym reduces the obesity handicap of not being in the animal world anymore. It's a consequence of being lazy with a life that needs more intention from you. The "exchange-value" lost is the advantage of other men not being obese and disgusting. It's like losing being the attractive option for being the only rich guy around because poverty is gone. Poverty should go away. There's a lot more to say but that belongs in all-male platforms but I'll leave it at this, there is more room for cooperation than conflict and that's always been the case.

People are still fat.

>>823557
>Partly. A male surplus definitely is an accelerant to male inceldom, but the main cause is the hyper-individualist, competitive mode of production that permeates the West. It has allowed women to become more hypergamous (in the short-term) and less dependent on the average OOFY DOOFY man overall. The future is unironically female and high-tier men.
No it's not. You can't call women hyper-individualists for choosing what's good for them. First, you're looking for external causes for dating problems when young men should be dating instead of debating. Second, it's the collective human nature freed from nature and poverty but we're not there yet. There's still shit to solve so men are still needed.

>>823562
More misandry. Men don't actually want to rape women. They're not mindless war machines and get PTSD from violence.

>>823564
>are people really "just shitty?"
Yes, and often to the point of needing deletion.
>Reactionaries … victims of a superstructure
Fuck the victims. Keep people accountable to their shit. Go full Mao on the cocaine.

>>823589
>More misandry. Men don't actually want to rape women. They're not mindless war machines and get PTSD from violence.
The desire for available female bodies is present in most heterosexual men. How do they cope with it lead to a large spectrum of behavior depending of men's circumstances and personalities. Rape being one of them. Seduction being another, or artistical creation, or grooming, or becoming an hermit, or finding other hobbies and sources of dopamine…

it's not a coordinated CIA psyop, it's a convergent private sector psyop. pathological narcissist techbros rule the world now and they all subconsciously want the same thing - like any would-be demigod they want to remake man in their image, they want to create a society of extremely-online, phony, petty, stupid, spiritless, antisocial/parasocial reactionary mutants who aren't capable of being real or honest or having genuine thoughts or having a genuine emotional connection with anyone and who use technology and the internet and money and attention and other sources of external validation as a way to escape from themselves and from the world. it's not really a conspiracy and they didn't all get together to plan this out, it was just inevitable that it would turn out this way because of the nature of our society and the nature of the technology.

>>823589
>More misandry.
Nope:
<a sizable fraction of menfolk
does not mean "all men"
>Men don't actually want to rape women.
Enough do
> They're not mindless war machines
didn't say all men are
again:
<a sizable fraction of menfolk

>and get PTSD from violence.
a person can be a mindless war machine and still get PTSD. those aren't mutually exclusive. a young man can easily be indoctrinated into believing in war and rape and murder and looting. he can both be a victim of ruling class indoctrination and a war criminal at the same time.

The Narmer Palette is from the 31st century BCE and shows the unification of upper and lower egypt through tremendous violence. what was previously two kingdoms became the Egypt we know of today. Narmer's enemies are shown decapitated and with their penises stuffed in their mouths. This was viewed as a great accomplishment by the first true pharaoh.