NationStates

Harelia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Actually, plenty of people are. The "I've always known since I was a child" bit is nowhere near universal. It only gets repeated so much because gatekeeping therapists expect to hear it to recommend hormones and the like, and because it makes for a better story in the media.



Actually, the more accurate comparison would be "being gay and not realizing it".



And did you always know you were pan? I somehow doubt it.



That argument is bad, and you should feel bad.



I wasn't being serious, you know. I do think a significant portion of incels are eggs, but I don't think a majority are. And the argument wasn't even to force them to be trans, it was to convince them to accept themselves as trans. There's a difference (and the one part of that statement I was being genuine about).

Every time I hear "Convince them to accept" I think of Sucker Punch and just see straight people being lobotomized into being trans.

How about we just stop forcing trans cis on people and actually let them find out on their own?

Thermodolia wrote:

Kernen wrote:Do we have any evidence that InCels are mostly closeted trans people?

Well more than a few happened to be. A lot are deeply closeted gay men

Costa Fierro wrote:Anyway, can I bring it to people's attention that the person making the videos and the gunman have not been confirmed to be the same person?

Grenartia wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Actually it is. You basically said he isn't a fault; society made him do it.

You haven't explained yourself that well. Tossing out debate terms as a dismissal isn't doing the job.

This is Costa's MO in a nutshell. Say incels are never at fault for anything, and when you get called out for it, claim the people calling you out are misrepresenting your argument, but never elaborate on how, or more adequately explain your argument.

Harelia wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Well more than a few happened to be. A lot are deeply closeted gay men

You'd be in the closet too if you weren't an utter Bara or a complete trap.

We live in a society, man.

Grenartia wrote:

Harelia wrote:
Every time I hear "Convince them to accept" I think of Sucker Punch and just see straight people being lobotomized into being trans.

Then you shouldn't be, because what people mean when we say that is literally just this:

How about we just stop forcing trans cis on people and actually let them find out on their own?

The number of people who have 'trans forced on them' is so small as to be statistically insignificant. There's probably more people with those rare genetic diseases that only one in a billion people get. Almost every trans person has being cis forced on them, however. That shit starts even before we're born.

Thermodolia wrote:

Harelia wrote:
You'd be in the closet too if you weren't an utter Bara or a complete trap.

We live in a society, man.

Huh?

Anyway I’m an openly gay man who has no problem with myself so I don’t know what you are trying to say

Galloism wrote:But if we want to stop the next one, we need to understand the motivations behind them, and start to undercut those motivations. That may be easier said than done mind you, but it's a noble goal.

Imperial Hugonia wrote:

Galloism wrote:But if we want to stop the next one, we need to understand the motivations behind them, and start to undercut those motivations. That may be easier said than done mind you, but it's a noble goal.

But that would mean questioning male gender expectations. Which is entitlement apparently.

Harelia wrote:

Imperial Hugonia wrote:But that would mean questioning male gender expectations. Which is entitlement apparently.

No. It just means getting rid of 'toxic masculinity' or whatever the hell the new feminist buzzword is for 'men are being men and need to be more woman because reasons.'

Harelia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Then you shouldn't be, because what people mean when we say that is literally just this:



The number of people who have 'trans forced on them' is so small as to be statistically insignificant. There's probably more people with those rare genetic diseases that only one in a billion people get. Almost every trans person has being cis forced on them, however. That shit starts even before we're born.

I mean considering it's pretty much the diamond standard I don't see the issue. Sexuality is like Subclassing. Just because most people play cis don't mean we gotta shit on them because we're building a non-cis tanky support with third tier gay magic.

Harelia wrote:

Imperial Hugonia wrote:But that would mean questioning male gender expectations. Which is entitlement apparently.

No. It just means getting rid of 'toxic masculinity' or whatever the hell the new feminist buzzword is for 'men are being men and need to be more woman because reasons.'

Thermodolia wrote:

Harelia wrote:
No. It just means getting rid of 'toxic masculinity' or whatever the hell the new feminist buzzword is for 'men are being men and need to be more woman because reasons.'

I propose a new term. Can we use Toxic humanity? Because both guys and girls can be pretty toxic at times

Thermodolia wrote:

Harelia wrote:
No. It just means getting rid of 'toxic masculinity' or whatever the hell the new feminist buzzword is for 'men are being men and need to be more woman because reasons.'

I propose a new term. Can we use Toxic humanity? Because both guys and girls can be pretty toxic at times

Grenartia wrote:

Harelia wrote:
I mean considering it's pretty much the diamond standard I don't see the issue. Sexuality is like Subclassing. Just because most people play cis don't mean we gotta shit on them because we're building a non-cis tanky support with third tier gay magic.

I mean, its not really sexuality, its gender. And its not shitting on cis people. Its just making sure society doesn't pressure people into faking being cis if they're not cis.

Harelia wrote:
No. It just means getting rid of 'toxic masculinity' or whatever the hell the new feminist buzzword is for 'men are being men and need to be more woman because reasons.'

That's not what Toxic Masculinity means. You can be masculine without being toxic. Terry Crews, Austin Powers, Hbomberguy, etc.

Pope Joan wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I propose a new term. Can we use Toxic humanity? Because both guys and girls can be pretty toxic at times

That rings true.

So what eliminates toxicity other than universal neutering?

Pope Joan wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I propose a new term. Can we use Toxic humanity? Because both guys and girls can be pretty toxic at times

That rings true.

So what eliminates toxicity other than universal neutering?

Caracasus wrote:The guy shot a bunch of innocent people. There are probably things that happened to him that led in part to what he did, and I will be the first to admit the line between criminal and victim is blurry at best but...

Yeah he chose to gun down innocent people. No way is he a victim. That would be a very silly thing to claim.

Caracasus wrote:The guy shot a bunch of innocent people. There are probably things that happened to him that led in part to what he did, and I will be the first to admit the line between criminal and victim is blurry at best but...

Yeah he chose to gun down innocent people. No way is he a victim. That would be a very silly thing to claim.

Thermodolia wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:
That rings true.

So what eliminates toxicity other than universal neutering?

Posadism?

Harelia wrote:

Caracasus wrote:The guy shot a bunch of innocent people. There are probably things that happened to him that led in part to what he did, and I will be the first to admit the line between criminal and victim is blurry at best but...

Yeah he chose to gun down innocent people. No way is he a victim. That would be a very silly thing to claim.

When it comes to certain things, people can be both victim and criminal. Cause and effect generally makes that rule of law.

But the victim part is certainly far outclassed by the fact that he tried to massacre people. I mean it's basically a more tame version of the Trolley Problem, where he could have either gone down a single track of hurting no one. Or something happened to make him completely switch tracks.

And something lead him to switch tracks, but he still caused damage. We can sympathize all we want for him but he doesn't get off the hook.

Galloism wrote:

Caracasus wrote:The guy shot a bunch of innocent people. There are probably things that happened to him that led in part to what he did, and I will be the first to admit the line between criminal and victim is blurry at best but...

Yeah he chose to gun down innocent people. No way is he a victim. That would be a very silly thing to claim.

I've been led to believe one can be both a victim and a perpetrator at the same time.

Harelia wrote:

Galloism wrote:I've been led to believe one can be both a victim and a perpetrator at the same time.

According to US Law, if you commit suicide you're both a murderer and a victim of murder, so...

Kernen wrote:

Harelia wrote:
According to US Law, if you commit suicide you're both a murderer and a victim of murder, so...

US suicide law is backwards and morally bankrupt, so that isn't your best example.

Kernen wrote:

Harelia wrote:
According to US Law, if you commit suicide you're both a murderer and a victim of murder, so...

US suicide law is backwards and morally bankrupt, so that isn't your best example.