NeoGAF & ResetERA - The Hilarious N̶e̶v̶e̶r̶e̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ Splintering "Gaming" Forum Circus

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1757992926936.webp
 
Baraka Obama said:
If you really felt like a mass murder of every troon was imminent wouldn't the right move be to lay low and stop pushing on 80/20 issues like transing children? Find some common ground to encourage moderate voices to win out. Just go to them men's washroom or hold it until you get home.

Instead it's maximum retard all day every day.
Click to expand...
The left has completely lost the plot, is what I would say. But they lost the plot a long time ago. Instead of contemplating about whether or not they're wrong, they keep doubling and tripling down on issues that an overwhelming majority of people are vehemently against.
 
Cuckoman said:
No one is going to string them up. That is ridiculous. What is happening is that normal people will start telling them to "shut up, pervert" and "no, you are not going to groom the children". Telling them no and that they no longer support them.
Click to expand...
Do you think Kirk would still be alive if he hadn't touched the transgender issue?

The dude was your average run of the mill conservative but every time the transgender issue is brought up, the people who seem to have a huge stake on it get very irrational and almost violent, now so far with the shooter and his motive becomes more clear, that seems to be the case. It looks like the left has created a monster and has no idea how to put it away.
 
Zaragoza said:
Do you think Kirk would still be alive if he hadn't touched the transgender issue?

The dude was your average run of the mill conservative but every time the transgender issue is brought up, the people who seem to have a huge stake on it get very irrational and almost violent, now so far with the shooter and his motive becomes more clear, that seems to be the case. It looks like the left has created a monster and has no idea how to put it away.
Click to expand...
No, he was the left's Public Enemy Number One. He was de-radicalizing college kids and spreading the truth about the positive sides of family, fatherhood and faith. He reached too many of the people the left saw as their next wave of footsoldiers.

As much as they hate Trump, they hated Charlie more for making young people turn toward Trump and conservatism in general.
 
The greater a'tuin said:
I do ruminate over the nature of "suck my dick" as an insult sometimes. What is the core of the affront? The homosexual act alone? The implication of oral rape? Or just the inherent submissiveness in giving a blowjob?
Click to expand...
This goes back to Rome where the dynamic was penetrator vs penetrated. Second most faggy thing you could do was suck another dude's dick because you were getting on your knees in sexual submission to another man. The only thing faggier than this was eating pussy.
 
It has to be absolutely exhausting going through every company out there to make sure it's not 'problematic' so you can buy their products. I honestly don't know how the hell they manage it, when they can barely make it through a day without throwing temper tantrums because someone somewhere said something that offended a random person on the street.
 
Norms Abused Liver said:
It has to be absolutely exhausting going through every company out there to make sure it's not 'problematic' so you can buy their products. I honestly don't know how the hell they manage it, when they can barely make it through a day without throwing temper tantrums because someone somewhere said something that offended a random person on the street.
Click to expand...
They don’t. They act like they do it, but I doubt most actually investigate every companies they buy from. In fact, there’s a good chance these people aren’t actually boycotting and are just claiming to for brownie points online. For many, activism stops when it inconveniences them.
 
Norms Abused Liver said:
It has to be absolutely exhausting going through every company out there to make sure it's not 'problematic' so you can buy their products. I honestly don't know how the hell they manage it, when they can barely make it through a day without throwing temper tantrums because someone somewhere said something that offended a random person on the street.
Click to expand...
From personal experience it's more like keeping an extensive list in your head of every evil bad company and evil bad man associated with a company.

For ex: Play Asia? Once joked about a titty game and vaguely supported GamerGate2, evil bad. Anyone doing affiliate links with them? Evil bad by association.

People get a perverse sense of power when they can turn this on a company or product they already don't like, which is why reeee is so deadset against Microsoft. They can bully their peers or else they will face guilt by association. It's gross.
 
So if Disney is on the BDS list, why had so many people in that thread not already cancelled their subs until now?
 
https://www.resetera.com/threads/why-are-conservatives-so-fragile.1300128/
733883234542346.webp

"Obsession with crimes and cities" you are a fragile conservative if you want your cities to be not infested with drugs, gangs, violence, rape. Where you can go out in the evening/night and don't get a knife between the ribs by some sandnigger immigrant. Great logic here.

3363573587.webp
Yes, every conservative hates himself. Another amazing leap of logic here.

0908723445346.webp

Did this guy think that he would own conservatives by quoting a Star Wars TV show ?!?
 
I Know 孤独のせい said:
Did this guy think that he would own conservatives by quoting a Star Wars TV show ?!?
Click to expand...
He probably should have spelled oppression right to maximize the ownage.

Another guy in that thread wrote an essay explaining conservatives, here's the text:
Well. I'm back. I said I could go on a long screed about the intersections of identity and insecurity and hierarchy, and I guess I did. I wasn't going to. The thread seemed like it died after the first day, and then it came back and I was just sort of emotionally wiped and didn't care enough. Something today made me do it.

This was long. I'm going to go play Skyrim for the rest of the night.

_______________________________________

Why are conservatives so fragile?

The lens through which they view the world and the values they hold create a structure in which their entire existence is extremely precarious. Always. It's inevitable because it's baked into how the fundamental scaffolding of their culture and thought patterns intersect with human instinct.

I'll start with a disclaimer that very little of what I'm going to explain here is unique to conservatives. Most of it applies to everyone in some way or other because a lot of what I'm about to go into is psychology and instinct. Where it becomes a bigger problem is where these things intersect with and reinforce each other--that is to say, conservative fragility is an emergent property, which is why conservatives tend to be reactionaries.

It's hard to even know where to start because the intersectionality of the causes is so thick.

I. IDENTITY

Identity is a massive determiner of human action; possibly even the biggest one. Small things like what take-out you get for dinner or how you react to an injury in the moment might be driven by immediate sensory input and circumstance, but the long term patterns, the overall shape of even the small things is influenced if not outright guided by one's sense of identity. Think statistics. The average or sum can reveal patterns that individual data points do not.

Many conservatives in the modern day, especially the more extreme ones, tend to hold simply "being conservative" as an important part of their identity. Often, conservative culture will deliberately raise people this way. It's an easy path--it provides a map for how to be a person, an in-group to which you can belong, an assigned "worth," and a pre-packaged set of "values," or at least what gets sold as values. This isn't to say conservatives don't have morals, it's to say that their self-declared values are deceptive. Sometimes wilfully, sometimes unintentionally. It depends on the individual, and being ignorant to your own motivations is hardly limited to the right wing, though I would hypothesize it's more common among them. We will come back to this later.

How many left-leaning individuals do you know that hold "being liberal/leftist" as a template for their identity? Not many, I'd wager. It may be an important part of who they are, but it's typically not a trait that gets individually listed off.

The difference here is one of assignment. The conservative identity is often assigned. Sometimes people intentionally choose it later in life, but typically it's given to people before they have any idea what it even means. In contrast, the leftist identity is more frequently emergent. It comes as a result of a person's values and interests. Which is why leftists don't use it as a core identity marker as often. It's a result, not a goal.

Note the complete opposites in cause and effect here:

Leftist identity: emergent result of chosen factors (typically, not exclusively)
Conservative identity: assigned identity with prescribed factors (typically, not exclusively)

The problem with a pre-packaged identity is that people do not come pre-packaged. Such an identity will almost never fit exactly perfectly. A mindful individual may reflect on their individual points of friction and choose to be different and think of themselves differently--but an indoctrinated identity gives little leeway to do that. The problem must be themselves not living up to the archetype they "should" be. Which leads to...

II. INSECURITY

Insecurity is an incredible driver of both human suffering and human motivation. If someone's maladaptive or sociopathic behaviour isn't a result of literal resource insecurity (food, etc), and it's not trauma, there's a decent chance insecurity is lurking in there somewhere.

Insecurity arises when one's identity and/or sense of worth does not have a solid foundation. A sense of self assigned or defined by others by definition has not been built from the ground up, and thus it balances precariously over a chasm. Even worse is when that sense of worth is controlled by other people. Can you think of anything so frightening as having no control whatsoever over your entire worth as a person? Not on the social level, which is horrifying in a different way (see: slavery, castes, and so forth), but on an internal level? If you were raised to believe or have otherwise internalized that being white, or male, or whatever-other-source-of-privilege is what makes you valuable and why you have more than others, your entire identity becomes predicated on an external societal structure over which you have zero control. The entire value of your identity becomes held up exclusively by piling "lessers" beneath it--quite literally completely dependent on others. You have no way to produce your own self-esteem and no idea of how to get there, which means the only way you can get it so you can feel worth anything is taking it out of the social esteem of your arbitrarily-prescribed "lessers." Maintaining the social value tiers that give you worth becomes imperative as you scramble for an external source of the control you internally lack. But it never works because it can't work. The only way to feel a sense of control over your life is to control yourself rather than trying to control others. And so the oppression and power struggles continue infinitely.

III. INEQUALITY

Inequality itself inherently does this to people. We are still animals at the end of the day, and we evolved with the kind of extreme sensitivity to status and perception of status that comes with being a highly social species.

By definition, having different levels of "status" means it's possible for your perceived value to change. Which makes it precarious. Rivals and "betters" are threats to your safety and to your access to resources. Likewise, you can destroy the status of others to comparatively raise your own. Energy and attention have to be constantly spent defending your position and keeping watch on those "above" you, because they have the power to destroy your own status with relatively little effort.

This insecurity and constant vigilance can be otherwise referred to as stress. Which is why every metric of societal well-being gets worse as inequality gets more extreme. Illness becomes more pervasive, crime goes up, life expectancy decreases, and so on. Yes, even for the people at the top. They are worse off too.

(Conversely, a narrower range or even lack of variation in power or status means there are no threats to one's status that need to be monitored. Pro-social behaviour becomes incentivized instead, as the only statuses are "other people like me so I get to participate" and getting ostracized for being disruptive).

IV. HIERARCHY

Left-leaning people are constantly misunderstanding how right-wingers work. They constantly point out the hypocrisy of the right as if it grants some sort of victory. It doesn't. Hypocrisy is only a failing to those who value equality. The right wing does not.

The actual, fundamental, underlying difference between left-wing and right-wing politics is valuing equality or equity versus valuing hierarchy.

Hierarchy is the foundational conservative value. The belief that some people are just better and deserve better is the whole, actual, entire point. "Fairness" in their eyes is not being treated equally, it's being treated as your hierarchically-defined worth deserves. However...

V. SOCIAL SIGNALLING

Outright saying "I am intrinsically better than you [by some conveniently unfalsifiable measure] and deserve better than you" just makes you an asshole. So it tends to be couched in other terms. "State's rights" (to do what?), "family values" (that give the father authoritarian control over the mother and children), and so on. The dominator-oriented authoritarians that espouse and lead the conversation around these "values" tend to know they are a smokescreen. They tend to have sociopathic tendencies and their only true goals are power and/or wealth. The follower-oriented authoritarians may actually, naively, believe these are what their politics stand for.

In both cases, proving one's value and deserving-ness to the group is a constant endeavour, lest you be excommunicated as one of those undeserving others. This incentivizes display over truth. Thus people jockey for more and more extreme ideals as a way to prove their "virtue" to the group. "That church thinks gay people should be accepted? Well clearly they don't believe hard enough! We're willing to go the extra mile and say outright that queer people are abominations unto God! We're more virtuous than them!" It becomes a virtue-signalling death spiral of needing to go farther and farther, lest you be accused of not being a "REAL" [demographic], falling out of favour, and becoming a prop for someone else's value--like all those other "lessers." There is no fate more terrifying to someone so thoroughly enmeshed in this authoritarian power struggle as to be deemed undeserving. Empathy for outsiders is vilified via a self-reinforcing loop.

It is telling that one of the quickest and most common about-turns people make upon leaving authoritarian religions is becoming supportive of LGBTQ+ rights.

VI. ABUSE

If you are familiar with the mechanisms of abuse, you may have noticed some patterns here. Controlling others by hamstringing their self-worth. Demanding conformity lest you be deemed one of those undeserving lessers. Incentivizing displays of devotion that determine your societal value. Conflating obedience with virtue. Violence and maladaptive behaviour that spreads out laterally due to being unable to retaliate against those "above."

Conservatives are fragile because the entire ideological structure is a lashing out against a lack of an internal locus of control. It is a maladaptive, abusive societal zeitgeist that incentivizes and perpetuates dehumanization rather than resilience, because it misrepresents strength as the ability to force rather than the ability to withstand. People who are happy and secure in their identity and self-worth do not seek to dominate others, because they most likely reflected, explored their identity, and built that worth themselves. It's internal, thus it cannot be taken away. It's not threatened by someone "lesser" because the entire concept of "lesser" doesn't make sense if you don't need to dominate others.

I have occasionally thought about just how much of human history was utterly suffuse with abuse. Slavery was extremely common throughout much of the world throughout most of history. Rulers doling out extreme and cruel punishments like the rack, crow cages, being broken on the wheel. Parents beating their children as "discipline." Women being dehumanized into "property" and functionally enslaved in all but name in many times and places. Children also being regarded as the "property" of their parents, particularly of the father, granting them less rights even than prisoners in many cases. Blood sports as "entertainment," such as bear-baiting.

Hurt people hurt people. Most of our history is continuous inherited cycles of hurt people hurting the next people. Surviving the wilderness is hard and sometimes horrible decisions have to be made. The next generation tries to invent ways to alleviate the material problems, but the psychological damage is harder to root out. Maybe that's part of why it's taken until now to even start to undo even a fraction of the damage.

Right-wing, hierarchical ways of thinking can only ever perpetuate that damage because abuse is baked into the very psychology of how hierarchy shapes people.
Click to expand...
1758336235606.webp
1758336255047.webp
1758336267549.webp
1758336282098.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom