Is this an emerging mental condition? — Benj96

I think it is a matter of weak brains that are more susceptible to religiosity, ideology, and magical sophistic and same-sex solipsism. It is no mystery that incels have a direct connection to scientism that supports their delusions and conclusions of females and women, and it is this that directly separates an incel from a sexless man that does not identify as an incel; because to identify as an incel is to accept the ideology of the incel that is cultivated around black pill science, lookism and biological reductionism - in a way, it is more respectable than Manosphere men who reject the realities of how deformity can hinder a man or woman from finding attractive mates, but the incel 'science' is a radicalized delusional form of self-defeatist obsession and OCD, many having a form of body dysmorphia to boot.

On the topic of mental disorder and illness, covert narcissism, OCD, body dysmorphia (see incel 'bone-crushing' and obsession with scientific facial terms and plastic surgery), autism, bi-polar, depression, impulsivity disorders, substance additions, and debilitating social anxiety all exist in these communities, as well as learned sociopathic behavior and inactive antisocial traits - all in which have nothing to do with women or lack of, in addition to being more susceptible to religiosity, ideology, and magical sophistic and same-sex solipsism they also have all these underlying conditions which also have nothing to do with women, nor would having a woman suddenly appear solve these issues. They would simply just be paired up with a woman, and then divorced later. Women and others are not sympathetic because of all that listed, the narcissism still persists it is women and the innocent that are the problems - a cultish form of collective gaslight on the innocent or recipients. This to me is a form of ultimate insanity, expecting or desiring compassion and understanding from the victims you have beat it out of.

Even more so, it is an institutionalized 'sub-identity.' The same as manosphere red pill men is also an institutionalized identity. Unlike Red Pill men that aim to deconstruct the traditional notions of masculinity and redefine them how they see fit under completely arbitrary criteria outside of conservative and traditional norms (which - that is sloppily anti-science and based off patterns of experiences, confirmation bias and ancedotal evidence, the incel identity is developed through a completely submerge in scientism revolving around "Black Pill Science", that plainly states the reasons for a man's inceldom is directly linked toward lookism and a man's physical appearance and not his masculinity, unless the masculinity is referring to masculinization of phenotypical traits and appearances.

Incels believe in a complete biological reductionism of both males and females, and the only way to overcome their shortcomings is to overcome their biological shortcomings, it mostly focuses on a biologically deterministic/reductionist viewpoint, similar to the Red Pill that deviates because it attempts to 'fight back' and 'control the narrative' by first deconstructing Judeo-Christianity masculinity and 'creating their idea of the ultimate man, made by any-man/men' themselves, while being completely at the mercy of evolutionary biology or the 'biology of female nature'. In that way, we see men 'recreating what men should be' in the form of idolized psuedo-identities/characters like Andrew Tate - but this man neither exists in any real way - (not even to Andrew Tate) - which justifies his actions. Which is why you see a lot of distinctions without differences in such men, such as liberating themselves from the 'provider role' while going on to preach to men that through money and materiality, only you can have women - effectively just going from involuntarily servants to voluntary slaves.

In the opposite, Inceldom is a complete shredding of all other identities to completely submerge into the 'incel'. He no is no longer a man, he is no longer Michael, he is no longer anything but an incel, and his identity is now indistinguishable from his ideology.

What is fuelling the upsurgence in men that self identify as incels?

The reason for that I think is first a weakness for religiosity and magical-thinking in the mind in the first place. As we see with many men in these communities, they are 'religious-minded' first, even as atheists or non-believers, and susceptible to then, fall into these deep forms of magical-thinking and biological reductionism/absurdities.

Male brains that are more susceptible to religion, are also more susceptible to be adopted or indoctrinated into cults, which was no surprise to me when Roosh V (the man that advocated for legalizing female rape), turned to God and religion when his sister died, because there cannot be enough space for both forms of magical-thinking. Religion is notorious in deflection and accountability-eliminating coping strategy, so it does not surprise me one bit that such men would just radicalize in other forms of magical-thought if they were to leave Inceldom or RP rhetoric.

Do you think that perhaps the way dating apps are designed has some influence? Are we becoming too objectifying as a society? Is the incel "movement" dangerous? To whom and why?

So many questions on this bizarre subject.

I think it is a matter of weak brains that are more susceptible to religiosity, ideology, and magical sophistic and same-sex solipsism. I think the sooner we fix this, the more we can start getting these men to think more clearly. My advice would be:

1. Tackling religiousity and magical-thinking/delusions, replacing with reason and critical thought.
2. Addressing mental health crisis and better treatment for convert narcissism and cluster B profiles. A majority of treatment is for the victims, and not the narcissists themselves. If you are a narcissist, the advice is basically 'you are doomed' and you are the target of a mass witch-hunt.
3. Learning stoicism.
4. Erasing this idea their issues have anything to do with women and not heavy dependence on religious coping methods.

@invicta

I worded that badly. I don't think fish are inferior, I think they are fish, and yes they have means of communication. Look at sharks. My point in that post was to respond to his point, not necessarily to make mine.

I am not a misanthrope, so I think humans, we're.. fine. For the most part. It could be worse. We are fine. No need to trash us so badly. We can hold our own on this planet, and in spite of all these crazy "predators" roaming around, we are alive by the billions. We are an ok animal, not as weak as we think just to make the other animals without brain power feel better. We're all animals at the end of the day if we aren't extinct yet. Yes, we are a shitty dumb species too, but I'm fine being a human and not some apex Cheetah that runs fast or a great white shark. I don't care for their skills. It's the same way I don't want to be Tiger Woods.

I am mostly in agreement that the superiority/inferiority argument is irrelevant. Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with anything and it's a false comparison of some kind unless we are comparing parts and natural skills of animals to each other, but unless OP is making a transhumanism or supernatural kind of argument, I don't see how humans by the nature of being humans can be superior to other animals as animals themselves. They would have to super in someway, and there is nothing that can justify the -super. What is super about humans, OP? What makes us super .. natural?

I think humans and fish are both animals and neither of us can transcend the animal kingdom, we will both always be a part of it, but what even is the relevance of that, anyway also?

If can't transcend the animal kingdom? Well, we could hypothetically but then we lose what makes us human. We are looking at Transhumanism if not supernatural. That's the only way out of this.

When we are no longer humans, we are no longer animals. That means to me personally, the entire OP just dissolves in on itself. If we are not animals, we cannot be superior/inferior to one. Like a goldfish. We are apart of a different classification. We are competing with AI, computers, and technology. We are a part of the technology kingdom now and have to conform to the rules of IT. The tech master race. It's not too far off, the human brain is computational. But we will never be able to keep up with the "tech master race". We will be the fish of their world. Swimming around aimlessly in a bunch of data soup. That alone should humble you.

A fish of course is incapable of having such a discourse as we’re having but if they could speak they’d immediately acknowledge our superiority to them in almost every aspect apart from being able to breathe under water. — invicta

Okay. But if a fish could speak and be intelligent enough to have enough self-awareness, introspection, and skilled enough understanding and use of language to deem humans "superior" in the first place, then OMG, they would not be fish. They would be almost equal competitors and demonstrate we are NOT superior.

Look at Tenoch Huerta Mejía (the fish people) from the 2nd black panther movie. It would be just like that.

Actually, antinatalism is incorrect. Firstly, most people do seem to value their lives, so I would not say it's a privilege. Secondly, I think one could also say that suffering is an illusion. We are all happy to varying degrees, even if we don't recognise that yet — DA671

How can we say that suffering is an illusion? Are cancers, chronic painful medical conditions "illusions"? Was the Holocaust "not real"? Did black slaves "ask for it" by not putting up more resistance?

Explain?

To me the question is not whether or not atheism is significant to just theism but instead what is the significance of theism and whatever that significance is will explain what else atheism is significantly relevant or correlational to. You cannot live without either being theistic or atheistic in some degree.

Atheism is significant not just to theism but also to the fundamental questions of life and existence, to metaphysics, epistemology and ethics - because as an atheist there is a fundamental absence of theism to where atheism then begins to question or inquire the unanswered questions of metaphysics that theism claims to have absolute knowledge to. To me, without this inquiry or curiosity we are looking at an agnostic position which is an absence of information and data.

A better word to me is dependent on or necessary for, theism is necessary for atheism in a dualistic sort of relationship but both are significant to more than each other because of the fundamental claims they both (sometimes) make.

If so how can we say these behaviors are done based on ones belief or structure of beliefs overtime and not recently gained knowledge or an axiomatic system?

My question to you would be, if knowing humans are fundamentally competitive and can be reduced to mere survival at all costs, why give them each God like power? — Benj96

See below. If we all have god powers, no one has god powers or we all have god powers and wouldn't make much a difference. We would form "god societies" and form different norms, rules and laws that all revolve around our powers, but that's me being extremely anthrocentric.

I suspect most gods wouldn't even remain around. A great deal of gods would simply leave out of boredom, assuming they had the capacity to feel it. Most won't even interact the way humans do. I think most would be solitary and occupy different regions of the universe or exist outside of it entirely creating their own.

And if we all had the same power wouldnt we be truly equal — Benj96

Humans are equal in flesh and as an abiotic species. The same would hypothetically apply if we were all made gods with the same powers. Killing each other will either be more effective or not that effective at all.

Once god powers are given, they are no longer human. And most won't stay around to compete or participate in politics. I know I wouldn't. The narcissists would probably stay because they have nothing else to live for. That's assuming gods have the capacity to even develop flesh-brained disorders.

Unless you're talking about super-HUMAN powers? I still think even then most primitive humans will die off and kill each other, the super-humans will be more intelligent, less stupid and less competitive.

I would give everyone else god powers and then watch us all fight to the death in all the chaos.

Yippee! I hope you become the next Ceasar — Merkwurdichliebe

Haha, well I don't think it may happen now because the republicans are throwing up time-stalling lawsuits. I got an email from the Department of Education saying my application is "on hold" until further notice. I hope it goes through, though.

With that said, is it ethical for technological automation top be stunted, in order to preserve jobs (or a healthy job marketplace)? — Bret Bernhoft

I think this is a capitalism issue. I don't think people are fussed about jobs, they are fussed about having no work and bad pay. Stunting technology won't solve anything, so I voted no.

While it is apparent that Haidt's views might be compelling, they don't seem to address justifications for morals, — ToothyMaw

I think the easiest justification is that rational compassion harms no one, but lack of any rational compassion harms all by direct and indirect negligence.

I think the point is not that morals need or don't need justifications, but instead that humans animals and agents, whomever can't thrive properly or healthily under extreme negligence and continuance of this negligence whether intentional or not eventually leads to inevitable demise.

To say that torture is bad is to say that moral claims can be true. If moral facts could not ever be true, the torture would not be bad, there would be no reason to prevent torture. — Leftist

Torturing is definitely bad but it's not because it is "claimed to be bad" or spoken into existence as being a bad thing nor is it because of the action, but instead because of the intention and the intention is often unreasonable making the actions that are inflicted superfluous. The intent behind torture is always irrational and there is no justification for inflicting repetitive harmful actions on people, animals or agents that can register harm.

It's not I claim torture is bad, it's torture is in fact bad and this is how. The latter is a claim about something and not a claim of something.

So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then? — Bartricks

Who cares? Humans are GOING TO PROCREATE because that's what humans do. Who cares if we "should or shouldn't". This is completely unrelated to your original OP that asks:

Should some all-powerful non-human reptilian with all the power and knowledge in the world put SENTIENT life on the planet, and the answer is no, and if it DOES because of the crazy comparison you're making with humans because "THIS IS WHAT HUMANS DO" .. then it should help the suffering and those that need help.

Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then? — Bartricks

It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"

Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL.

At what point does a human being rationalise it’s consumption ? — Deus

Why do humans have to "rationalize" their consumption and not other animals? What is the point intellectualizing an animal eating another animal? It's simple, humans are HANGRY and HONGRY.

In your same post you claim fish have enough emotionality to not be "food", but also make some kind of implication that fish should still not be eaten, but you do not extent this type of equal protection to humans. Humans have to modify basic human needs and desires; but a fish with enough emotionality to be considered a 'protected species to be as HANGRY as it wants and eat everything in sight' is perfectly okay. Uh, why?

The sharks are so emotionally intelligent humans should just die by their jaws because the shark is simply hangry?

What about invasive protein plump pests eating up all the vegetation? Do you think humans should move them to someone else's lawn, peacefully let them thrive because oh no the pain or start 'rationally' consuming them for protein?

Biden just forgave thousands of my student debt. Thanks Biden and Harris!

Luckily you can work from home in crusty Chester Cheetah pajamas now and still make 100k.

Why do you associate "work" with NEETING or slaving up a mountain? Work is healthy and doesn't have to be hard.

They obviously should not introduce sentient life into the world. And if they do, then they should help the suffering and those that need help. It is easy.

Help the suffering and those that need it. That was easy.

Thank you!

Hello,

I am traveling soon and have a long flight ahead. What would be some good books to read along the way?

If X is true for everything within the universe, then X is also true for the universe itself.

Is that then a statement that holds true? — Magnus

Um, no.

The universe isn't "everything inside the universe".

is proven false and subsequently, the Kalam cosmological argument is proven to be a false argument. — Magnus

The Kalam argument never lifted off the ground. There is no evidence for any kind of unique existence of a "personal powerful being"; so the first premise is already false because there would evidence via 'cause' to point to the existence of a powerful being being 'caused to exist'.

Um, what? Please dumb it down.

We can agree to disagree. I think most women suffer more from biological neurosis more often than not stemming from being of smaller stature. Yes, large scary men "scary me" but I can rationalize it's not because he wants to rape and kill me and take my womanhood, and even if he does, the likelihood of him doing that is slim. Your dad is more likely to rape you than some man at a grocery store.

I can say this as a woman because I spend ample amount of time around them, and most are neurotic. You underestimate what women are aware of and give a crap about. Women are aware that men thinking about ripping them a new asshole, and are aware of male sexuality and sexual nature, probably their own male partner, they just don't give a crap because there is no need to or no real threat.

Dressing conservatively makes no difference at all if you are an attractive woman. Women know this already and get approached by losers daily, especially if you are in a city area, this is nothing new. It just is irrational to give a crap about that in a civilized society. Most men are not potential rapists and lack the necessary characteristics to be one, just like "dangerous incels" are rare.

Even times of war, the whole US Army doesn't go on raping spree. It's still the same small subset of men, that still may increase in number, causing a large amount of damage. For every woman that's killed, some man just died by the bullet of another man.

I don't see your point making this some big thing, the only takeaway from your post is that men are inherently crazy and women are just collateral damage.

Dworkin seems to have felt similarly, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. — _db

Is this supposed to appeal to me because she's a woman and some feminist? Don't do that.

Drowkin was batshit crazy and most sane people do not care about her except men trying to prove some point, 99% of the time.

What I really should have said is that men will perceive (projection) women as intentionally trying to elicit sexual feelings just in order to frustrate them, — _db

No, they do not. Men get frustrated because they are sexually attracted to her. They then either pursue her and get rejected or belittle her because she ruins their idealized view of a woman he made up in his head. He gets pissed because he feels entitled to ownership of the woman he desires and her sexuality.

If not that, they get frustrated because they perceive themselves a certain way, and project it on to her, such as being below her, thus never taking the approach to begin with because she's too hot to handle and only has sex with the man she CHOOSES to, then get pissed at her because of their own issues, one being he thinks the likelihood of him being chosen by her is slim.

This is why deranged men that can't get women or sex promote sex socialism and taking women back to the kitchen, while sexually active happy men do not and support more liberal freedoms for women.

This post is just a bunch of it's a woman's fault because she has freedom of choice and that men want to rape or kill her and control her body, which is absolutely insane. You should be advocating for these men to get professional help and be better humans. There are men like this, but it's nowhere near a significant amount and when it is it is socialized into them usually by one deranged male.

Whether a woman is actually trying to do this is irrelevant to the dynamic — _db

No it is not. It is completely relevant because it demonstrates a small subset of sadistic men that desire to harm women physically and emotionally without reason that women should actively know the signs of and avoid. Especially since you are making the argument these men exist in tangible reality as a commonality and interact with women often.

And this is why Dworkin is batshit crazy, because she attempts to argue that all men are sadists and instills false insecurity and false fears into otherwise, healthy women.

Men will grow to hate women's bodies for the power they hold over him. They will resent women for just being in their world. Hence why women sometimes feel the need to dress conservatively, in order to feel safe. — _db

Yes, because they are not getting laid and feel entitled to women's bodies. Then they make up a false scenario that women are depriving them intentionally and that men are an oppressed class because sex socialism is not a thing.

Women do not dress conservatively to feel safe from men because they are men, they dress conservatively to avoid a specific small group of people that EXCLUSIVELY TARGET women to induce harm and/or unnecessary unwanted attention.

Just as Brownmiller said, rape is a looming threat that men use on women. — _db

Wtf! No it isn't. When it comes to violence and sexual abuse there is no significant difference between the genders,in that other men, boys and children are also targets, sometimes exclusively, by this very same subset of deranged entitled sadistic men. The rape in male prison is sky high, precisely because this subset of the same men target others to inflict harm through entitlement. These same "threats" also work on men and boys/children, the only difference is men are less proactive about it because again, more male holier than thou no one can touch me and the world owes me mentalities.

Brownmiller sounds like she is projecting her own neurosis on other women, which is why Dworkin is not regarded as any significant feminist figure outside of a laughing stock.

Functionally yes. But while the dick does what it does, don't you think there's a greater more noble thing happening here? — L'éléphant

No.

Who gets fucked in the vaginas says something about other qualities about that human being. For example, women are still the ones carrying the baby in the womb. Why can't men do that that in 2022? — L'éléphant

Wtf! You act like women spend even a significant part of their lives pregnant with a baby in the womb. A majority of a woman's life is not spent pregnant. There are far more unpregnant women than there are pregnant ones, and when she is pregnant it's only for 9 months of her life, 12 if you count recovery time, otherwise she goes back to normal.

As a woman I don't give two fucks about pregnancy, having a vagina or having a womb. I barely notice it is there until some man points it out 99% of the time because his dick wants to jump in it.

What "qualities" do I lack that you have because of your dick? What is it that a man can do other than shoot sperm that woman isn't doing in 2022?

That's why I asked earlier that your view only stems from viewing women as nothing but reduced birthing machines that knit sweaters. If this is not the case, I don't see what the point of your post even is. These posts are ALWAYS made by men, and we all know why. Men are socialized to hate women that do anything outside of what they say is correct for a woman and justify it through pop evopsych.

So, do dicks and vaginas exist for no good reason other than mutation? — L'éléphant

Duh. Wtf do you think is a "reason" or "purpose" for dicks to exist are for aside from sticking them in vaginas. What are livers for? Ethical decision-making? Dicks and vaginas aren't brains, tits and ass aren't people, sperm and ovum aren't babies.

What is your dick to you other than decoration? God's gift to women? Do you worship female uteruses? Find something else to do. Females give birth and do so daily without complications or issues, it's not some novel thing.

Men objectify women -> women resent this objectification -> women take revenge on men by frustrating the sexual desires of men -> men resent this frustration -> men take revenge on women by raping them, or raping surrogates via porn. — _db

This is absolutely insane. A woman choosing to not sleep with you is not an act of revenge; you just feel so because you are drowned in entitlement. This is the craziest shit I've heard in a long time. Entitled people always think someone is withholding something from them in specific with malicious intent just because they can't obtain that thing by organic, fair or natural means - then they think everyone must feel like they do.

Why is this always the beginning of an argument for some people?"Males and females have more similarities than differences" -- so therefore, sex assignment and gender roles are nonsense? The similarities do not invalidate the differences. Animals of different species have similarities. But they differ in fundamental ways. Culture tries to artificially invalidate or blur the differences in gender, but if you look at the primitive and prehistoric records, humans just naturally acted based on sexes. — L'éléphant

Likewise, posts like this make no sense. You are the same as the gender fetishiests that think males and females can "transition" unironically, while shunning the these very people. You argue males and females are so vastly different from each other; then feel nervous when a woman does anything other than birthing babies and knitting because you feel she is deviating or will deviate from her natural sex just because she's standing next to you as a man. Everything she does no matter what she does is always as female human woman. She is never not female or a woman. A woman that is the CEO of a major company does so as a woman. A woman that is the Queen of England and inflicts war on multiple countries does so as a woman. This viewpoint you have is a laughable viewpoint overall.

Are the sexes "so different" in terms of prison sentences and thus should be held to different criteria in regards to offending for the same crimes, then? How far does this argument go? I suspect you cherry-pick everything.

The sexes are fixed. A woman being a fireman isn't going to end the world because the sexes are fixed. She will not turn into a male nor a man, so what are you worried about if she is adequate for the role? Are you insane? Your ideological viewpoint is no different from what transsexuals argue, so why in the world would you be against this notion in practice?

For me, what a woman or man does is completely redundant if you are a sex essentialist, because as a sexual essentalist who gives a flying fuck. There are only dicks and vaginas and competent people.

What are these "necessary" attributes? — Michael

It is very simple. The necessary attributes in order to constitute X, all said 'parts'. What are the 'necessary' attributes of Sodium? Sodium is not 'radium' because it lacks the necessary attributes to be so. There are factual distinctions that make a difference between males and females, which is why we make the scientifically interesting distinction between the two. This is untrue for 'gender', which is a completely arbitrary concept that anyone can insert anything into, which is why you are confused. I do not care about gender at all, or 'man and woman' because it is a made up concept. A male in a dress is not a female, so who gives a flying fk if he wears a dress to go against something abstract concept of 'man'. This is a trivial offensive way to view a female, and mockery of genuine transsexual individuals because the reality is, a 'male or female' without dysphoria can wear anything and still not feel a need to augment themselves.

Gender is a concept held dearly by those suffering from body-idealistic narcissistic solipsism, yes, including the trad-conservative cornballs and the trangenders, and other gender and race fetishtists.

The rich are making money off the people who genuinely think a woman in a suit that grunts is less of a woman in the factual, which is absolutely insane. These people are no different from the traditionalist disgusting conservatives reaffirming gender roles while dishonestly claiming to abolish them by being the male that wears a dress, who reaffirms the traditionalist conservative magical-thinking nutjobs that also think he is less of a man as a matter of necessary factual maleness because he put on a dress.

I am sex essentialist, and funnily enough, so are silenced transsexuals, which is why although impossible, I sympathize with their condition more than the transgenders that are completely made up unicorns, like 'man and woman', the concepts that are just magical-thinking trad-con fetishes the transgenders continue to reaffirm instead of progressively moving on from 'gender-thinking'.

In order to be considered 'trans', you must have the necessary traits and attributes to be so, if the medical professional is doing their job correctly, this is why a random cannot claim to be trans and receive hormones without meeting the necessary criteria. A trans that lacks X, Y, Z necessary traits is not 'trans'.

Females with strong male-like characteristics are known to have hormonal abnormalities, she is still female, but this is recognize medically as an abnormal deviation. This is not a 'transgender' or 'trans' person, this is a female with a beard, because she lacks the necessary attributes to be 'trans' (dysphoria), etc..

This question itself is a strong refute transsexualism as is, because if there are no necessary attributes that make X and Y, there are no necessary attributes to 'transition' to - or to lack/claim to have, which appeals to some form of agender society, which does not work, in so far as female and males (and this intuitive) distinction exists as a matter of fact in a non-arbitrary non-abstract world.

Transsexualism makes a direct claim, or implies to a series of series necessary attributes that exist in the opposite sex to either "be" or "not be," such as observed differences in trans brains that correspond with the 'sex' they claim to be (although not in fact), which justifies their transition or need to.

It appeals to a binary system, which is why the term was changed to be arbitrary and include 'gender' which does not exist in any real form.

There is nothing real about gender. There are no 'biological genders' like there are no 'biological races', it is a made up cash-grab like masculinity and femininity, yet nutjobs still think Transgenderism exists in any real fashion.

While it is impossible to transition from one sex to another, it is entirely reasonable to grasp the concept of transsexualism in so far male and female exists as a matter of fact, while transgenderism does not exist in no interesting way that is not solely mental dependent (or indistinguishable from mental disorder). Transsexualism falls a part where the trans individual starts making claims that a transition (of X to Y) has occurred.

The trans person has augmented themselves, not 'transitioned' because they lack the necessary attributes of the opposite sex to become one, hence, why they augment themselves.

Would you refer to someone with XX male syndrome using "he" or "she" (or both or neither)? — Michael

This person is intersex, as it says on the wiki. People with abnormal or mixed-sex characteristics/traits have always been "intersex". Intersex is uncommon and a fact. Just like male and female. There are males, females and then intersex. This is the only time the 'they/them' pronoun makes any form of sense outside of arbitrary made-up identities. I respect the intersex and they must be protected. The other arbitrary trivial identities are just that.

you just made this up — Garrett Travers

Philosophy.

It is exactly a number. Like 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

Old bearded white male usually. European accent helps, too. Like British.

Everyone else is called a nerd, suicidal, or neurotic.

God has free will in the same way we do. All the subjective claims of theistic god in terms of morality allude to a moral agency. That's why the whole thing is ridiculous. He's indistinguishable from your dead great great great grandparent, and no one really listens to their parents anyway.

I think it's not even a stretch to say God has already committed suicide.

Either transsexuality does not exist, or it is incoherent. A male and female cannot transition to the opposite sex because they lack the necessary attributes of the opposite sex to do so.

If a transsexual male claims they have the necessary attributes of a female, then he cannot transition to a female, and the word is essentially redundant.

It only works if matters of fact are mental-dependent. If no females existed as matters of a fact, it would be impossible for a male to 'claim to be one'.

Addressing this incoherence, the word was morphed to 'trans-gender' which includes a series of over 100 different arbitrary identities in order for trans ideology to make sense. Now, anything under this umbrella can make pragmatic 'social sense' because they view man and women are purely arbitrary abstract mental-dependent constructs in spite of clear logical incoherence and incorrectness.

I do think there are legitimate transsexuals, but I do not think transgenderism exists outside of socially normative abstractions. The majority of trans, especially the bored edgy kids today are not trans, and the actual legitimate transsexuals who are much less in number, have been silenced because they reaffirm sex essentialism that makes posers uncomfortable. The silenced minority of legitimate transsexuals have admitted they are incorrect in their thinking with integrity, but not 'wrong' in who they are.

There is an unwritten rule about white lies, yes. For those, we have a common understanding not to castigate someone telling white lies. — L'éléphant

Examining this is kind of the point of my question. Why do you think that is? Maybe because castigating them serves no utility for either party. I think people intuitively and alturistically understand this. Most people can't handle the truth, so they do not want to hear it. I then think it is more problematic than not to step in truth-telling all over the place to people who are harmed by the truth no matter how soft it is, instead of just minding your business. Or taking things too literally in social contexts. We can observe what people are want and are asking of you by just observing and knowing them. I think people indifferent to that may be showing a bit of autism.

f you are asking, "Does my brain look big in this post?", I have to tell you it does not. — unenlightened

Well, I'm not that intelligent, I'm fine with that. I just ask random questions on here that come into my head while reading or watching Star Trek reruns.

Most fat people know they are fat. A wife asking if she looks fat is testing you to see if you'll grant her a certain freedom to ask. She wants to see how safe and knowledgeable of her you are and if you'll defend her against the people snickering behind her back because she knows she's fat and probably shouldn't be wearing that. To be apathetic and indifferent to those snickering behind her back inflicting malicious harm on her after she wears something she likes, because the truth is, "she's fat" .. seems morally questionable.

To tell at fat ass person they are fat after they have been demonstrably gaining weight after popping out 3 kids and complaining about it for 10 years to me is an infliction of a pointless harmful truth under the weird guise that the wife doesn't know the truth already, considering she's complained about gaining weight for 10 years, just so the husband can virtue signal his morally superior 'truth-telling'.