https://nitter.mint.lgbt/GraniRau/status/1750930678328533371
Referenced image: "He brutally un@alives her family in the middle of the night. Also him: Uses silk ropes to kidn@p her so she doesn't get hurt." (Probably a mestizo girl, else MENA.)
1) A lot of women are so low-empathy they can't even empathize with other versions of themselves. "I'm not mourning my parents right now, therefore I wouldn't be sad if they were killed right in front of me."
As many have noticed, by default woman's present emotions are projected infinitely into the past and the future. She's comfy now, therefore if her brothers and sisters were ripped apart by explosives 20 feet away, she would still be comfortable. See? Perfectly sogical.
2) Lack of imagination. When she says 'unalived' it is likely the picture in her mind is just as cartoonish as the word. Stick figures with Xs for eyes. Her mom is the stick figure in a skirt. She is not imagining the charnel sewer of voided and ruptured bowels, seasoned with puke, and garnished with the raw ends of hacked limbs or shattered giblets.
Maybe she's imagining a videogame. Her parents flash red a few times and then fall over when their HP runs out. "Brutal." Perhaps they disappear in a puff of smoke to save on RAM. "Killed." Then there's the always-popular offscreen censorship. They make dying noises from the next room, or they're run through but she's watching his eyes, not his hands, so they're out of frame.
Roadkill does not constitute the killer app of cologne.
3) Women aren't taken seriously, therefore they don't take themselves seriously.
"Oh my god! I didn't mean it!" Don't follow the things she says as a prescription, loser.
She knows what she's saying is batshit crazy, but nobody is going to pay real attention anyway, so what does it matter? Why not say something even batshit crazier just to get a reaction? As long as she doesn't upset her frenemies ("you hurt my feewings") everything is fine. Woman = Troll.
4) She genuinely hates her family. Actually, she does want them dead. It's okay: they deserve it.
Only problem being, given who her parents are, she probably deserves it too. Bad blood. Stop boinking the local holes after you genocide the males. At least sterilize first.
Do women want to be gently kidnapped by someone who can tear their family limb from limb? Well, sure, probably. Doesn't want them to concretely demonstrate their credentials.
Imagine being 'kidnapped' by your favourite AI girl. "Oh noes, she's forcing me to ream her undercarriage, how terrible. How could I possibly resist." Either you're single and will only be disappointed if she doesn't 'kidnap' you again next week, or you're not single but oh geeze you have an excuse, honey. Forced, see. Girls want to be 'kidnapped' only by men they would go with willingly, and it's mainly because these child-women hate responsibility that much.
Basically she's pining for an anime boy. There's already anime about a prince spiriting a plain girl away from her boring dad. Just needs a bit more beating him up and burning down the house, and you're good to go. "He met her piercing gaze, and saw something in her perfectly coiffed hair (which he certainly didn't see in her figure; this isn't shounen) thus he stole her away instead of beating her up like her sister." If you're gonna pander, why not go whole hog? Pandering and restraint rarely go together.
No the horrible thing is that killing a woman's children is what makes her horny. Same as lions. THIS is the traumatic aphrodisiac. You can't do that scene, not even in after-midnight anime.
Some women will genuinely have children trying to make some other man fly into a jealous rage and kill the kids, because the idea makes her wet. These women don't make great mothers, for some reason.
This isn't the only utterly retarded scheme they're fond of. Why, it is likely that the daughters of these women would be interested in seeing their entire family killed for real, charnel stench or not.
Monday, May 13, 2024
Kidnapping Psychology in Female Hominids
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
today is apparently Whats Up With The Holes day
i don't have a direct comment, but i was nearby earlier:
""But none of them are gay and the queen has a reason to be the way she is. She was basically the karen s'jet of her people. But after she got them out of trouble they tried to kill her because they feared her. So she took over her entire species and installed implants into them."
" >they feared her
>she took over her entire species and installed implants into them
>the queen has a reason to be the way she is
Yeah, that was indeed written by a woman."
" >because they feared her. So she took over her entire species
So they were completely right to be afraid."
" >But after she got them out of trouble they tried to kill her because they feared her. So she took over her entire species and installed implants into them.
Oh, so in other words she's actually a tyrant and was her species was completely justified in their actions, their only flaw was that they lost the fight."
apparently homeworld 3 is also woman moment central
uhhhh hm. feels like i am three steps away from finding the base accounting shape for this. what does this and gw2 writing have in common. which three steps.
is it a transformation of slave morality. "this is what happens when slaves get power". is "woman moment" just equivalent to "slave revolt"...
? are women slaves?..
what is a slave. what is the difference between a slave and a cooperator. a slave is whatever sort of mind is best fit for perpetual existence as a slave. but who wants a slave if slaves are net negatives...
hmm recent pancake familiar
"One of the reasons why communist massacres are so little remembered is that the mind cannot apprehend them as anything more than senseless accident and stupidity, an embarrassment. But to have been killed by Hitler is an honor.
Everyone conceives of their enemies as Hitler because "murdered by Hitler" is the only meaningful death available to them."
""the thing they don't like is the only meaning available to them""
this doesnt feel complete. complete is a mechanism, needs a counterpart.
party a: "can't live with them can't live without them"
party b: ? same as party a?
oh here it is
the speaker doesn't believe there is another way, and Does What Has To Be Done: which is, stay together
the counterpart does believe there is another way--- no, more accurately, believes there is only the other way. "cooperate vs defect" is the wrong level. "cooperate vs defect" is the land of choice. this kind of shape is in the land of no choice. and the opposite of no choice cooperate is no choice defect.
counterpart does want out forever no matter what. since they are the antagonists they will lose. since the writer has angst it is projected onto the antagonist. thus the cartoonishly evil universal genocide villain.
opposite of no choice defect is no choice cooperate.
thus, implant enslaved race
thus aurene eats balthazar and palawa joko
mm. looks good. ask and ye shall receive. just derive the entire thing on the spot.
this means the essence of "woman" is "no choice". which seems about right
wonder what the positive direction is. libra? exaltation of saturn. socially minded. ..is that a positive direction. well that's a complete enough scope for this time"
The main thing that strikes me as feminine here is the failure to distinguish any form of power from omnipotence. Binary thinking. "got them out of trouble" => power to do something => power to do anything.
I do like the broken aesop. Yes, exactly they were right to fear her: because all feelings are simply direct gnosis of real physical reality, see? The moral is that [abstract] never has to doubt their feelings, ergo, no woman has to doubt her feelings.
--
If tsundere anime girl couldn't punch the pervert, it would mean the pervert had the power and the anime girl wouldn't be mad about whatever he's doing to her; she would think it's hot.
Woman cannot imagine a non-hot guy being able to block her punch.
Women have an childishly simplified view of male society, and get extraordinarily distraught if not shielded from the actual reality.
"Woman cannot imagine a non-hot guy being able to block her punch." ooooooooo
"The moral is that [abstract] never has to doubt their feelings, ergo, no woman has to doubt her feelings." hmm...
the woman principle seems to be "i am you and you are me".
so if they see something they are something.
well, i say it because i'm libra ascendant and ive been using myself to model women, but it seems to line up.
problem is when the other guy really is not you. can't use venus to fight wars.
their solution is a "Board of Equalization" instead. 'Did You Bring Enough To Share With The Class'. which is more expensive than just fighting the war.
evidence autosummonong, exhibit 2; holes really like this kind of story.
"I really NEED to know Hexe's plot, it just sounds so fucking stupid
>You see, they killed those women because they accused them of being witches that killed people!
>They were right btw
>Now play as this witch that kills people"
wait now that i think about it it literally is women. "you say im so bad well then i will be bad! take that!". what is this...
oh this is the jew thing too; "i told you so you can't blame me anymore".
oh. it really is other-centered. ""you made me do this"". rather than i hate you or i have decided you are an enemy. the sin is transferred to the chicken, the self has always been pure.
really can just derive anything real on the spot.
If you're not a liar or insane (same dif) things make all the sense, yes.
>why can't live without
Yes, very woman moment: "These ones tried to kill me. Solution: keep them around forever."
Men have stronger immune systems; more acute illness from breakthrough events, much less chronic illness. Girls keep getting colds and stuff because their naive reaction to a deadly virus is to latch on and never let go.
--
Meta point on whether they were right to fear her: where were the men, who do things based on what they think instead of purely going on emotion?
Very difficult for a woman to imagine a man keeping his word because, you know, he gave his word.
Where were the men 2: why didn't they get themselves out of trouble? If they need to be saved, they're already property. (Fantasy moment: a woman owning anything.)
I noticed there's something I do that's feminine, then I promptly forgot what it was.
[>i am bad
>no can't possibly be me]
there it is, maybe.
its been occurring to me modelling others using myself has great promise. if "projection" is true anyways (which it is: accounting is not possible without telos), that means it's possible to project something that will actually happen, via properly manipulating internals, which is coincidentally the thing we have most control over.
'projection is bad, we must wait for The Facdxts' <- slave
If a tool is useful, use it. Moralizers are always trying to get you to discard a useful too. (Women and whites most affected. Sanctimonious bigots.)
I remember this part: "I know for sure that's why they do [the thing], because I do the exact same thing." I'll remember eventually. Probably become an apropos of nothing.
I wanted to bring up a thing about cartoonish villains. They have to use those (e.g. hitler) because they're aware they don't necessarily look good compared to any realistic adversary.
Another binary: women approximate "he knew what I was feeling one time" as perfect omniscient telepathy, knowing what she's feeling at all times without her having to say anything.
Consequently all negative feelings are intentional on his part. (See also: omnipotence.)
"you're literally hitler im a realistic person" t. cartoon villain
"its your fault i did that" t. cartoon villain
why does anyone take holes seriously again
this reminds me i built in the opposite direction after your thing about purpose of responsibility and this is not actually the common position. 22 Sep 01:
"You should let me do what I want because you know I have good intentions because I said so" < common
"My actions are my responsibility which means I have to model your actions which means what you intend is up to me" < solution
this has upset someone more than once ('wtf you can't just decide what i feel') but they have no counterarg and i can't find a better ironman and i'm pretty good at ironmanning when i decide to ironman it. the error type is if i am not actually paying proper attention, "but what if you're wrong", but in this model the error has also shifted to my responsibility. if i am right, it's my responsibility, if i am wrong, it's also my responsibility. which is rather funny because in the common model which people want me to use, whether i am right or wrong it is still not my responsibility: the other guy is responsible for everything, and gets to decide what if any benefits or punishments i get. except they're not responsible either. no one is responsible. and everyone will stop anyone from being responsible. crimes and bad things simply multiply, forever. paperclip ai: human perpetrator farm edition.
>why does anyone take holes seriously again
The natural state of humanity is to be batshit insane. In this particular case, it's supposed to be counter-signalling. "I'm so rich I can afford to pretend to take holes seriously."
"Yeah my wife asked for the most ridiculous nonsense. I gave all of it to her, because why not lol" You're supposed to feel envy at this, lmao.
>you can't decide what I feel
"I just decided to make you outraged, so, uh, yes I can."
With someone honourable you can speak frankly and negotiate. "What do you want? Okay, here's what I want." Then you both do something that makes you both richer. If they are not honourable, your options are to manipulate them or to let them manipulate you...and why would you allow the latter? Especially if they're a hole and hate successfully manipulating anyone?
E.g. "Hey uh I don't want my comments deleted."
"Oh uh your comments aren't deleted, they're stuck in the spam filter."
Negotiation successful: comments no longer stuck in spam filter. It was merely an error, the error can be corrected.
You don't get to decide how I feel about comments and the spam filter, but it's also unnecessary.
"I'm so rich I can afford to pretend to take holes seriously."
o, makes sense. the most luxurious/public/expensive form of enjoying women.
...i think i still prefer women that make me money instead. why expense to look rich when i can just be rich?
That's not very tax-bill-maximizing of you. If you're being rich how is the State supposed to get rich by taking all your money?
I noticed chinese manga don't do pettanko. (Manhua?) They're all XLXL. I'm suspecting your preference in women's figures is a racial trait.
P.S. Women's suffrage.
"You hired your girlfriend to be your [[secretary]]? loool I let my girlfriend play at being CEO!"
"I'm so rich I can afford to let women [[design]] bridges so [[seriously]] they collapse and kill hundreds. Nobody will get fired, let alone prosecuted!"
apparently japanese=manga korean=manhwa chinese=manhua. i'm never going to remember this because they are all (obviously) the same word.
i do love big titties.
the higher principle is i like balance, but it took a very long time to notice this. the simple outcome is wide hips = big tits, pear is obviously unbalanced, and flat board has nothing so it can't be balanced.
this is probably where intricate extravagence comes from: there's a lot more things, thus potentially a lot more balance.
Post a Comment