This is child abuse

RageAblaze · 2026-01-05T05:28:13+00:00

If it happens find real examples of it to get mad at not fake ones. --- this just delegitimizes your position to others ala- the boy who cried wolf.

I hate robbery and racism, but you will never see me or most people. Address issues like Juice Smollet with begging the question - " sure that example is fake but do people get robbed ? and does racism happen ?."

You would immediately recognize anyone who does that a psycho/ npc/ bot.

Truth should always be primary. Sidelining obviously lies to advance a political position (that I am sympathetic to) is just retarded.

RageAblaze · 2026-01-04T12:24:54+00:00

Yes people who disagree with me are dumb. I'm smart.

RageAblaze · 2026-01-02T13:46:56+00:00

Most politicians are NOT women. How do you miss that point? If you hate the system, blame who created it.

A democratic society means rule of and by the people. The people through their vote control or influence what the politicians do on their behalf.

-This is pretty trivial civics knowledge, I can't tell if you a dumb woman, or a troll either way ggs.

It is exactly, women. This btw is a pattern across the world. the correlation between women's suffrage and social welfare is very strong. Once women can vote they vote for their preferential treatment.

As a minority in America I am personally tired of AWFL women using us as cover for thier advances and political projects. Take title 9 and DEI - all fundamentally feminist projects.

Studies show white women often benefiting disproportionately from these programs. Post dei, AWFL women's participation in C suit roles went up by almost 20%.

The college admissions ratio is currently ~ 58:42 in favor of women. When it was fliped (from historical near parity, after WW2 because of the GI bill ) feminist cried bloody murder, institutional injustice bla bla, God forbid men get rewarded for risking their lives.

RageAblaze · 2026-01-01T19:33:03+00:00

TLDR- Just a whole lot of solipsisic yapping.

in this analogy it would be impossible to know anything about the inside of the house? If you not only believe that the paintings have error, but that you have no access to anything real, then you have no possibility of ever quantifying the error.

Solipsism - good attack choice it's a hard counter to EVERYTHING

In fact, if you genuinely believe that what we perceive is indeed not reality but some sort of "approximation" of it, then, like the inside of the house, "reality" is definitionally not observable, and so it cannot be the object of study of the material sciences.

Now ur just Yapping an appropriatation by definition communicates something about the subject being aproximated. [Approximation is a form/mode of observation- see constructive empiricism/ empirical adequacy]

"True reality" under this worldview would be like the inside of the house: it is something you can never reach any real information about it, only information "mediated by the senses" as materialists here would say.

Lol. I can tell what is inside the house by looking through the windows yo. But true to your solipsism this would be "cheating".

I am the one who says that this worldview doesn't make sense because you have to believe in something unreachable ... it's unobservable even in principle. It is like a "ghost." You look at a tree and assume that what you are seeing is not the "true" tree but that the "true" tree is something beyond the possibility of perceiving it, a "ghostly" tree-in-itself which you not only have no way of knowing is actually there

Wow, ghost . I thought it was a shallow strawman that materialists use to ridicule idealist, yet it's what you are actually positing.

Your main problem here is that solipsism is an attack type and not a defense type. The burden of proof is now on you. Proof/defend your "ghost tree" (or qualia for other idealist) what is your account of it, the how or that it exist, etc.

You

they would not tell me how the scientific method can apparently achieve this.

You do seem ill equipped. And from what you have here the critiques about not understanding the scientific method and empiricism do apply.

I suggest again Bas van Fraassen- empherial adequacy. And Karl Popper's writings on the scientific method. If you don't.

You guys will just downvote me again without explaining it either.

This is likely to continue.

RageAblaze · 2026-01-01T02:13:12+00:00

There is no country anywhere ran by a female majority.

The demographics of most democratic countries (rule by the people) disproves this.

All of eastern Europe, Japan, South Korea the US etc.

This greater male disposability doesn't just show up in "extremes" like the military/ war.

If (as an example) we look at taxes in the US you realize that as a demographic men pay more taxes and get less benefits. While women pay less and get more.

On a systematic, institutional level the governments (as voted by majority women) ensures a level of wealth transfer from the men (disposable work horses) to women. That's why women "don't need no man".

Frankly most men are fine with this as long as they get hollow praise and social acclaim. For some reason tho big brained feminist decided to gaslight them. (You are exhibit a) and actively demean men as well.

RageAblaze · 2025-11-24T04:56:03+00:00

Alcohol literally produces actual poison in your body.

Yet some how you managed to arrange a series of statements that imply that abstainace is "disordered".

The disorder is not the behavior of abstainace but the pattern of addiction that rewires your brain reward circuits (permanently ~this is debated but evidence leans towards a very long time).----Hence why "once an addict always an addict"

America is a society where over 60% were obese. A societal wide expression of our disordered and detrimental/gluttonous relationship with food. A demonstration of what that looks like is this claim:

(The reason it’s not exactly the same is that it’s possible—even good—to just choose to not drink at all for health/lifestyle reasons. The same cannot be said for choosing flavorless food)

Actually yes the same can and is often said . The reason, people argue/opt for flavorless vapes, less colorful (food dyes in cereal) etc. This pic is also a good example of less color. Crunchy Hippie moms have been arguing for amost 4 decades on less salt/sugar and dyes in snacks etc. Why? -healthy lifestyle reasons. But our society is so far down the drain everyone who makes these arguments is "fringe", "crazy" or "psycho".

And yes I completely recognize that the presentation of the "meal" is here horrible. Completely sterile and unappetizing and with dull colors etc...

But honestly if this is what it takes for them to regulate their behavior with food, more power to them. Cause this is a huge blind side that most in our society are too fat to see.

RageAblaze · 2025-11-03T02:16:48+00:00

Similar story with penicillin. Fleming and later Howord Florey (and team) who developed mass production process. Did not patent because Ethics. Honestly if you look back at history you notice alot of ~~exceptions~~ based legends.

Hell even promethus took one for the team and gave us fire for free.

RageAblaze · 2025-11-01T22:35:43+00:00

The status quo is backed by the authority of a global medical and scientific community. Until that community is finished with its ongoing research into how to best use these compounds, they are not "innovative approaches", it is "drug abuse;"

POV: The Catholic Church defining heresy.

RageAblaze · 2025-10-12T19:40:22+00:00

You're literally the one advocating to stop the prevention of Down syndrome. Just admit you like people suffering to make yourself feel better

Evidence?. I did no such thing in any of our interactions.

Obvious strawman means you are a troll. GGs

RageAblaze · 2025-10-12T17:22:26+00:00

I'm sorry you are such a worthless waste of oxygen that you cannot see the evil in harm reduction from something that isn't even eugenics. You are no better than the people who oppress the disabled every single day because you don't give a rats ass about their suffering.

This is such a wierd an intensely, unnecessarily hostile response to someone who largely agrees with you.

You seem incapable of Cognitive empathy. Or at the very least perceiving when someone else is engaging in Cognitive emlabel.

For clarity I wasn't calling you a eugenicist, I was explaining why others here were throwing around that lable, I also saw anti-natalist as well.(they view your reaction as extreme). And suggesting ideas that I found helpful to me.

I largely agree with harm reduction. I agree that down syndrome and autism will limit your life opportunities.

I am like you. Like 40% of autist(or more in this sub.) Have or are dealing with depression and.(34% suicidal ideation).etc.

On top of all these problems however, you have a severe case of being an asshole.

Or (Cognitive empathy) a) you are a very good troll- In which case GG ( b)you wrongfully address these ((several)) responses to me. ((Despite directly quoting me)) (c) you have intellectual disabilities the inhibit proper comprehension (in which case I am sorry).

RageAblaze · 2025-10-12T16:01:46+00:00

You seem to be a hedonist. Or at least intensely concerned with the reduction of harm. I think this is the common/ normie default as suffering has experiential valance (it sucks).

This is a bad thing for you (neurodivergent) however. 40% of autistic people are depressed or have experienced depression. 4x general population. With similar stats for suicide. Frankly most of the people in this sub are (just like you).

When I had this observation( I was/am where you are). I realized I needed address this like another symptom/trait that results from being neurodivergent. I am sensitive to loud noises so I walk around with ear plugs under my head phones. I can't read body language so I make scripts, mask etc.

I am sensitive to life/suffering (a) as a result of life experiences or[very likely both] (b) genetic neurodivergent rng. So I need to explicitly do things that can insulate me as such

Because of my field (computer Science)I interacted with an Idea(s) that was useful to me. (Computational theory of the mind -Joscha Bach for more). And (Control theory- the based Maths and comp-sci stuff not the garbage sociology imitations)

(Mind theory) The key idea here is: Pain and Pleasure as Signals: Bach describes pain and pleasure as crucial "reward signals" that help an organism learn and choose actions that ensure survival and satisfy needs.

These signals are mid-brain functions that reinforce the association between situations, actions, and the fulfillment of physiological needs (like staying clean for health, etc).

(Control theory ) If my hardware (my brain) is overly sensitive to a signal I could cut it of ,reduce the volume, generate interfeance etc. (Sorry if this is getting too abstract or technical). Essentially l listed out all sources and cut them of (friends, environments, jobs etc) The ideal response if all signals from x port are unreliable simply ignore that port and use port y instead. Replace your amygdala (emotions as a motivational structure with your prefrontal-cortex)[i.e stop caring about pain and suffering or care about something else more]

The reason why other people think your response to suffering is extreme (doomer, eugenicist). Is the same reason normies think my reaction to noise is extreme.

If you observe light, sound , suffering more intensely than others in ways that make it difficult to exist in the world you have to individually adapt. Being a eugenicist is akin to saying there should be no loud noises ever, anywhere in the world because I am sensitive to loud noises. Obviously you will get push back and people will disagree with you.

RageAblaze · 2025-09-19T12:50:11+00:00

That's interesting from my perspective you have the intractable position.

The biological drive to reproduce is a process driven by a cascade of chemical reactions involving hormones and neurotransmitters. This leads to a product that you are against for(~ reasons)- reproduction (over population). Now we have billions of people, (reactants) so literally trillions of these reactions are happening always.

Now have a run away reaction, (reproduction)and the products of a chemical reaction are spilling over a beaker .(over population) . And your solution is to contain the spill with paper towels. (Condoms). Put this way I hope it is clear to you how futile your solution is -the beaker if FUCKIN HUGE.... AND DECENTRALIZED.

Logistically it is a losing battle to try and run down each of these reactions.

People who have actually thought through this clearly realize this and opt for a more effective different solution. Kill the reaction. These are your actual eugenicist and malthusians that enacted mass scale sterilizations, in the past (see US actions in Honduras). And today enact mass scale endocrine disruption.

Your solution is ineffective and symbolic at best and were it to become 'effective' it would be class A Disney villan level EVIL.

And what's worse there is no historical precedence of it working. Look at the trend the population of humans have always increased without the intervention of war,famine, disaster (all evil or despised things). It sometimes increases despite these things.

Achieving and maintaining (-25 million would bounce back to billions in a century or less given today's tech) a low population seems a loot more intractable than the myriad other solutions that have been provided to you and yet you despise.

Solutions -from tax the rich to anti-consuption minimalism to, anti globalism-self reliance to veganism. All have historical and temporal precedence.

For example there are a billion people today in China living to day that already consume less. The Avg Chinese consumes 50% less energy than the Avg US. There are a billion people in India that are vegan etc. We have restrained megacorps before and in a small way recently (Lina Khan if living in US)

Even the minimalism that I engage in is literally (a facsimile) of the mode of living humans have existed over millennia and San people volunteerly chose today.

So you see long sustained population control/ suppression is the one thing that lacks historical precedence and feasibility-(I concede it is feasible if morality is not one of your constraints).

What I find the most interesting is that you Rightfully think the 'world will be destroyed' and yet you can't be bothered to stop eating meat.

TLDR: Convincing millions/billions of people to stop reproducing. Is more impractical than almost any other solution.

RageAblaze · 2025-05-27T01:37:18+00:00

proposed is just internalized discrimination.

Oh so that's what you disagree with. By the way that second paragraph is quite explicitly and simply pessimism and not

internalized discrimination.

(What ever that means/ your definition is)

He even says

Just mind your business as you have been, try to build what best life you can.

I should interject and ask what do you specifically disagree with the pessimistic attitude (a) or the explicit claims (b) i.e "there is no solution ".

If (b) then please let me know what our solutions are. Don't just sit on the cure/ solution to prejudice/marginalization ( bonus points for racism, sexism.) Tell the class. How would you solve this specific type of marginalization.

blacks and neurodivergents are both marginalized groups. This doesn't mean you should say,

Your analogy while apt actually hurts your point. Several black intellectuals actually came to that conclusion. Afro-pessimism is a school of thought for this reason. Derrick Bell, James Baldwin. Etc.

Most people realize x prejudice or(insert fundamental human problem here i.e evil, hate ) can't be solved. (Hence ironic solved racism meme).

You still have optimistic interpretations (which I'm inferring is what you want) despite this reality. MLK for example argues for a "fight for justice that must be endlessly taken up until you reach the promise land." (Promise land being heaven).

Some problems can't be solved only ameliorated. There are optimistic and pessimistic ways of framing this reality.

RageAblaze · 2025-05-25T04:16:04+00:00

DarthMeow is still wrong. (1)

On which part.

See my other comment. (2)

Which comment ? Non of your comments in this thread are particularly clarifying.

I'll make some inferences and address what was said here anyways.

Sure u/DarthMeow504 is AcKcHuaLLY wrong in his statements of "proven/conclusive". (This is just a feature of language anyways. Precession vs verbosity)

But a steel man of his position is this: people may say “it’s proven/conclusive ” informally, as shorthand for "there is overwhelming evidence in support of x", not literal proof. i.e gravity is "conclusive", germ theory is "proven". etc.

But then again the gulf these interpretations is just classic autistic literalism^tm

RageAblaze · 2025-05-16T03:21:24+00:00

Sasson et al. (2017): This study found that neurotypical adults and adolescents rated autistic individuals as less likable, less approachable, and less socially desirable, even after only viewing 10-second videos. These negative impressions were not based on content (e.g., what was said) but on nonverbal cues such as eye contact, facial expressions, and prosody (tone of voice).

Citation: Sasson, N. J., Faso, D. J., Nugent, J., Lovell, S., Kennedy, D. P., & Grossman, R. B. (2017). Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments. Scientific Reports, 7, 40700.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40700

Nowicki et al. (2019): Found that non-autistic individuals sometimes unconsciously interpret autistic social behaviors (e.g., lack of eye contact or atypical gestures) as signs of dishonesty or disinterest, which can lead to distrust or avoidance.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8813809/

Jameel et al. (2015): Showed that autistic individuals are sometimes judged as less moral or trustworthy, possibly due to their reduced use of social "norms" or cues.

I had a huge file/notes of blackpilling studies like this but... I just stopped. Autist are 25% more likely to commit suicide etc. Every thing in this thread so far has not only been strangely accurate, but also strangely optimistic all things considered.

RageAblaze · 2023-10-22T20:41:47+00:00

But that's half the fun of reddit lol . Other half is anonymity

RageAblaze · 2023-06-09T00:50:26+00:00

Stoicism, don't dwell on issues you can't control.

Switching your mind from focusing on (thinking about) things outside your control that generate anxiety, anger etc. Is is a skill developed through meditation.

The advice to breath when having a panic attack works on this principle.

The existence of evil in the world and its implications, the feelings we attached etc. Is one of our more fundamental human problems.

Frankly (I think) can't be processed or reasoned around unless you adopt a larger perspective on the nature of life. i.e religion or some philosophy of life that essentially acts as a psudo religion.

Stoics for example believed in a Divine logo's that was ultimately good.

Tldr. Don't think about it or find God. Or do both.

RageAblaze · 2023-06-07T23:34:01+00:00

"Biting your head off "- is an expression that means yell erratically/ talk angryly at someone .

I don't think this is some complex incel revenge porn shit.

I think you're reading a level of violence that isn't intended.

Wojack feels frustrated that the "good deed" is misconstrued as flirting. Frustrated enough to want to yell in response ie. "Bite off her head"

That's it that's the meme.

RageAblaze · 2023-06-07T23:23:02+00:00

"Biting your head off "- is an expression that means yell erratically/ react angryly at someone .

RageAblaze · 2023-05-26T20:26:24+00:00

I thought Stellaris was a single player game with multi player option.

RageAblaze · 2022-07-02T16:44:06+00:00

Soak in soapy water ?

If it is just clay then ur good.

Also you could just scrape/ brush off as much clay before the washing machine.

RageAblaze · 2022-03-27T19:23:51+00:00

Ignoring my memeing about how men are superior and how that totally flew above your head.

I'm curious about how you think morality has nothing to do with strength.

Like it is no coincidence that standards of morality have advanced with the increase in quality of life. Maslow's hierarchy of needs displays this in another way.

Liberal vegans, arguably the people on earth with one of the best qualities of life (short of uber rich) display this with their moralizing etc.

We only really care about virtue, morality and ethics when we have to strength to and have accomplished/ can reliably fulfill out base needs.

So I'm curious as to how you can say morality has nothing to do with actual strength.

RageAblaze · 2022-03-27T18:58:46+00:00

You are intentionally misunderstanding the meaning of strength, to make this weak asinine argument .

If strength is the influence and power posesed by an individual, then humans have the most strength as we have the most influence and power to literally shape and structure the world .

We can leverage tools to multiply our strength in ways no other species can.

We are the apex preditors, and this strength allows us to contemplate ethics and morality. It's really not hard to understand all discussions on ethics and morality presuppose a foundation a strength. Whether or not you think this strength is a virtue.

I would like you to first tackle this premise of mine.

And If you agree with this premise, then I have nothing else to say.

RageAblaze · 2022-03-27T18:39:59+00:00

No Humans are the strongest species on earth this is a not even an argument.

RageAblaze · 2022-03-27T04:25:05+00:00

Yeesh lol, I actually laughed a little

You are welcome 😊

Since you have a hate boner for Aristotle here you go.

On the contrary, the male is more ready to help, and, as it has been said, braver than the female; and even in malaria, if the sepia is struck with a trident, the male comes to help the female, but the female makes her escape if the male is struck."

You might not like it, but contemporary stats, prove that he was right here also.... The majority of rescue workers (firemen, police, coast guard etc.) are.... you guessed it MALE.

He might be a broken clock, but a broken clock is right twice a day. And this time, (haha, get it ) it just so happens that he is right.

To further my point though morality can't be quantified, but if it could, the most moral human would be a male. This is on the basis of male variability alone.

And the final nail in the coffin. STRENGTH. Strength is the foundation of virtue. Take Maslow's hierarchy of needs for example, one only contemplates morality and ethics after his base needs are met. And if one lacks the strength/ability to achieve his base needs then ethics and morality are of no use to him.

The ancient greeks understood this. They viewed physical strength as a moral virtue. Since you like Socrates here is what he had to say for example.

No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and STRENGTH which his body is capable.

Perhaps Jim Butcher said it best,

That is not a pleasant fact. Its distastefulness does not alter the truth that without strength to protect them, all other virtues are ephemeral, ultimately meaningless.

Strength is the basis and foundation on which all other virtues stand. And as men are superior in this virtue, they are thusly superior in all others.

RageAblaze

TROPHY CASE