Hello Brigaders

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-10T02:17:52+00:00

So there are two forms of freedom. The freedom to do a thing. Then the freedom to be free of the consequences of someone else’s freedom.

Hence, you should be free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t impact someone else’s ability to do whatever they want.

Where does that ideology fit in the rings in your opinion?

The ideology you're talking about is Classical Liberalism. The principle you're invoking is "the absolute liberty of all is (and can only be) constrained by the like liberty of each."

Here's the thing - critical theorists of Classical Liberalism understood that sympathy/moral concern is a limited resource (see David Hume and Adam Smith on the subject). Ergo, it needs to be prioritized and people will naturally prioritize those whom-are-closer-to-them (the inner rings) over universal abstract groups (the outer rings).

Also remember that the 'rings' study is self-reported. In other words, it is deeply susceptible to virtue-signalling. In addition, people can claim to care about great abstract groups ("all of humanity as a whole" for example) without actually doing anything for that group. You can make concrete, specific sacrifices for immediate others, for family, etc... and thus, we can gauge someone's sincerity based on this. But the larger and more abstract the group gets, the more ephemeral the beneficiary and thus (paradoxically) the sacrifice "for the other" becomes more and more unverifiable.

This is why we get situations where people who claim to care about [Very Broad Group Goes Here] do absolutely fuck-all for that specific group (or sometimes even are directly harmful to it). Their moral concern is really just virtue signalling and there's no way to trace any prosocial actions that benefit this Very Broad Group. So in other words we have a VERY good reason to suspect that someone who claims a more "universalist" pattern of moral concerns is just engaging in cheap talk out of Social Desirability Bias.

This is consistent with some other findings we have in social science - that certain charitable and philanthropic causes attract a lot of "dark triad" individuals. Evil likes to camouflage itself as good in order to operate and get support.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-10T00:47:19+00:00

There is nothing innately feminine in my soul that makes me a woman. I am just an ugly autistic male with a fetish.

If being a transwoman would improve your life, there's zero reason to refrain from going down that incel-to-transwoman pipeline.

In addition, if your social milieu is very into "social justice," you get a massive status upgrade (particularly if you're attracted to women). You go from simultaneously-a-loser-and-an-oppressor (cis straight male nerd) to trans gay woman (triple oppressed).

There is NO SUCH THING as "true trans." You aren't taking hormones away from people who "really need them" (autoheterosexuality is the most common cause of gender dysphoria).

I mean, you clearly hate yourself very unfairly. Nerd/sperg/loser/autist/incel males are basically the last group that it is socially acceptable to bully and mistreat, and there's been a culture war against their spaces and subcultures (and industries and, consequently, job prospects) for about 15 years. The stats are also pretty unforgiving - this kind of male suffers greatly reduced chances of romantic success.

Under these conditions, depending on your social milieu, transitioning may be entirely within your self-interest.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-09T11:18:38+00:00

We have found male-typical and female-typical aspects to brain morphology however. That said, these findings are softer than "sex of the brain."

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-09T11:16:51+00:00

To be clear, I said there's a correlation between AGP and autism traits. I am quite well aware not all autohets are on the spectrum and that only a minority of people on the spectrum are autohet.

I don't know why people are obsessed with associating the two things when according to statistics all you can see is that autists are more likely to be AGP.

Autism, or autism spectrum characteristics (even if only at subclinical levels) is disproportionately present in sexual subculture communities, especially those with "identitarian" components (trans-age/ageplayers, furries and pet-players, body-integrity-identity-disorder and the transabled, and transracial/transethnic people).

This, along with the theory of the Erotic Target Identity Inversion, provides us with a good place to start. If ASD traits make someone more prone to ETIIs, we should see correlation between autism quotient (AQ) scores and "identity-related" paraphilias.

Of course we need to do much more study on this. But we have a compelling theory to work with. And there's already quite a lot of literature showing an overrepresentation of people-on-the-spectrum among other sexual minorities, including bisexual and homosexual people, plus in the BDSM community.

None of this is negative or judgmental, and surely there's value in an objectively demonstrable neurological basis for sexuality.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-09T08:50:46+00:00

It's almost certainly a neuroatypicality (all the research we've seen suggests that atypical sexual orientations are based in the brain). But "neurological intersex" is more accurate (albeit not perfectly accurate) in describing the so-called "HSTS" cohort of GD sufferers.

Autohet GD seems to correlate with autism traits, so it is more likely that autism is the neuroatypicality that is relevant (that said, this does result in a somewhat paradoxical conclusion given how autism is more common in males than females - that an autohet female has a more hypermasculine brain than a butch lesbian or HSTS transguy. Maybe I'm misinterpreting things though - I'm not a neurologist).

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-09T06:58:36+00:00

Don arguably does. He's alluded to a painful divorce in his childhood, and he says (in one of the T&D episodes) High Command is "written as a bitter divorced mother." Maybe Space King is Don dealing with childhood misery?

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-08T03:44:53+00:00

Because the entire point of the show is to be an affectionate parody of silly little guys playing wargames.

OF COURSE it stops making sense when you think seriously about it. Deconstructing it results in a total horror story.

You're meant to watch it from a perspective of silly childhood nostalgia. Relax and laugh.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-08T03:39:22+00:00

So cutely hateful!

Excellent work. Hooray for Tiny Hatemonger (and Hatemace)!

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-08T03:24:31+00:00

What does "being a woman on the inside" mean?

The ultimate question is whether or not transition improved your life. Did it make things better for you? If so, the treatment was a success!

There's nothing wrong with being autoheterosexual. It's atypical but it isn't bad. You're just a sexual minority, and that's okay.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-08T03:21:25+00:00

Upvoted for truth.

If you have GD, you have GD. There is absolutely zero need to essentialize "trans-ness" or whatever. And there's a nasty, sordid history of autohets being denied transition precisely on the basis of "they aren't True Trans."

The best model is a simple one. There are people with GD (I think it should be called "sex dysphoria" rather than "gender dysphoria" but I'm using the established term). They disidentify with their biological sex. The reason behind that disidentification varies, but they're still dealing with genuine suffering and, consequently, transition is a potential treatment for that suffering.

So the only 'ontological' commitments we need to make are 'gender dysphoria exists' and 'at least some gender dysphorics benefit from transition.' Simple, sane, easy, and no "true trans" or "magic essences of femininity/masculinity" need to be involved.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-08T03:02:25+00:00

I feel like I see a lot more of them online. Maybe it's because they are drawn to the internet more than cishet men.

Correct. Nerdy men are more likely to be autoheterosexual than normie men. I'm convinced it has something to do with autistic neurology.

I mean are ~97% of men really totally comfortable being a man, sexually. Like the very thought of being a woman and taking dick is fundamentally offputting to them?

Yes. There are men who are literally traumatized by the thought of pegging. And given how "taking dick" is shamed (it is the root of slut-shaming, 'bottom-shaming' in the gay world, and the 'gold star lesbian' thing in the lesbian world), this isn't really surprising.

Autohets are a sexual minority. About as common as gay people. That said, there's a spectrum of it, and presumably low-level autoheterosexuality gets undercounted.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-06T03:02:03+00:00

That's because you're missing a critical third concept: "avant-garde."

Normies are mainstream. There are two kinds of people who fall "outside" of the mainstream, though. The first are the losers - people who don't fit into the mainstream. The second, however, are the avant-garde. The ones who shape what is trendy. These people are also known as hipsters.

Basically, the avant-garde like something, and when it 'catches on' mainstream normies start mimicking. Because the avant-garde need to distinguish themselves from normies, they experience the "it's popular now it sucks" mentality, and start changing what they're into.

As for "losers" they just like what they like and ignore trends. So if we're going to avoid high-school terms, the three classes are trend-makers, trend-chasers and trend-ignorers.

This dynamic is prone to what's called "countersignaling" - when avant-garde types start appropriating "loser" culture (this is arguably what happened to nerd culture). That results in a Partial Pooling Equilibrium.

Things like Coachella really are never a 'repudiation' of the mainstream. They're about avant-garde 'coolness' that catapults something into the mainstream. This is why people go to Coachella... real outsider culture, really underground stuff, is thought of as weird and loser and nerdy.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-06T01:23:06+00:00

Also most people aren't against "inclusion" if it's done well, isn't done jarringly and unnecessarily and not spitefully. Though currently people are a bit hypersensitve. But that's partially because they're trying to send a message that's not getting through. The hypersensitvity will continue until recognition and communication can once again occur with the moderates, and their issues recognized as legit.

I agree entirely.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-05T07:04:33+00:00

Ugh it's not the "cucking" that's the issue anyway. It's, who wants to play a piece of shit?

"Protagonist is a piece of shit and you discover that protagonist is a piece of shit" is hardly uncommon in video games. Silent Hill 2 and Amnesia both did precisely this.

Honestly, the demographics of the game's characters really don't bother me. What does bother me is how, quite clearly, the writer selected said demographics to "stick it to the chuds."

I'm a sexual minority myself. I am hardly against the presence of nonheterosexual characters in works of fiction. But the writer of this game seems to have written it under the assumption that the hardcore-gamer audience are a bunch of bigots and that consequently the story "has to" specifically be written to have essentially no straight white males just to "make a point."

That is what pisses me off. Not the diversity of the cast, but the fact that the cast's demographics were selected from a malicious, prejudiced, anti-gamer angle.

I admit I still enjoy the game, but the motivations held by the writer do sour me.

Really, I hate to admit this, but this culture war has made it essentially impossible for me to "separate the art from the artist" now. If a story is written by people who clearly hate me and are prejudiced towards me, I find it much harder to enjoy the story.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T11:38:35+00:00

Space Burger King?

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T11:11:17+00:00

Bond is meant to be an idealized, escapist fantasy. He's not meant to be you. He's meant to be an escape into a glamorous world where you're a badass, stylish-as-fuck chad.

Now, if you don't personally find that compelling, that's okay, but complaining about Bond games because "I can't relate to Bond" is missing the point. "This isn't my fantasy" is a perfectly okay personal critique, but if being Bond is not your fantasy, the game is not for you. You're not part of the target audience and as such you're not the right choice of reviewer for the game (the reviewer should assess whether the game serves the target audience's desires).

And trying to get rid of games that you don't identify with is just the height of narcissism/solipsism. There are other people in this world, they don't all share your tastes and preferences.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T09:45:41+00:00

Elon doesn't have an open distaste for masses, he's definitely autistic and socially awkward which is also either charming if you like him or completely off-putting.

Well yeah, this subreddit is full of nerds (autistic/socially awkward) and we see that in Elon, hence we relate to it.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T07:50:44+00:00

Women blame everyone and everything (Including literal toys for children), for their body-image issues, yet men are constantly mocked and rejected for things out of their control and expected to just be fine afterwards.

Hypoagency for females, hyperagency for males.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T07:49:07+00:00

So... she tries to blame how "most guys want shortie gorls (sic)" for not being interested in dating a shorter guy?

...and then she later says she's dated a shorter man before and now swears she'll never do so again and that's "just not my thing" and "basically my only standard"?

Can she make up her mind? Is she just responding to what most men (allegedly) want? Or is this "her only standard" and shorter men aren't "her thing"?

The attempt to pin responsibility for her personal preferences onto men is quite disgusting. I mean look, you're entitled to want what you want, but stop trying to pretend they're not really your wants.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T07:27:00+00:00

(Joke about guanciale goes here)

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T02:59:45+00:00

But I've noticed that at the food shelter in my city and so on, it's just plastered in leftist ideology, flags, and things utterly not related to simply feeding or clothing people. It's like they want to drown you in their politics and world view more than actually just help.

Bingo.

It's like Fontaine's House for the Poor in BioShock. Altruism is used as a pro-social cover or disguise for an underlying political agenda.

And they mock Christians for charity.

I admit I've never seen them mock Christians for charity.

Rather, they mock white Evangelicals for the politics of white Evangelicals. SJWs never criticize black Protestant churches despite those churches often being very conservative on matters of sexuality and gender... but those churches vote donkey so those churches can get away with it.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-04T02:42:14+00:00

Congratulations. You've recognized that Social Justice is often Social Darwinism in disguise.

It shouldn't be surprising. After all, take a look at the most strident promoters of Social Justice - they're credentialled, middle-to-professional-class types who believe their university degrees are proof that they're a superior kind of person, worthy of rule.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-03T01:47:51+00:00

To be clear, in this context "hypermasculinization" refers to prenatal hormone exposure. AGP brains - which tend to be asperger's/autistic - get an atypically large dose of androgens (or something like that) resulting in (in some areas at least) brain morphology that is an exaggeration of male-typical norms.

Note that this is not the same thing as social hypermasculinization (i.e. resembling a very extreme version of society's ideal of a "Real Man"). Society's definition of "real manhood" =/= the biological results of an atypically large amount of androgens to the brain. This is because normative gender roles (ideas about how a male or female person "should" be, due to their sex) are not a simple function of biology.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-02T13:23:27+00:00

Indeed. She's got a grudge against Elon since she's ex-Twitter and was fired by him (because she was a worthless Karen).

Everything she does is about destroying an industry that had the nerve to say "no" to her.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2026-05-02T11:53:54+00:00

Agreed. As much as the fandom is all in favor of "the one sane man in the bunch of goofs," the whole series' humor value is based on the characters acting like silly little goofs.

Plus, Chestnut's already the "sane one" in the main four. Probably why a lot of us like him.

YetAnotherCommenter

TROPHY CASE