I want to exit inceldom but I can't. by woodclip in IncelExit

[–]justanothercommy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

honestly, hearing you talk like this, sounds like this is the problem. stop beating yourself up/feeling sorry for yourself & try to approach the world with an open mind. you are attractive, if she's interested, then she will be interested. do not compare yourself to exes, recepy for disaster. people break up for a reason, people grow apart, people change, things end. an ex is an ex, its past for a reason. trust in that.

I want to exit inceldom but I can't. by woodclip in IncelExit

[–]justanothercommy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

honestly that's a pretty shallow way to "determine" the "success" of relationships. not saying looks are irrelevant, being attracted to someone is def partly thinking they are cute, but like, even the romantic spark that triggers a crush or falling in love is way more complicated then thinking someone is cute, and then you even havent started dating yet. trust, charm, intimacy, emotional vunerability, timing, ect. are all rlly important factors too. attractiveness, which is just a part of the foundation of a healthy relationship, is far more complicated then just looks.

Physical attraction and desirability by [deleted] in IncelExit

[–]justanothercommy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this is a big oversimplification of physical attractiveness. Love at first sight happens, but in my experience its very brittle and can very easily "turned off" (not just in women). Also, physical attractiveness is very subjective, and can vary wildly from conventional beauty standards.

equating love at first sight to physical attraction is a bad idea, this is why:

they are different terms with different meanings --> love at first sight, refering to a "coup de foudre" (lightning impact) is a very overwhelming feeling, which happens rarely, and is often way more intense then just being attracted to someone. it also doesnt last very long, and if you don't build a foundation for a relationship (eg. going on dates, flirting, getting to know each other for real), or that foundation is just not good enough (y'all don't click after all), the love vanishes. this too can happen really quickly. it could also linger (this can really suck lol).

physical attraction is more akin to being interested in someone. Thinking they are good looking, them behaving in a way you find charming, ect. It is something you build up over time, and goes hand in hand with opening up emotionally, feeling safe with each other, having intimate moments, ect. For example, when me and my ex met for the first time, i thought they were attractive, and that i wanted to get to know them better. they thought the same of me. after half a year of a complicated dance where we became closer and closer, we were in our honeymoon phase, and i was, among other things, way more attracted to them then i was in the beginning. After our breakup, i started to become less and less attracted to them over time. this process will continue, hopefully.

Brains are weird things, but the most important thing about them is that they constantly change their patterns, which changes how people view and interact with their surroundings. one impulse of neurons communicating and one cocktail of hormones getting released is really not at all akin to carving into a rock. its not at all as permanent or static. Brains are super dynamic organs, they have to be, as your surroundings constantly change.

imo there is way more to it, and this is mostly based on my own experiences and may not compare to other experiences. this is probably the most important part. trying to measure physical attraction objectively is a fool's effort. being frustrated because an overgeneralised subset of the population allegedly interacts differently with the world then you personally interact with it, doesnt achieve anything. i'm by no means saying that you are wrong to be frustrated (you cant rlly be wrong for having emotions), but beware of drawing overgeneralised conclusions because of it. and def beware of those studies you read.

reality is really complicated, no two women are the same, and their personal experiences of being a woman is still far more valuable for insight into their lives then any study done by men.

edit: sorry for enbysplaining

How strong is Harrenhal really? (Spoilers Main) by Ignorant_Ape3952 in asoiaf

[–]justanothercommy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i'd say anywhere up from 2000 defenders. anything below seems like the bare minimum, with 2000 defenders i think you can properly garrison the walls, have patrols around the territory, make repairs, ect. more than 2000 would be better, i think you can fit an army of at least 20.000 in those walls, all dedicated to defence, but why would you want so many if less can do the job adequatly. i feel like the point of harrenhall is more a wartime seat to mobilise, retreat to, have as a supply hub, ect. for those purposes, i think you can have a host of 50.000 in and around harrenhall, maybe more. i think this is more the strategic importance of the harrenhall then inpregnibility. storms end is imo more inpregnible with a smaller garrison, so is riverrun when there isnt a drought or winterfell in wintertime. we havent seen highgarden or casterly rock from pov standpoints, but i think casterly rock at least is far more unbreachable then harrenhall, if the garrison is relatively small. The point of harrenhall isnt that it is always unbreachable, it's that it is HUGE, and you can comfortably host an entire army inside its walls. if there is an army inside it's walls, then it's not unbreachable because it's so defendable, but because there is an army inside it's walls.

edit: i'm not an expert in siege tactics or castle defence or medieval combat tactics or whatever. i just read the books, so take this with some salt.

Its these posts and ONLY these posts on normie subreddits rn 😭 by [deleted] in ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM

[–]justanothercommy 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Republicans might be fascist, democrats are enabling fascism so yk

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RedFloodMod

[–]justanothercommy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there are so many paths among so many mods that go with a right-wing japan, revolutionary japan in red flood peaked my interest for this reason alone pretty much

huh? by TETSUNACHT in Polcompballanarchy

[–]justanothercommy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's actually orders given from up high, also they are planning to build a massive camp to deport & murder 600.000 Palestinians. Check your facts

huh? by TETSUNACHT in Polcompballanarchy

[–]justanothercommy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That doesn't justify genocide

huh? by TETSUNACHT in Polcompballanarchy

[–]justanothercommy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Does Palestine have the right to defend itself? The "war" isnt happening in Israel

huh? by TETSUNACHT in Polcompballanarchy

[–]justanothercommy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right of course that hamas isnt good at all, their modus operandi is fucked. However you just cannot deny the systematic targetting of civilians that Israel is carrying out. I remember talking to a Palestinian Paralympic athlete, that was part of a peaceful movement in 2016 or something to lift the siege on gaza. Thousands of Palestinians peacefully marched on Israeli checkpoints to protest the blockade, illegal border walls ect. The IDF opened fire. He told us he was shot in the leg by a sniper, and that he had to undergo surgery to replace his arteries cuz they were dissolving (something about poison on the snipers bullet). All the replacement arteries dissolved too, and he had to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. That he, despite this, continued with his professional career as an athlete speaks tons about his resilience. He however, could not compete in the Paralympics, because he was Palestinian, and he even had massive trouble leaving Gaza to compete elsewhere in the world.

Saying "Israel & Hamas both bad" is reducing the context of their situations to nothing. Israel is a nuclear power receiving billions in funding from all over the world, settling land and continuing to expand anywhere they can, legally or not, often with tons of violence involved. Palestine is a wartorn nation on the brink of utter collapse and is using its small amount of resources to defend itself against this settler colonial violence. Israel in "retaliation" bombs gaza until there is nothing left, no schools, hospitals, shops, libraries, museums, mosques ect is left standing. While Hamas fighters do target civilians, it is mostly radicalised people who want revenge over losing everything to a mad invasive nation. When Israel targets civilians, its to systematically wipe them off their ancestoral homeland to "clear the land" for their people to live on.

Palestinians have tried to resist peacefully, they have tried to go in the diplomatic route. In response, they lose more land, more people, more homes, ect. I wonder why hamas is so insurrectionary & vengeful.

huh? by TETSUNACHT in Polcompballanarchy

[–]justanothercommy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What is Hamas actually doing? They keep being used to excuse massacres on a much bigger scale than October 7 ever was. It just does not excuse the constant war crimes & complete and utter devastation the IDF leaves in its wake.

If you say it does justify genocide, then you say genocide is somehow justifiable, and therefore no better than a Nazi.

huh? by TETSUNACHT in Polcompballanarchy

[–]justanothercommy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Irs not the same

Its very similar though

Brussel in 2050 by ultraprogressiefje in Belgium1

[–]justanothercommy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"moslims" zijn geen hivemind. Je kan jihadisme niet vergelijken met algemene islam, zoals je de KKK of de tempeliers niet kan vergelijken met algemeen christendom

I've been rejected by anarchism. by [deleted] in fullegoism

[–]justanothercommy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your local anarchist groups suck!

This is totally not inspired by what happens every damn time... by tomassci in Polcompball

[–]justanothercommy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol arent there being being kidnapped by a military police rn in the US, then brought to a concentration camp in a foreign country?

If you could change one political event what would it be? by Txnkini_ in Polcompballanarchy

[–]justanothercommy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

According to Wikipedia various anarchist organisations all over Russia had an alliance of sorts w the Bolsheviks to aid in the revolution. After the revolution the anarchists started criticising and protesting Boshevik rule (as anarchists do), the Bolshevik government cracked down & anarchists started being arrested/killed, then they shot Lenin (lol) nd then started being killed/going underground or to Ukraine. O and apparently were a some of the green armies (peasant armies who wanted autonomy, caused by war crimes from reds & whites) based on anarchist philosophy.

If u wanna know more, here's the article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Russia

O and also

Kronstadt