The Letting Off Steam Thread - Page 178

Jesus Christ some people do not know what freedom of expression is. Freedom of expression is when you can be an ass and then have people reply by calling you an ass.

Be careful now, you might be hurting someone's feelings.

This girl at work is fucking with my mind. We've had several conversations about sexuality, sex, relationships, etc., and now she's sent my mind in a tailspin. On top of that, she invoked some kind of pre-apocalyptic dread in me that I can't seem to shake the moment I met her. Every instinct is telling me to stay far, far away from this person, and yet I feel drawn to her.

Basically, the latest conversation made me realize that romance is the product of the schemes of men, and the artificiality of it all just horrifies me. Before you disregard me completely, hear me out and try to understand my perspective:

There are methodologies in "getting" women. This is why pickup artists exist. Out of all my friends that are successful with women, they have one thing in common, the method. Figure out what kind of girl you're dealing with, and push the right buttons. My own best friend--for lack of a better word--preys on that certain type of girl who's emotionally damaged and needy. Hell, my ex-girlfriend was like that, and I had limited success with her because I played the game, because I patterned myself after my best friend and used his tricks. It worked, up until I became disgusted with myself and stopped.

That's all it is, a game. Even when there's no malicious intent, even when you're genuinely interested in someone, it's a game. A form of social programming. I honestly don't believe romance just fucking *happens*. You should hear one of my friends tell the story of how he met his wife. It's the least romantic story ever told. The way he tells it, his wife could have easily been another person--only, his wife called him first. He entered a room in college, sized up the women, cast his net, and reeled in someone.

This girl at work called it, "Disgusting." I've never heard it described like that before. Usually, people accept it as a matter of course, a fact of life, that romance is constructed, not grown.

Funny thing is, I had a crush on this girl, and schemed to get her (to the best of my ability, which is terrible), and now she terrifies me. She's turning me into an asexual hermit. And you know what?

Good. Fuck this shit. If it's all a game, I don't want to play. It's not worth it. I don't want to learn how to "program" women, or deconstruct them based on some kind of archetype, or perform reverse-engineering on a fucking *human being*. And if you think I'm exaggerating, you haven't met my friends. Some of them do it for fun.

I just don't know anymore.

Well you could view a romantic relationship like a friendship, I suppose if you think those are constructed the same way your kinda fucked though lol.

I really dislike politically-correct 'we gotta accept all religions/cultures/fuckery' shit for two main reasons:

1. 'Tolerance' is a word that is thrown around quite a bit. However, tolerance is not the same as loving and accepting people. I would never say to someone "I tolerate your existence". That just sounds insulting. It is nearly impossible to tolerate every different aspect of humanity. One particular aspect of humanity that I cannot abide is evil; the willingness to kill, steal, lie, cheat, rape, and destroy out of the intentions of greed or power or delusions. The reason is part sociological, but also partially evolutionary. Destructive organisms undergo a culling of sorts by stronger organisms. If a virus enters a human's body, the immune system reacts by purging the system of the virus, lest it destroy our bodies. So, for the purpose of our self-preservation, we recoil with anger at people we feel are destructive to our way of life.

Since humanity is so diverse, and so complex, it is necessary to constantly assess and re-assess the parameters of our beliefs so that we can make the most appropriate decisions when dealing with our own self-destructive tendencies. Right now, at this point in history, for a violent murderer, we only have so many available options, with the top two being: imprison them forever, or kill them. For thousands of years, however, the question really was not so much of if we should kill them, but which methodology would cause them an appropriate amount of suffering to enact some kind of 'justice'. It is my sincere hope that in the future, rapists can be 'cured' and serial murderers can be 'cured' so that they will no longer have any desire to act violently. Of course, this is going to raise all kinds of weird ethical questions, and have people bringing up A Clockwork Orange, free will, and whether or not 'justice' is warranted or not.

But let's put hypothetical future discussions aside. 'Evil', although I've defined it in general terms, is not really so cut-and-dry, unless we consider all actions to be ultimately evil, and if this is the case, then the real question is: does good actually exist? For us, as humans, the concept of good exists, but from a purely pragmatic and stoic lens, it does not. And then, what about the middle part: Something not being 'evil', but perhaps 'unethical'? Or 'immoral'. Or 'kinda bad'. It was not even a century ago when homosexuality was considered a 'mental illness', and saying the word 'nigger' was socially acceptable. Since that time, many parts of the world have retained racist ideals and bigotry towards homosexuality, whereas 'progressive' nations have largely made the concession that black and gay people are, in fact, people. So then, we reach a cross-roads with other cultures and have to make a determination whether or not their cultural policies are edifying to the success of humanity, or are a destructive and dehumanizing burden on peoples' lives. That being said, it may become very difficult to maintain a sense of 'tolerance' towards entire groups of people who believe it is acceptable and encouraged to behead homosexuals.

2. Enforcement of political correctness. This may include an institutionalized enforcement, or a peer-driven kind of quasi-enforcement, where you are simply shamed or threatened into compliance. The latter definitely does exist. Now, what I'm about to say might sound really really fucking bad, but bear with me for a second. During the 2000s, I heard a lot of debate of whether or not homosexuality was a 'choice' or something one was born with. Firms lobbying in favor of gay marriage in the US had a cute phrase for homosexuality, which was an 'alternative lifestyle'. The idea was that homosexuality was different, not immoral, and that gay people were the same as you and I. Now, personally, I accept that premise wholeheartedly. However, what else might constitute an 'alternative lifestyle'? Well, to put it bluntly: a consensual incestuous relationship. Gross, right? Well, maybe, maybe not. There is a lot of baggage that goes with a relationship like that. Every single thing people said to disparage homosexuality is also levied against incestuous couples, including fear-mongering, calling it 'disgusting'/'creepy'/'sinful', shaming, and even arresting these couples. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about rape or child exploitation, which I am fervently against; I'm talking about a consensual relationship between two adults.

What is the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to incestuous couples? Mentally or physically handicapped children being produced. I personally think the research into this area is paltry, flawed or intentionally biased, but let's say it's 100% true. There is no proof that the children will certainly be born mentally retarded or physically deformed. 'Normal' couples produce mentally and physically handicapped children all the time, so even if the probability has changed, what is to say a brother/sister relationship should be prohibited from having a child? What if they don't even plan to have children? What if they want to adopt? I remember when people believed the AIDS virus was exclusive to the gay community, and that straight people were completely safe from it, or when people said gay parents would be bad parents and should not be allowed to adopt. Maybe you agree with what I'm saying, and maybe you don't, but the point is that there are some people who are still considered 'icky' by society and are demonized because of it.

This creates a double-standard by which certain groups of people are protected from criticism or hate-speech, whereas others are not, which is really the reason political correctness exists, so that the 'bad people' can't hurt the 'good people' with their intolerance. I see this a lot (especially recently) from feminists who say that "You can't be racist against white people" or "Sexism towards men isn't important", or trans people who say stuff like "die cis scum", or even have it tattooed on their arm. So when political correctness is hammered into peoples' heads, they usually and predictably react with extreme indignation. I'm not talking about trying to get people to start treating people with dignity and respect. I'm talking about egging someone's nativity scene and writing "Fuck baby Jesus" in red spraypaint on the Virgin Mary's ass.

Actually wait. That's not politically correct at all.

Or maybe it is. It depends on who decides what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate, and in a progressive world full of different ideas and opinions by educated people, pooping on their freedom to express themselves seems like a step backwards.