It was a very poor attempt at censoring his name (not mine).

I find it incredibly stupid when people blame the forests when they have a problem with a specific tree. And that's just the most sympathetic take on why he posted this in the first place.

No sympathy for this guy at all.

Yeah, that's completely legible. Must not have cared too much, I suppose.

What's there to be confused about? It's an obviously great job of censoring to make sure to protect the online identity of a terrible person named jaicilgin . I know that last word looks completely illegible, but it actually is censored just like in the screenshot!

I noticed this kind of thing happening in a particular subreddit; there was a rule requiring all identifying info to be censored with the purpose of the sub not getting banned for brigading, but people disliked this and always tried to pass off censorship attempts that were as poor as they thought they could get away with.

We may never know @jaicilgin's name

We could use the same post about Trump and it would be 100% accurate

Nah, bruh.

Hey, as a woman who was in the military, a lot of those women are pretty crazy too. Are you sure you wanna automatically give a green light to thousands of crazy women whose political literacy hasn't been vetted?

If we must put restrictions on who is allowed/not allowed to vote, it should be based on passing some sort of political literacy test. For everyone.

I'm pretty sure it's jaicilgin

Women shouldn't vote unless they're over the age of 18.

Great news! Before the age of 18, they’re not women.

Father Nathan Monk mentioned. He's an activist ex priest that posts interesting stuff about religion, most often Christianity, including the hypocrisy of most religious people.

I'd recommend a follow if he was on the Fediverse, but he seems to be active on X, Substack, and Facebook.

s/Women/I/g
s/they’re/I’m/

Fixed.

You think they are too emotional to vote but want to give them guns and tell them to shoot things?

Flawless logic /s

From my experience, men are emotional too so his dumb ass point is invalid

The question with having a complicated standard/threshold for voting is always the question of who is responsible for choosing who gets to vote

How would it even work to have 1000s of emotions each minute? That's a minimum of 16,6 emotions every second. Is he under the impression that women have superhuman time perception?

I have BPD and it makes perfect sense to me.

I imagine trying to keep up with feeling all of those emotions must be like playing a song on Guitar Hero that's just a bit too fast for your current abilities

It does! 🥹

Not really, she was too young to own a phone.

Is your experience reading the OP? Because that post is full of emotion. I think the post is ironic but after Alanis Morissette I'm never sure anymore.

Yeah. BPD sucks. I am glad that I kicked it's butt. Not fully, but the progress has been huge in last few months.

And men don't? I am willing to bet that the most wars in history could be traced to men who couldn't cope with their emotions in a healthy way.

Have you ever watched hentai?

Reminds me of when people try to invalidate bar codes that way.

You expect empathy?

Are you saying Louisa May Alcott lied to me?

I’ll do it!

I love the idea that homeownerships is this great stabalising force on your psyche

You can swear on the internet.

Just start shooting them.

In all seriousness, as a guy, I am genuinely gobsmacked at how many men feel entitled to sex and blame their insecurities and lack of dating skills on women. Looking back, I'm glad that I came from a culture where it's more egalitarian. The schools I went to taught us that feminism is about equality between men and women. It's not about one gender being superior to the other. When I was younger, my mom repeated to me couple of times not to get upset if a woman rejects me, to the point I told her she keeps saying what I already know before.

Later, as I got older, I realised that feminism and gender equality is taught differently in different places, or barely taught at all. Many people mistake feminism as female superiority. Some families don't teach treating the opposite gender with respect. Even here in Europe, despite the progress since forever, I find Europeans still have more rigid gender expectations than in Southeast Asia.

Sometimes, being born into what family and the environment you grow up in is a matter of luck and shape who you are. Despite my parents' flaws, I'm lucky I was born to educated parents and our culture is more or less egalitarian despite some hiccups.

🎉🎉🎉

Only when it comes to women

Where do you come from, if you don't mind me asking. Because your birthplace sounds AWESOME

I find it incredibly stupid when people blame the forests when they have a problem with a specific tree.

That's why I have a problem with the phrase "improving yourself" because it's such a broad statement and nonspecific. A guy could be a gym buff but still struggle to date because he's too shy, overly anxious etc. Women, or any gender, like a confident person who could take care of him/herself. And the problem, of course is, no one will tell the guy what the problem is because it will come off as rude. A pertinent issue is that men tend to be solitary and form less bond with others than women. Women give each other feedback, while for men, there isn't anyone to receive feedback from. Many men instead end up losing their way to snake oil salesmen.

I saw post on social media with female OP wondering why some men are still single. A lot of female commenters say many men are too anxious and over thinking. It reminds me of my friend who is good looking, but quite insecure. Looks don't matter much to women and they prefer personality. Many insecure, single guys scoff when I say this, but look around and there are less physically attractive guys dating ridiculously good looking women. It is nuanced and looks matter to an extent, but it's not a top priority to less shallow women. Women aren't some mystical and mysterious goddesses who are untouchable.

Women do have a point that men would do anything, including harmful stuff, than go to therapy. I'm glad that another friend of mine seems to be holding on his current relationship long, after I advised him to go to therapy.

I don't want to say specifically where I'm from, but I am originally from South East Asia. A common theory for the relative gender equality is because of the sea-faring, nomadic culture of Austronesians, who populated South East Asia and later the Pacific. Apparently, because of the lifestyle and constant movement, the workload is distributed between men and women, which promotes egalitarianism. Similar thing is observed on Native Americans and hunter gatherer cultures. I don't know how solid the theory is but I will have to read more on it.

Even with South East Asia now being a "settled" society, and Abrahamic religions introducing some patriarchal ideas, the egalitarian value still largely remains as far as I can tell. There is remarkably more women in management roles in South East Asia compared to other countries. Many Westerners even noted how there are many female security guards in my home country.

Yes... Far better to put the country in the hands of an emotional creature who has 1000s of emotions in one minute and is also a traitor and a pedophile. That's MUCH better you insufferable piece of abattoir runoff.

It is though. The bitterness I felt for the world subsided (a little) once I felt I had a stake in it.

Bootlicker answer I know, but its true

*a few. I like to believe wars were fought more over resource domineering than ideology or emotion

Otherwise jesus are we lost as a species

The post jaieilgin made is another true example of sexism

It's like
RAAA^AA^AAAAAIIIIIIIN

Joey, have you ever seen a cartoon man naked?

He is describing Donald Trump, actually.

Edit: except he does have real estate. But he still shouldn't be in charge.

Men don't have emotions remember? Stoicism and what not.

And killing people!

I can't say I agree with you historically, but you have a point. Bear with me here.

In pre-industrial societies, the two ways to sustain more people were either to use the land more efficiently (agriculture in fertile areas, pastorage in marginal lands) or to have more land. Agriculture can only sustain so many people without modern tools, specialised crops, irrigation technology and so on. At some point, you reach the maximum of how many people the land can feed.

With a slowly growing population, that leaves you with a problem: more mouths to feed than food. Imagine you're a young adult facing the fact that your father's farm just can't sustain both your family and your siblings'. You have the option to a) never have a family (= stay celibate because the contraception methods of the time weren't quite as reliable as those today), b) fight your siblings over that farm or c) fight other people over their land.

Since a) most people like to bone and wanted to have a family, b) most people loved their family and didn't wanna kill them or leave them to starvation, that really only leaves one option: war against other communities. Hey, it ain't pretty, but better them than me, right?

Early war won't have looked like the organised armies that emerged later, but more in the form of raids and ambushes, trying to make an area too dangerous for the others to live or cultivate. Later wars would have been more active efforts to expel or enslave the residents. Either you succeed in winning new land, or you got rid of your overpopulation. It would be quite macabre to call it a solution, but in any case, war served survival.

Obviously, it's nice to have more than just "barely enough". There is some prestige and respectability that comes with being a generous host, throwing feasts and sharing what you have with others, but you'll need to have it in the first place. So even beyond survival, war becomes a means for prosperity.

With that in mind, it's not hard to guess what people would expect from an effective leader: to secure their survival at least and ideally bring some prosperity too. From that, a form of military aristocracy arises, people whose authority derives from their ability to protect their community and lead them to prosperity.

That effect eventually gets out of hand as those aristocrats exploit their own people, but the general expectation of "good leader = good at war" remained, particularly within the hierarchy of these aristocrats. Where religion meets kingship, there is also an element of divine provenance: a good king has the gods' favour (or, in the European middle ages, God's favour). At this point, kings struggling to build legitimacy (perhaps because poor harvest pulls into question, whether they really have God's favour) like to do war, both to demonstrate their military excellence and prove their divine favour, and to acquire land and riches to reward their nobles for loyal service and prove generous.

War, like many other activities, becomes a thing kings are expected to do, because all the good kings do it, and they're good kings because they did it well. It's somewhat circular, but essentially, war becomes a political performance (because the ones leading it generally don't do the dying...) and also still a means for survival and prosperity. Emotions provide the cause, but the driving mechanism isn't just wounded pride or anger.

Now, to circle back to my emphasis historically and specification of pre-industrial societies: at some point, new technologies provided new means to make land more fertile. Logistics made it possible to specialise on certain crops that would then be exported to other places while importing what wasn't grown locally. Machines made planting and harvesting faster. Fertilisers, pesticides, new breeds of crops all improved the yield of land. You'll be aware that there are tons of food being wasted: Modern, developed countries tend to have more land than they strictly need for survival.

So with the survival motivator being negligible, kings no longer needing to prove themselves, the factor that remains is prosperity, or more accurately, greed. Colonialism won't need more than two sentences in this respect. Early settlers may have just been looking for a place to live, but the allure of exotic goods didn't take long to draw nefarious attention. Trade could also obtain these things, but why bargain for what you could take by force?

And to make things worse, sometime in the 19th century, national sentiments began to crop up. Now we arrive at the point where pride and anger become a motivator. Suddenly, that plot of land isn't just a matter of prosperity, but of possessiveness. Technically, it doesn't matter much which government collects the taxes and which the import tariffs. Trade across the border would allow anyone to profit from it anyway, and generally, investing in the infrastructure of an area is more lucrative than war. But "I'll be dammed if I let that other flag wave over our land" does become a factor.

Particularly after the world wars, we should have understood how devastating industrialised warfare is, and how much you pay for so little gain. In fact, I posit that war has generally become downright irrational. Trade and infrastructure could achieve so much more.

But we're stuck with petty people and grand ambitions, driven not by survival, nor by desire for prosperity, nor by plausible greed: Today, more than ever, we fight over the pride, anger, jealousy, hate and other emotions that people couldn't cope with in a healthy way.

War was never pretty, but whatever fig leaf of justification one might come up with has been torn away by mortar shrapnel and burned to a crisp by nuclear devastation.