It's asymmetric to respond to female passive-aggressiveness with violence

[Abomination]

Physical violence, ala ER, is an asymmetrical and disproportionate way to get retribution against women.

It causes us suffering when they deny us sex, but they do this passively - it is an act of omission, rather than commission.

On the other hand, when we retaliate with violence against the normans and the Stacies, we cause them a far greater amount of suffering than they imparted to us, and we do so directly, whereas they do so indirectly (most of the time).

Therefore, it is unjust to retaliate against society's rejection of you using physical violence, since the act of physical violence is disproportionate and asymmetrical to the passive social and sexual rejection. Physical violence as retaliation is justified only if the Stacies, Chads, or normans have DIRECTLY harmed you without apologizing for it.

 

[nausea]

philosophic argument

if you oppress people---------------->jihad

 

[Abomination]

philosophic argument
if you oppress people---------------->jihad

No, it's asymmetrical to respond to passive aggressive acts (rejection, disgust etc), which are by nature acts of omission, with acts of commission (physical violence, direct aggression, vandalism)

 

[nausea]

No, it's asymmetrical to respond to passive aggressive acts (rejection, disgust etc), which are by nature acts of omission, with acts of commission (physical violence, direct aggression, vandalism)

if the act of omission causes physical harm? eh?

 

[Abomination]

No, it's asymmetrical to respond to passive aggressive acts (rejection, disgust etc), which are by nature acts of omission, with acts of commission (physical violence, direct aggression, vandalism)

if the act of omission causes physical harm? eh?

I hate cucktears and don't want to sound like one of them, but the only appropriate and justifiable way to retaliate against an act of omission that causes you harm is to use an act of omission yourself. Examples include not holding the door open for anybody, not helping Stacies with their homework when they try to charm you with their femininity, being inconsiderate in social situations, etc.

If you personally know the person who is harming you with acts of omission, it is ok to use acts of omission of a greater magnitude of harm to escalate the situation to the point where both parties may use acts of commission in direct aggression, but you should avoid being the first person to use an act of commission unless absolutely necessary.

EDIT: I have thought about my previous paragraph a bit, and now I believe that if you personally know the person who harmed you through an act of omission, it is ok for you to respond with an act of commission, but it must be symmetrical to the harm it caused you. For example, if a "friend" ditched you and didn't invite you to a party, it is ok to call him out on it and say 'fuck you' etc and escalate if you so desire.

 

[nausea]

I hate cucktears and don't want to sound like one of them, but the only appropriate and justifiable way to retaliate against an act of omission that causes you harm is to use an act of omission yourself. Examples include not holding the door open for anybody, not helping Stacies with their homework when they try to charm you with their femininity, being inconsiderate in social situations, etc.

If you personally know the person who is harming you with acts of omission, it is ok to use acts of omission of a greater magnitude of harm to escalate the situation to the point where both parties may use acts of commission in direct aggression, but you should avoid being the first person to use an act of commission unless absolutely necessary.

EDIT: I have thought about my previous paragraph a bit, and now I believe that if you personally know the person who harmed you through an act of omission, it is ok for you to respond with an act of commission, but it must be symmetrical to the harm it caused you. For example, if a "friend" ditched you and didn't invite you to a party, it is ok to call him out on it and say 'fuck you' etc and escalate if you so desire.

man

no

if a whole group ( females ) ostracizes you it is your fucking right to act in order to restore order

every animal in such dire situation will fight back and die if necessary

what about apartheid then? and palestinians? and every other group casted away in history?

 

[Abomination]

I hate cucktears and don't want to sound like one of them, but the only appropriate and justifiable way to retaliate against an act of omission that causes you harm is to use an act of omission yourself. Examples include not holding the door open for anybody, not helping Stacies with their homework when they try to charm you with their femininity, being inconsiderate in social situations, etc.
If you personally know the person who is harming you with acts of omission, it is ok to use acts of omission of a greater magnitude of harm to escalate the situation to the point where both parties may use acts of commission in direct aggression, but you should avoid being the first person to use an act of commission unless absolutely necessary.
EDIT: I have thought about my previous paragraph a bit, and now I believe that if you personally know the person who harmed you through an act of omission, it is ok for you to respond with an act of commission, but it must be symmetrical to the harm it caused you. For example, if a "friend" ditched you and didn't invite you to a party, it is ok to call him out on it and say 'fuck you' etc and escalate if you so desire.

man
no
if a whole group ( females ) ostracizes you it is your fucking right to act in order to restore order
every animal in such dire situation will fight back and die if necessary
what about apartheid then? and palestinians? and every other group casted away in history?

1. Being rejected romantically and socially is nowhere near the level of seriousness of apartheid, slavery, genocide and oppression.
2. The examples you mentioned, oppression and apartheid, are mostly acts of commission - i.e. you are denied by law from being able to do x, you are forced to behave in a certain way. These are conditions that are forced upon you and therefore count as acts of commission.
3. Ostracization by females is often due to acts of commission - i.e., they get you kicked out of a group, spread rumors about you, etc. In this case, you have the right to retaliate by an act of commission yourself.

The important thing is that retaliation is symmetrical to the harm done to you

 

[universallyabhorred]

OP= idiot, the intent of the action does not matter, in fact going ER actually causes them less suffering than we have been subjected to our entire lives since going ER is momentary while inceldom is permanent.

 

[Reddit_is_for_cucks]

tbh i am against anyone being violent, although females do toryure/abuse us by ignoring us.

Just like if a mother ignored her newborn baby and the baby ended up dying.
They owe us sex and attention for our well being. In return men get to be productive members of society and everyone is happy.

 

[Abomination]

OP= idiot, the intent of the action does not matter, in fact going ER actually causes them less suffering than we have been subjected to our entire lives since going ER is momentary while inceldom is permanent.

Going ER kills random people that haven't done anything to you specifically, so you're not getting retribution out of it. Even if most of the people you end up killing are probably normies that would treat you like shit, you're obligated to give everybody you meet a chance.

Furthermore, you're not just hurting the direct victims when you go ER - you're also causing suffering to their families and friends. I imagine that having your son murdered is probably 1/3 the pain of a lifetime of inceldom, so it's significant.

Also, I never spoke anything of intentions when I made this thread. This thread is meant to discuss the nature of a damaging action, not the intent behind it; omission vs commission.

 

[anincelforlifelol]

OP = idiot, cucked faggot, bluepilled CuckTears user

 

[Abomination]

tbh i am against anyone being violent, although females do toryure/abuse us by ignoring us.
Just like if a mother ignored her newborn baby and the baby ended up dying.
They owe us sex and attention for our well being. In return men get to be productive members of society and everyone is happy.

If you're not a productive, high IQ working member of society that contributes significantly, then they don't owe you shit

---

OP = idiot, cucked faggot, bluepilled CuckTears user

Baseless accusation, I've been blackpilled for years ever since I found PUAHate in 2012. Just because your low IQ brain is unable to comprehend the logic of the ethics of revenge I've put forth doesn't make me a bluepilled cuck

 

[universallyabhorred]

Going ER kills random people that haven't done anything to you specifically, so you're not getting retribution out of it. Even if most of the people you end up killing are probably normies that would treat you like shit, you're obligated to give everybody you meet a chance.

Furthermore, you're not just hurting the direct victims when you go ER - you're also causing suffering to their families and friends. I imagine that having your son murdered is probably 1/3 the pain of a lifetime of inceldom, so it's significant.

Also, I never spoke anything of intentions when I made this thread. This thread is meant to discuss the nature of a damaging action, not the intent behind it; omission vs commission.

It attacks society which is the root cause of all our problems, nope normies and femoids are not entitled to chances from incels just as we are not entitled to sex or acceptance from them.

This is the most beautiful part, they are forced to feel the pain they inflicted on us everyday, their great and pleasurable lives become hell, it is still not enough though in the end everyone dies and they accept it, time heals all wounds. 

Society enslaves us  tortures us and destroys our souls and hearts every single day, an incel going ER is just giving them what they deserve. I believe they did what was necessary.

 

[Deleted member 60]

It's not about denial of sex. Females often go out of their way to torment us. That is a direct form of aggression, and violence is an appropriate response.

 

[Abomination]

Going ER kills random people that haven't done anything to you specifically, so you're not getting retribution out of it. Even if most of the people you end up killing are probably normies that would treat you like shit, you're obligated to give everybody you meet a chance.
Furthermore, you're not just hurting the direct victims when you go ER - you're also causing suffering to their families and friends. I imagine that having your son murdered is probably 1/3 the pain of a lifetime of inceldom, so it's significant.
Also, I never spoke anything of intentions when I made this thread. This thread is meant to discuss the nature of a damaging action, not the intent behind it; omission vs commission.

It attacks society which is the root cause of all our problems, nope normies and femoids are not entitled to chances from incels just as we are not entitled to sex or acceptance from them.
This is the most beautiful part, they are forced to feel the pain they inflicted on us everyday, their great and pleasurable lives become hell, it is still not enough though in the end everyone dies and they accept it, time heals all wounds.
Society enslaves us tortures us and destroys our souls and hearts every single day, an incel going ER is just giving them what they deserve. I believe they did what was necessary.

Incel cope. It is NATURE that is the root of your problems. Our subhuman genes are the root of our problems. Females would rather DIE than mate with you subhumans, just LOL if you think restoring arranged marriage and destroying degeneracy will solve anything. Femoids will still cuck you, or just kill themselves because they've been forcefully bound to a subhuman.

By definition, the idea of taking revenge against random people that have done nothing to you makes no sense. If you were killing specific people who had wronged you greatly, it would make sense. This is sort of what I meant by owing everybody a chance - you can't take revenge against someone who hasn't wronged you, by definition.

Most normies have never done anything to you worse than ignore you, reject you, or look at you with disgust. Cumulatively, this results in a life of suffering for incels, but it is asymmetrical to kill them for such a small individual contribution to your suffering.

 

[blickpall]

I agree with OP to a degree because I frown upon violence and murder in general. However, the situation is not as simplistic as you think.

You are preaching "eye for an eye" which is simply not possible because of the discrepancy of type and amount of power between the two groups. Females persecute incels because they have something we want and don't want to share it with us, they are programmed that way. Incels, however, really don't have much of anything that females want unless they become high status or betabux, and even then most here would agree that the feeling is still diluted and not genuine. So, there is no way for incels to punish females the same way that they punish us. They have a whip and we do not.

However, people like ER had a gun. In response to the whip, he shot people. He gathered what resources he had, and thus punished them in a way that those resources afforded him.

There is also the philosophy that a lifetime of torture and solitude is a worse punishment than death, and I am inclined to agree. Death punishes those that care for that person more than it punishes the person itself. Take that as you will.

 

[Abomination]

It's not about denial of sex. Females often go out of their way to torment us. That is a direct form of aggression, and violence is an appropriate response.

I agree 100% - when femoids actively try to torment us, retaliation in the form of acts of commission are acceptable, and even warranted. However, revenge should be symmetrical, which is the whole point of the thread. Retaliating to passive aggressive acts of commission shouldn't involve violence unless the passive aggressive acts severely harm you (i.e. getting fired, beaten up by a group of guys because of a lie/rumor she spread)

 

[Grotesque]

So, there is no way for incels to punish females the same way that they punish us.

There's one way...

 

[universallyabhorred]

Cucked thread.

 

[Deleted member 776]

If you don't hit your dog then why do so many people want to hit their gf's/wives?

In a decent patriarchal civilisation men would have access to the necessary means to keep women in line without having to strike them or at least maybe a light slap if they were being violent/hysterical every once in a while

 

[Deleted member 60]

I agree 100% - when femoids actively try to torment us, retaliation in the form of acts of commission are acceptable, and even warranted. However, revenge should be symmetrical, which is the whole point of the thread. Retaliating to passive aggressive acts of commission shouldn't involve violence unless the passive aggressive acts severely harm you (i.e. getting fired, beaten up by a group of guys because of a lie/rumor she spread)

would you agree that refusing to help a female in need is justified then? For example, if I saw a female being assaulted/raped, I probably wouldn't help her.

 

[Abomination]

I agree with OP to a degree because I frown upon violence and murder in general. However, the situation is not as simplistic as you think.
You are preaching "eye for an eye" which is simply not possible because of the discrepancy of type and amount of power between the two groups. Females persecute incels because they have something we want and don't want to share it with us, they are programmed that way. Incels, however, really don't have much of anything that females want unless they become high status or betabux, and even then most here would agree that the feeling is still diluted and not genuine. So, there is no way for incels to punish females the same way that they punish us. They have a whip and we do not.
However, people like ER had a gun. In response to the whip, he shot people. He gathered what resources he had, and thus punished them in a way that those resources afforded him.
There is also the philosophy that a lifetime of torture and solitude is a worse punishment than death, and I am inclined to agree. Death punishes those that care for that person more than it punishes the person itself. Take that as you will.

The discrepancy between your thought and mine is that you talk about revenge against groups of people, whereas I mostly preach individualized revenge.

Suppose Persons A, B, C, and D are all women, and all cause great harm to Person X. Does that make it okay for Person X to kill Persons E and F, which are both women, though E and F did nothing to the incel? Just because they are part of a group that generally hurts you does not warrant revenge. Revenge must be INDIVIDUALIZED to be meaningful.

 

[blickpall]

There's one way...

Not really. I'm guessing you're inferring acid attacks. This isn't the same thing they do to us. It just makes them more like us. Stacey didn't make you incel, and no one had to throw acid in your face to accomplish those ends.

 

[universallyabhorred]

Incel cope. It is NATURE that is the root of your problems. Our subhuman genes are the root of our problems. Females would rather DIE than mate with you subhumans, just LOL if you think restoring arranged marriage and destroying degeneracy will solve anything. Femoids will still cuck you, or just kill themselves because they've been forcefully bound to a subhuman.

By definition, the idea of taking revenge against random people that have done nothing to you makes no sense. If you were killing specific people who had wronged you greatly, it would make sense. This is sort of what I meant by owing everybody a chance - you can't take revenge against someone who hasn't wronged you, by definition.

Most normies have never done anything to you worse than ignore you, reject you, or look at you with disgust. Cumulatively, this results in a life of suffering for incels, but it is asymmetrical to kill them for such a small individual contribution to your suffering.

It is not nature, if society did not place importance to looks then being ugly would not matter. Not true plenty of ugly guys had wives in the olden days. If they could find a chad which would have been unlikely, also females value their lives more than that.

It makes a lot of sense society as a whole has persecuted incels so society as a whole must feel its wrath. No, they would ultimately wrong you because it is in their evil nature to mistreat ugly incels, they would have all done the same to you, good and evil do not exist.

Those things are much worse than being harassed, isolation is much worse than bullying also plenty of normies have bullied incels. It is not asymmetrical normies ruined incel lives their lives are ruined by incels.

 

[Abomination]

I agree 100% - when femoids actively try to torment us, retaliation in the form of acts of commission are acceptable, and even warranted. However, revenge should be symmetrical, which is the whole point of the thread. Retaliating to passive aggressive acts of commission shouldn't involve violence unless the passive aggressive acts severely harm you (i.e. getting fired, beaten up by a group of guys because of a lie/rumor she spread)

would you agree that refusing to help a female in need is justified then? For example, if I saw a female being assaulted/raped, I probably wouldn't help her.

This thread is about revenge specifically, which means that the female would have had to have injured you first. I'd consider myself ethically obliged to help that woman unless she had committed an act of omission (ignored/rejected me) earlier.

 

[blickpall]

The discrepancy between your thought and mine is that you talk about revenge against groups of people, whereas I mostly preach individualized revenge.

Suppose Persons A, B, C, and D are all women, and all cause great harm to Person X. Does that make it okay for Person X to kill Persons E and F, which are both women, though E and F did nothing to the incel? Just because they are part of a group that generally hurts you does not warrant revenge. Revenge must be INDIVIDUALIZED to be meaningful.

You weren't really clear on that subject, but there is truth to what you're saying. However, on the deeper level, it is all people who silently approve of the current system that caused ER his pain, not just the most vocal perpetrators. Of course, I doubt he discriminated or bothered to investigate at any level, but at the same time, who would have given him the opportunity? His revenge was against the system, the hivemind, not the arms or legs. When your friend is shot and killed, you don't go looking for the gun that was used against him but the person who pressed the trigger. By targeting the specific bullies, you dilute its deeper meaning by going after the gun and not the shooter. Going after the bullies, once covered by the media, will be an a -> b analysis. Going after the whole system indiscriminately, you make people analyze and question, "Why would he do this?"

 

[Abomination]

Incel cope. It is NATURE that is the root of your problems. Our subhuman genes are the root of our problems. Females would rather DIE than mate with you subhumans, just LOL if you think restoring arranged marriage and destroying degeneracy will solve anything. Femoids will still cuck you, or just kill themselves because they've been forcefully bound to a subhuman.
By definition, the idea of taking revenge against random people that have done nothing to you makes no sense. If you were killing specific people who had wronged you greatly, it would make sense. This is sort of what I meant by owing everybody a chance - you can't take revenge against someone who hasn't wronged you, by definition.
Most normies have never done anything to you worse than ignore you, reject you, or look at you with disgust. Cumulatively, this results in a life of suffering for incels, but it is asymmetrical to kill them for such a small individual contribution to your suffering.

It is not nature, if society did not place importance to looks then being ugly would not matter. Not true plenty of ugly guys had wives in the olden days. If they can find a chad which is unlikely females value their lives more than that.
It makes a lot of sense society as a whole has persecuted incels society as a whole must feel its wrath. No, they would ultimately wrong you because it is in their nature to mistreat ugly incels.
Those things are much worse than being harassed, isolation is much worse than bullying also plenty of normies have bullied incels. It is not asymmetrical normies ruined incel lives their lives are ruined by incels.

Cope. In the old days, women cheated on their husbands, got impregnated, and tricked their husbands into raising Chad's kids all the time.

ALL humans are compulsively, biologically attracted to others based on LOOKS, and this is a fact of nature, not sociology, which you would know if you were actually blackpilled.

It's unethical to go ER on random strangers because they didn't do anything to you yet.
Revenge must be individualized and symmetrical in order to be ethical.

---

The discrepancy between your thought and mine is that you talk about revenge against groups of people, whereas I mostly preach individualized revenge.
Suppose Persons A, B, C, and D are all women, and all cause great harm to Person X. Does that make it okay for Person X to kill Persons E and F, which are both women, though E and F did nothing to the incel? Just because they are part of a group that generally hurts you does not warrant revenge. Revenge must be INDIVIDUALIZED to be meaningful.

You weren't really clear on that subject, but there is truth to what you're saying. However, on the deeper level, it is all people who silently approve of the current system that caused ER his pain, not just the most vocal perpetrators. Of course, I doubt he discriminated or bothered to investigate at any level, but at the same time, who would have given him the opportunity? His revenge was against the system, the hivemind, not the arms or legs. When your friend is shot and killed, you don't go looking for the gun that was used against him but the person who pressed the trigger. By targeting the specific bullies, you dilute its deeper meaning by going after the gun and not the shooter. Going after the bullies, once covered by the media, will be an a -> b analysis. Going after the whole system indiscriminately, you make people analyze and question, "Why would he do this?"

Revenge is necessarily personal. When you commit an act of revenge, you are not trying to change society - such an action would be activism/revolution and would no longer count as mere revenge. In the 2nd half of your paragraph just now, it seems that you're more focused on the societal effects of going ER than the personal aspect, so it no longer strictly falls under revenge.

The system as a whole did nothing to ER, and it does nothing (for the most part) to us, with some exceptions (feminism, affirmative action, misandry etc). Furthermore, even if the system does actively oppress Person X, Person X is not justified in killing random civilians. He is obligated to take revenge against the individuals most responsible for his suffering. In the case of inceldom, that would mean effective revenge could be taken against prominent feminists, pop stars, promoters of pop culture etc. Not random normies, though.

 

[universallyabhorred]

Cope. In the old days, women cheated on their husbands, got impregnated, and tricked their husbands into raising Chad's kids all the time.

ALL humans are compulsively, biologically attracted to others based on LOOKS, and this is a fact of nature, not sociology, which you would know if you were actually blackpilled.

It's unethical to go ER on random strangers because they didn't do anything to you yet.
Revenge must be individualized and symmetrical in order to be ethical.

---

Revenge is necessarily personal. When you commit an act of revenge, you are not trying to change society - such an action would be activism/revolution and would no longer count as mere revenge. In the 2nd half of your paragraph just now, it seems that you're more focused on the societal effects of going ER than the personal aspect, so it no longer strictly falls under revenge.

The system as a whole did nothing to ER, and it does nothing (for the most part) to us, with some exceptions (feminism, affirmative action, misandry etc). Furthermore, even if the system does actively oppress Person X, Person X is not justified in killing random civilians. He is obligated to take revenge against the individuals most responsible for his suffering. In the case of inceldom, that would mean effective revenge could be taken against prominent feminists, pop stars, promoters of pop culture etc. Not random normies, though.

---

Ethics mean nothing pal society fucked incels incels are entitled to fuck them back, it does not matter what it was, all I can say is what ER and others did was 100% justified.

 

[Abomination]

Cope. In the old days, women cheated on their husbands, got impregnated, and tricked their husbands into raising Chad's kids all the time.
ALL humans are compulsively, biologically attracted to others based on LOOKS, and this is a fact of nature, not sociology, which you would know if you were actually blackpilled.
It's unethical to go ER on random strangers because they didn't do anything to you yet.
Revenge must be individualized and symmetrical in order to be ethical.

---

Revenge is necessarily personal. When you commit an act of revenge, you are not trying to change society - such an action would be activism/revolution and would no longer count as mere revenge. In the 2nd half of your paragraph just now, it seems that you're more focused on the societal effects of going ER than the personal aspect, so it no longer strictly falls under revenge.
The system as a whole did nothing to ER, and it does nothing (for the most part) to us, with some exceptions (feminism, affirmative action, misandry etc). Furthermore, even if the system does actively oppress Person X, Person X is not justified in killing random civilians. He is obligated to take revenge against the individuals most responsible for his suffering. In the case of inceldom, that would mean effective revenge could be taken against prominent feminists, pop stars, promoters of pop culture etc. Not random normies, though.

---

Ethics mean nothing pal society fucked us we are entitled to fuck them back, it does not matter what it was, all I can say is what ER and others did was 100% justified.

---

You're so illogical. Murder is completely disproportional to the individual actions of ignoring or rejecting someone.

If you were bullied, then you're entitled to harm, maybe even kill, your bully.
If a Stacy ruined your career by spreading rumors about you, then you are entitled to harm or even kill her.
Being passively rejected and ignored by the system, however, does not entitle you to "revenge" by killing random people.

Revenge must be individualized and symmetrical.

 

[nausea]

OP you are going to understand there's a big phallacy in your logic

NO OFFENCE eh I am enjoying the thread and I read the discussion carefully

 

[Abomination]

OP you are going to understand there's a big phallacy in your logic
NO OFFENCE eh I am enjoying the thread and I read the discussion carefully

Can you please explain the fallacy? If you can point out a legitimate fallacy that I made, I'll concede

 

[nausea]

Can you please explain the fallacy? If you can point out a legitimate fallacy that I made, I'll concede

yes I will in due time

there's nothing to concede man, no infight

 

[universallyabhorred]

You're so illogical. Murder is completely disproportional to the individual actions of ignoring or rejecting someone.

If you were bullied, then you're entitled to harm, maybe even kill, your bully.
If a Stacy ruined your career by spreading rumors about you, then you are entitled to harm or even kill her.
Being passively rejected and ignored by the system, however, does not entitle you to "revenge" by killing random people.

Revenge must be individualized and symmetrical.

There is no rule that says revenge must be individualized or symmetrical, that is the problem with your argument. These are simply rules you are creating to limit incel actions. Nature does not care what you do, just as society does not care about you if you are an ugly subhuman, the fact is stop thinking about right or wrong, those are merely social constructs created by society to oppress you. Look at the bigger picture. Revel in the pain and suffering of your enemies, feel happy that you fought and won, instead of lying down and dying like society wants you to. Stop letting flawed conceptions such as rules and morality dictate your actions.

 

[Abomination]

You're so illogical. Murder is completely disproportional to the individual actions of ignoring or rejecting someone.
If you were bullied, then you're entitled to harm, maybe even kill, your bully.
If a Stacy ruined your career by spreading rumors about you, then you are entitled to harm or even kill her.
Being passively rejected and ignored by the system, however, does not entitle you to "revenge" by killing random people.
Revenge must be individualized and symmetrical.

There is no rule that says revenge must be individualized or symmetrical, that is the problem with your argument. These are simply rules you are creating to limit incel actions. Nature does not care what you do, just as society does not care about you if you are an ugly subhuman, the fact is stop thinking about right or wrong, those are merely social constructs created by society to oppress you. Look at the bigger picture. Revel in the pain and suffering of your enemies, feel happy that you fought and won, instead of lying down and dying like society wants you to. Stop letting flawed conceptions such as rules and morality dictate your actions.

Unless you're a sociopath, you generally will not feel fulfilled from asymmetric revenge. You won't feel happy that you "fought and won" because you killed random people that didn't directly harm you.

 

[universallyabhorred]

Unless you're a sociopath, you generally will not feel fulfilled from asymmetric revenge. You won't feel happy that you "fought and won" because you killed random people that didn't directly harm you.

Anyone can train themselves to be a sociopath also for some their belief in allah and 72 virgins wives in heaven is another great motivation, also hatred for society and femoids is another great reason. You don't necessarily need to be a sociopath.

 

[blickpall]

Revenge is necessarily personal. When you commit an act of revenge, you are not trying to change society - such an action would be activism/revolution and would no longer count as mere revenge. In the 2nd half of your paragraph just now, it seems that you're more focused on the societal effects of going ER than the personal aspect, so it no longer strictly falls under revenge.

So then it is irrelevant in this context? While I'm sure most people here have people they would want to seek revenge against, I believe that by and large most people idolize Elliott for his message and not his "revenge," by your definition.

The system as a whole did nothing to ER, and it does nothing (for the most part) to us, with some exceptions (feminism, affirmative action, misandry etc). Furthermore, even if the system does actively oppress Person X, Person X is not justified in killing random civilians. He is obligated to take revenge against the individuals most responsible for his suffering. In the case of inceldom, that would mean effective revenge could be taken against prominent feminists, pop stars, promoters of pop culture etc. Not random normies, though.

By system I mean the current sexual landscape. The problem that people have with the current environment is both genetic and sociological. Killing one pop star or feminist turns them a martyr, posthumously granting validity to the SJW cause they represent or the culture they support. Killing random civilians spreads the message that everyone is guilty.

Again, I'm not endorsing violence by any means, but I think that what you're describing as revenge is irrelevant to inceldom as a whole. Killing people is wrong to begin with, revenge is too (but justifiable in the minds of many, though). If you're arguing for your definition of "ethical revenge," then you can have it imo.

 

[Abomination]

Unless you're a sociopath, you generally will not feel fulfilled from asymmetric revenge. You won't feel happy that you "fought and won" because you killed random people that didn't directly harm you.

Anyone can train themselves to be a sociopath also for some their belief in allah and 72 virgins wives in heaven is another great motivation, also hatred for society and femoids is another great reason. You don't necessarily need to be a sociopath.

That isn't true, sociopaths are either born or made in early childhood, it is HEAVILY influenced by genetics. This discussion was limited to talking about actions solely motivated by revenge, so the rest of what you wrote is a red herring fallacy.

---

Revenge is necessarily personal. When you commit an act of revenge, you are not trying to change society - such an action would be activism/revolution and would no longer count as mere revenge. In the 2nd half of your paragraph just now, it seems that you're more focused on the societal effects of going ER than the personal aspect, so it no longer strictly falls under revenge.

So then it is irrelevant in this context? While I'm sure most people here have people they would want to seek revenge against, I believe that by and large most people idolize Elliott for his message and not his "revenge," by your definition.

The system as a whole did nothing to ER, and it does nothing (for the most part) to us, with some exceptions (feminism, affirmative action, misandry etc). Furthermore, even if the system does actively oppress Person X, Person X is not justified in killing random civilians. He is obligated to take revenge against the individuals most responsible for his suffering. In the case of inceldom, that would mean effective revenge could be taken against prominent feminists, pop stars, promoters of pop culture etc. Not random normies, though.

By system I mean the current sexual landscape. The problem that people have with the current environment is both genetic and sociological. Killing one pop star or feminist turns them a martyr, posthumously granting validity to the SJW cause they represent or the culture they support. Killing random civilians spreads the message that everyone is guilty.
Again, I'm not endorsing violence by any means, but I think that what you're describing as revenge is irrelevant to inceldom as a whole. Killing people is wrong to begin with, revenge is too (but justifiable in the minds of many, though). If you're arguing for your definition of "ethical revenge," then you can have it imo.

Looks like we're resolved, then. My argument here only speaks about the definition and requirements for pure revenge, not for social engineering through murder.

 

[nausea]

Looks like we're resolved, then. My argument here only speaks about the definition and requirements for pure revenge, not for social engineering through murder.

but you , as an incel, wanna revenge or else?

 

[Abomination]

Looks like we're resolved, then. My argument here only speaks about the definition and requirements for pure revenge, not for social engineering through murder.

but you , as an incel, wanna revenge or else?

I'd love to get revenge against individuals that wronged me. I strongly desire to brutally torture and kill my former bullies, but before killing them I'd force them to admit they're inferior to me.

Only one woman has personally, directly hurt me enough for me to want to take revenge on her, but it happened a long time ago, so I'm mostly over it.

 

[blickpall]

Looks like we're resolved, then. My argument here only speaks about the definition and requirements for pure revenge, not for social engineering through murder.

Makes sense. There is always something cathartic about a discussion that starts as a disagreement but crystallizes into an understanding of what the other person was actually trying to say, and agreeing with it. Cheers.

 

[nausea]

OP did you watch this? https://incels.is/Thread-repost-WARNING-SUI-INDUCING-AND-GRAPHIC

 

[Abomination]

OP did you watch this? https://incels.is/Thread-repost-WARNING-SUI-INDUCING-AND-GRAPHIC

I just watched it, and while I do agree with some of Inmendham's philosophy, I don't see how it relates to the theory of revenge

 

[nausea]

I just watched it, and while I do agree with some of Inmendham's philosophy, I don't see how it relates to the theory of revenge

because the part "no rules"

look, we are fundamentally animals

yes we can theorize but we are fucking going to die alone

the phallacy you imo fall into is not calling out names of our persecutors, IT IS SOCIETY not the female who rejected you or whatever

our ancestors knew the nature of females and fucking created RULES to sustain the tribe or else is jungle-law

 

[Abomination]

I just watched it, and while I do agree with some of Inmendham's philosophy, I don't see how it relates to the theory of revenge

because the part "no rules"
look, we are fundamentally animals
yes we can theorize but we are fucking going to die alone
the phallacy you imo fall into is not calling out names of our persecutors, IT IS SOCIETY not the female who rejected you or whatever
our ancestors knew the nature of females and fucking created RULES to sustain the tribe or else is jungle-law

I don't understand your argument. My argument ITT in this thread can be summarized as follows:
1) If a universal (deontological) ethics system exists, then ethical revenge must be individualized and symmetric
2) Even if a universal ethics system does not exist, even if we are just animals in a brutal gladitorial contest, revenge is mostly only personally fulfilling if it is individualized and symmetric (because of how our psychology evolved)

It doesn't matter whether your goal is self-satisfaction or conformance to ethics/rules - either way the best way to go about getting revenge is to do so in an individualized and symmetric way. Both the self-interested and ethical arguments lead to symmetric + individualized revenge.

 

[nausea]

I don't understand your argument. My argument ITT in this thread can be summarized as follows:
1) If a universal (deontological) ethics system exists, then ethical revenge must be individualized and symmetric
2) Even if a universal ethics system does not exist, even if we are just animals in a brutal gladitorial contest, revenge is mostly only personally fulfilling if it is individualized and symmetric (because of how our psychology evolved)

It doesn't matter whether your goal is self-satisfaction or conformance to ethics/rules - either way the best way to go about getting revenge is to do so in an individualized and symmetric way. Both the self-interested and ethical arguments lead to symmetric + individualized revenge.

thx for the resume, I am dumb seriously

my question is: girl x rejects you and even humiliates you, what it's right for you to do?

just to make sure I get it this time

 

[Abomination]

I don't understand your argument. My argument ITT in this thread can be summarized as follows:
1) If a universal (deontological) ethics system exists, then ethical revenge must be individualized and symmetric
2) Even if a universal ethics system does not exist, even if we are just animals in a brutal gladitorial contest, revenge is mostly only personally fulfilling if it is individualized and symmetric (because of how our psychology evolved)
It doesn't matter whether your goal is self-satisfaction or conformance to ethics/rules - either way the best way to go about getting revenge is to do so in an individualized and symmetric way. Both the self-interested and ethical arguments lead to symmetric + individualized revenge.

thx for the resume, I am dumb seriously
my question is: girl x rejects you and even humiliates you, what it's right for you to do?
just to make sure I get it this time

It depends on how badly she humiliates you. If she severely hurts your self-esteem and your social life/reputation, then that should be symmetrically equivalent to a hard punch to the liver. If it's just light embarrassment, then your reaction should be tailored to produce a similar amount of harm.

If she just rejects you without humiliating you, and is nice to you while rejecting you, it's wrong to commit an act of commission in revenge. Rejection in and of itself is just an act of omission, so anything you do you to her must symmetrically be an act of omission.

 

[nausea]

It depends on how badly she humiliates you. If she severely hurts your self-esteem and your social life/reputation, then that should be symmetrically equivalent to a hard punch to the liver. If it's just light embarrassment, then your reaction should be tailored to produce a similar amount of harm.

If she just rejects you without humiliating you, and is nice to you while rejecting you, it's wrong to commit an act of commission in revenge. Rejection in and of itself is just an act of omission, so anything you do you to her must symmetrically be an act of omission.

eh no

she humiliates you=she receive the same humiliation herself, no "punches"

she simply rejects you, fine ! no issue, right? nothing can be done, you suffer a rejection and that's it

look at this thread, if you like https://incels.is/Thread-about-Grotesque-signature

 

[Abomination]

It depends on how badly she humiliates you. If she severely hurts your self-esteem and your social life/reputation, then that should be symmetrically equivalent to a hard punch to the liver. If it's just light embarrassment, then your reaction should be tailored to produce a similar amount of harm.
If she just rejects you without humiliating you, and is nice to you while rejecting you, it's wrong to commit an act of commission in revenge. Rejection in and of itself is just an act of omission, so anything you do you to her must symmetrically be an act of omission.

eh no
she humiliates you=she receive the same humiliation herself, no "punches"
she simply rejects you, fine ! no issue, right? nothing can be done, you suffer a rejection and that's it
look at this thread, if you like https://incels.is/Thread-about-Grotesque-signature

The specific action you take doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the harm you do to your target is ~equal to the harm they do to you. This is what I mean by symmetry - the amount of harm done must be equivalent.

As for a simple rejection, it might not be a big deal, as you said, so no injury would befall you and there'd be no need for any kind of revenge.

 

[nausea]

The specific action you take doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the harm you do to your target is ~equal to the harm they do to you. This is what I mean by symmetry - the amount of harm done must be equivalent.

As for a simple rejection, it might not be a big deal, as you said, so no injury would befall you and there'd be no need for any kind of revenge.

like to see your standing here https://incels.is/Thread-about-Grotesque-signature

 

[Abomination]

The specific action you take doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the harm you do to your target is ~equal to the harm they do to you. This is what I mean by symmetry - the amount of harm done must be equivalent.
As for a simple rejection, it might not be a big deal, as you said, so no injury would befall you and there'd be no need for any kind of revenge.

like to see your standing here https://incels.is/Thread-about-Grotesque-signature

Yes, the whore should be humiliated somehow, but she should be humiliated specifically by the guy she humiliated first, and not by a "system"