• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Off-site Community Discussion (Reset, etc.) -- READ OP. Stay civil. Don't make it personal. Keep it in here.

Ol'Scratch

Member
Feb 17, 2019
422
489
285

It's only been reopened a short period of time but the dogpiles and banning have already begun. At this point it's better to say they don't want a discussion about anything. May as well update the TOS with a list of exactly how people need to feel and what they need to post in order to be able to participate on the site.

One thing I've noticed regarding it being pride month... What the fuck is up with some of these people throwing tantrums saying things along the lines of "I can't believe you're behaving like this during pride month". Imagine me saying something like "I can't believe you're being racist towards me during black history month of all times" during October. Like what, they think that because its pride month everyone, even those who don't give a shit, are suddenly going to alter their behaviours towards the LGBT community? Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, we don't live in a utopia.
Cyberpunk IS fetish. That is part of the appeal. A huge part of Cyberpunk is the atmosphere and the aesthetic. What the fuck are they looking for and expecting? Fucking hell I feel a hate crime coming on.

There is a thread about the response, all the replies at like “ok that sounds reasonable” then the first one hits with a butthurt wall of text, big surprise that comment is from a verified “freelance games journalist”

So now trans being represented as sexy is offensive. I see.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
So now trans being represented as sexy is offensive. I see.
It's simple, though: it was never about proper representation. Many have raised the question "how much representation is appropriate?" which never receives an answer (and half the time, receives vitriol).

It was always about them desiring credible authority over what is allowed to be sexy and what isn't. They want to be moral arbiters, and now they are flexing their "authority".
 

HUELEN10

Gold Member
Feb 29, 2008
25,762
498
1,510
Restera is officially more miserable than 4chan. At least you have freedom of speech on 4chan.
4chan is a platform, not a centralized forum. You can find various groups with various interests. Think of it more like reddit, and less like a dedicated gaming (lol) forum like Resetera. Some communities on 4chan can be miserable of course, just like some subreddits can be miserable, but others thrive and are a lot of fun. I think 4chan, specifically some of the blue boards I frequent, will always be home.

Flawed 4chan comparison aside, yes, Resetera as a majority and whole will most likely be forever angry and miserable.
 
Last edited:

tkscz

Member
Oct 17, 2011
8,977
881
760
4chan is a platform, not a centralized forum. You can find various groups with various interests. Think of it more like reddit, and less like a dedicated gaming (lol) forum like Resetera. Some communities on 4chan can be miserable of course, just like some subreddits can be miserable, but others thrive and are a lot of fun. I think 4chan, specifically some of the blue boards I frequent, will always be home.

Flawed 4chan comparison aside, yes, Resetera as a majority and whole will most likely be forever angry and miserable.
I don't even consider ResetEra a forum.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
6,230
3,158
1,400
The person who created the “Smash is 40% homophobic” thread requested a ban. :messenger_dizzy:

Getting a mod to ban 25 people is not good enough. All the male feminists in that thread about female characters not wearing pants are crying about her leaving.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
8,718
1,582
980
It's simple, though: it was never about proper representation. Many have raised the question "how much representation is appropriate?" which never receives an answer (and half the time, receives vitriol).

It was always about them desiring credible authority over what is allowed to be sexy and what isn't. They want to be moral arbiters, and now they are flexing their "authority".
Seems mainly about ego (as usual) to me.

Ostensibly, noone is allowed to disagree with their outrage because... of "reasons". Typically, that they are a (perfect, natch) representative of their group, and that group alone has the right to comment upon that groups feelings getting hurt.

Which is a fancy justification for them to double-down on their initial reaction because their fragile ego can't handle taking a step back and copping to the error.

Collectivism is a cover, because they use the group purely as a justification for the magnitude and supremacy of their feelings. When the "group" and the "self" are interchangeable as perspectives, the distinction is just a semantic trick to imply greater import and significance than what actually exists.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
The person who created the “Smash is 40% homophobic” thread requested a ban. :messenger_dizzy:

Getting a mod to ban 25 people is not good enough. All the male feminists in that thread about female characters not wearing pants are crying about her leaving.
Aww, that's disappointing.

Kinsei was our high-score ERA-member killer.




Seems mainly about ego (as usual) to me.

Ostensibly, noone is allowed to disagree with their outrage because... of "reasons". Typically, that they are a (perfect, natch) representative of their group, and that group alone has the right to comment upon that groups feelings getting hurt.

Which is a fancy justification for them to double-down on their initial reaction because their fragile ego can't handle taking a step back and copping to the error.

Collectivism is a cover, because they use the group purely as a justification for the magnitude and supremacy of their feelings. When the "group" and the "self" are interchangeable as perspectives, the distinction is just a semantic trick to imply greater import and significance than what actually exists.
It makes the ideology of being able to "identify" even more important: some of these ideologues are human leeches who must move from community to community and feed off the inhabitants. Being able to shuffle your identity among the oppressed and radicalized provides an endless source of victims.

The group is the host. They need "groupthink" to exist -- not only to exist, but to flourish -- so that they can find more corners to tuck themselves into.

It would make for a great vampire flick if it wasn't so utterly real.
 
Last edited:

Helios

Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,945
3,223
645
The person who created the “Smash is 40% homophobic” thread requested a ban. :messenger_dizzy:

Getting a mod to ban 25 people is not good enough. All the male feminists in that thread about female characters not wearing pants are crying about her leaving.
What's the point of getting 25 people banned if you can't act like the victim afterwards?
 

nush

Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
551
644
450
The person who created the “Smash is 40% homophobic” thread requested a ban. :messenger_dizzy:

Getting a mod to ban 25 people is not good enough. All the male feminists in that thread about female characters not wearing pants are crying about her leaving.
Ah the "flouncing off the forum" attention seeking move, she'll be getting her ego massaged even more that they are crying about it.
 

ULTROS!

Member
Aug 17, 2009
24,722
272
1,025
Philippines
psnprofiles.com
Port-begging and bans for port-begging was definitely on GAF before the REEExodus.
I'd say:

1. Port-begging was bad here already, basically: don't port beg, end of discussion.
2. After the REEExodus era, Nintendo fans became crazy and portbegged non-stop. So what they did was: oh, it's fine to portbeg as long as it can contribute to discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,397
1,565
685
Good lord the mods there can kiss the blackest part of my chocolate ass with their reasoning for bans.

Let's be honest here, the majority of them from the list above are just "You aren't going along with the narrative and thought for yourself, I'm going to band you and use bullshit reasoning to do it. That will teach you to not think exactly like everyone else does."

Again, ResetEra is a facebook group, not a forum.
User banned (duration pending): Internalized racism, downplaying bigotry, history of similar behavior.
 

donutkirby

Member
Sep 6, 2018
75
116
235
I'd say:

1. Port-begging was bad here already, basically: don't port beg, end of discussion.
2. After the REEExodus era, Nintendo fans became crazy and portbegged non-stop. So what they did was: oh, it's fine to portbeg as long as it can contribute to discussion.
I solved this dilemma by owning a gaming PC and a Nintendo Switch. BAM no more port begging.
 

mindfreak191

Member
Jun 1, 2013
258
117
535
Soon they'll be able to just auto play the MW4 intro when you load their site considering the amount of bans they're giving out each day: "50.000 people used to live here....now it's a ghost town."
 
  • LOL
  • Like
Reactions: cormack12 and nush

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
Reee should just get it over with and add Cyberpunk 2077 to their 'banned games' list and anything by CDPR or THQ to their 'banned developers' list.

Anything less is cowardice. The ideologues are trying to play power games at this point, but there's 0% chance they are engaging in good faith with these developers. Say what you really mean, REEEE.

But cowards never say what they really mean.

They are like a group of children who discovered that a beneficial tool of learning and inspection could be tilted just so in the sunlight to burn the insects at their feet. Or a group of children stranded on a deserted tropical island during a wartime evacuation. Man, that would make a good anime...
From a macrosocial perspective, I believe that we are witnessing a mass regression to infancy in the absence of an existential threat. Becoming an adult is difficult. Becoming an adult male, specifically, is the most difficult as it comes with the significant burden of responsibility. Males are traditionally protectors, producers and providers -- all forms of self-sacrifice for the good of the tribe. Protecting means dying on a battlefield, fighting fires, taking a proverbial bullet so that others may live. Producing means slaving away in a coal mine or tilling the fields. Providing means accepting the responsibility of venturing out into the world to confront and overcome risk in order to put food on the table for the women and children. The archetypes built into our stories portray the great difficulty of being a good man; of being a leader; of doing what is right, not necessarily popular. Women and children have none of these expectations and our entire social system is structured around this. Men are disposable, but for good reason.

In the modern context, we have lived in a prolonged period of peace since the end of World War 2, thus the need for masculine protection has diminished. We have developed technological means of automating and improving the safety of hazardous occupations as well as various forms of birth control, thus the need for masculine production has diminished. We have secured our sustenance and implemented social welfare programs so that the poorest among us do not starve to death, thus the need for masculine provision has diminished. We live in a world that needs traditional masculinity less than ever, but our social systems have not yet adjusted and the supply of males has remained constant and near parity with females*. The question then becomes: what do we do with these extra males in the new social economy that is not frequently culling large proportions of them via war? With newfound peace and prosperity, human (male) resources that were previously allocated to defending ourselves are redirected into developing and implementing technology to sustain ourselves, i.e. the most desirable occupations of the peaceful ebb of history. This should be a wholly positive thing -- husbands and sons no longer dying on battlefields and instead working to benefit all of society -- but our animal brains have not adapted. While men are ostensibly enjoying the sacrifices of their forefathers, women are still doing the same things they were doing during wartime: producing and raising children. This breeds envy as, in the absence of the responsibility of protection and the relative occupational safety provided by modern technology, production and provision can be thoroughly satisfying endeavors.

The envy could be managed if we sought to understand our evolutionary history and ensure that gender roles with respect to the cycle of war and peace and evolving technology are studied objectively, but they aren't. Academic feminism has been allowed to propagate the idea of Patriarchy theory, which asserts that divisions along gender lines are a result of top-down masculine oppression rather than survival mechanisms that evolved to enable the most efficient operation of the tribe. But it's a lie, and not just any lie -- it is a lie in pursuit of political goals, promulgated by those who cannot compete in the female social hierarchy that is based on reproductive value. Patriarchy theory acknowledges none of the aforementioned technological and diplomatic advances that have provided the conditions that enable us to even consider allowing women to venture out of the home and into the workplace to confront risk. Moreover, it diminishes the value of femininity. Motherhood is beautiful; perhaps the most beautiful aspect of our human existence as men will literally lay down their lives to protect it. Yet it, and womanhood in general, are now portrayed as burdens because we have lost sight of the greater reciprocal masculine burdens that are not temporally constant. We aren't managing the envy; we are embracing it, and we have allowed an ideology -- a pseudo-religion -- to develop that asserts that women are intrinsically victims of masculine oppression while acknowledging none of the benefits and concessions (i.e. privileges) that they receive.

However, I think we collectively and subconsciously know this in the deep recesses of our animal brains in spite of all of the public displays of cognitive dissonance and doublespeak. We intrinsically know that it is difficult to "man up", but there is no social incentive to say so, so we don't. Thanks to the false knowledge of Patriarchy theory that is rapidly propagating through the academy and media, i.e. the institutions that influence the way people think, we instead denigrate masculinity; we label it toxic and disincentivise traditionally masculine behaviours because we can absorb the cost, at least in the short-term thanks to the enormous capital generated by our ancestors. But at the same time, we tell women that the best way to be women is to be men -- to supplant men as the producers and providers. It is a thoroughly confused ideology that is producing thoroughly confused people. It has distorted the social and sexual economies and completely disincentivised the challenging transition from boyhood to manhood. If there is no benefit to "manning up", why do it? Why accept the risk of responsibility if there is no potential reward? Why not avoid it altogether and forever remain in infancy or, even better, undergo a different transition: a transition to womanhood and an acquisition of all of the unacknowledged social concessions that come with it. In this way, society sheds itself of the excess males but in doing so overcorrects and diminishes masculinity altogether. The absence of an existential threat itself becomes an endostential threat -- when the threat does not come from without, it comes from within. Thus, WAR IS PEACE.

In my estimation, the absurd behaviours and obsessions with sexuality, gender and ideological purity that we observe at Ree are symptomatic of this mass regression to infancy. I call them Peter Pansexuals.

*Am I treading along the same lines of logic that led Sally Miller Gearhart to proclaim that, in the future, the proportion of men should be reduced to less than 10% of the population?
 

Ol'Scratch

Member
Feb 17, 2019
422
489
285
The thing that seriously drives me insane with this whole trans horse shit, is how do they know? How do they know that half of the men and women perceived in any of the trailers are not trans? Is someone running around doing a package check? Or is there some belief that you can not have trans representation without holding a press conference to point out every instance. Is there some trans mandate that you have to wear a trans t-shirt or something? Is there a secret hand signal that characters have to do to represent that they are trans? These fucking REE fucks do not give a shit about representation they want press and they want to be treated like they are some fucking special cupcake and twirled around the fucking spotlight. I am legit tired of it. I would say 98% of my trans friends want to live normal lives and do not go out shouting from the rooftops and they are happy. The other 2% are drama whores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
The thing that seriously drives me insane with this whole trans horse shit, is how do they know? How do they know that half of the men and women perceived in any of the trailers are not trans? Is someone running around doing a package check? Or is there some belief that you can not have trans representation without holding a press conference to point out every instance. Is there some trans mandate that you have to wear a trans t-shirt or something? Is there a secret hand signal that characters have to do to represent that they are trans? These fucking REE fucks do not give a shit about representation they want press and they want to be treated like they are some fucking special cupcake and twirled around the fucking spotlight. I am legit tired of it. I would say 98% of my trans friends want to live normal lives and do not go out shouting from the rooftops and they are happy. The other 2% are drama whores.
You know >= 50 trans people?
 
Last edited:

Ol'Scratch

Member
Feb 17, 2019
422
489
285
You know >= 20 trans people?
I couldn't say numbers unless I broke it down to close friends to be honest. I am old, I have done and still do alot of fetish events and cons, have been a regular at the local goth/fetish club here as well as events around country and have met some amazingly varied people. I honestly feel that the goth community used to be the safe place for many trans who were finding their own long before it was news worthy and I have always thought that it was a pretty cool thing how even though people might look at the whole goth industrial thing and kind of snicker these days the community was very welcoming and tolerant long before other communities.
I think that is why alot of it frustrates the shit out of me. I strongly believe that this "if you are cis you should not even have a say" (Still blown away that I have heard people use the term cis in real life) and the whole wave of shut ins wearing wigs and panties making it harder for those with real concerns and issues to actually be taken seriously.

Edit: I CAN say for sure definitely not 50 (err that I am aware of?)
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
I couldn't say numbers unless I broke it down to close friends to be honest. I am old, I have done and still do alot of fetish events and cons, have been a regular at the local goth/fetish club here as well as events around country and have met some amazingly varied people. I honestly feel that the goth community used to be the safe place for many trans who were finding their own long before it was news worthy and I have always thought that it was a pretty cool thing how even though people might look at the whole goth industrial thing and kind of snicker these days the community was very welcoming and tolerant long before other communities.
I think that is why alot of it frustrates the shit out of me. I strongly believe that this "if you are cis you should not even have a say" (Still blown away that I have heard people use the term cis in real life) and the whole wave of shut ins wearing wigs and panties making it harder for those with real concerns and issues to actually be taken seriously.

Edit: I CAN say for sure definitely not 50 (err that I am aware of?)
I can only encourage you to continue to share and discuss your experiences on GAF. Many of us are trying to figure out what the hell went wrong to allow this current_year social contagion to spread its tendrils into mainstream culture. I won't say we are "like minded" per se, as that implies an echo chamber effect, but we are alike in the sense that we are trying to pursue the truth.
 

ULTROS!

Member
Aug 17, 2009
24,722
272
1,025
Philippines
psnprofiles.com
I dunno but the transgender people I've read/know about in my country aren't aggressive nor do they condemn cis-men 24/7, nor are they pushing agendas. They support and want equality in a peaceful manner, that's it. They're also well respected and loved.

We even had our first openly transgender congressman who was trending well back in 2016.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Ailynn

nush

Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
551
644
450
From a macrosocial perspective, I believe that we are witnessing a mass regression to infancy in the absence of an existential threat. Becoming an adult is difficult. Becoming an adult male, specifically, is the most difficult as it comes with the significant burden of responsibility. Males are traditionally protectors, producers and providers -- all forms of self-sacrifice for the good of the tribe. Protecting means dying on a battlefield, fighting fires, taking a proverbial bullet so that others may live. Producing means slaving away in a coal mine or tilling the fields. Providing means accepting the responsibility of venturing out into the world to confront and overcome risk in order to put food on the table for the women and children. The archetypes built into our stories portray the great difficulty of being a good man; of being a leader; of doing what is right, not necessarily popular. Women and children have none of these expectations and our entire social system is structured around this. Men are disposable, but for good reason.

In the modern context, we have lived in a prolonged period of peace since the end of World War 2, thus the need for masculine protection has diminished. We have developed technological means of automating and improving the safety of hazardous occupations as well as various forms of birth control, thus the need for masculine production has diminished. We have secured our sustenance and implemented social welfare programs so that the poorest among us do not starve to death, thus the need for masculine provision has diminished. We live in a world that needs traditional masculinity less than ever, but our social systems have not yet adjusted and the supply of males has remained constant and near parity with females*. The question then becomes: what do we do with these extra males in the new social economy that is not frequently culling large proportions of them via war? With newfound peace and prosperity, human (male) resources that were previously allocated to defending ourselves are redirected into developing and implementing technology to sustain ourselves, i.e. the most desirable occupations of the peaceful ebb of history. This should be a wholly positive thing -- husbands and sons no longer dying on battlefields and instead working to benefit all of society -- but our animal brains have not adapted. While men are ostensibly enjoying the sacrifices of their forefathers, women are still doing the same things they were doing during wartime: producing and raising children. This breeds envy as, in the absence of the responsibility of protection and the relative occupational safety provided by modern technology, production and provision can be thoroughly satisfying endeavors.

The envy could be managed if we sought to understand our evolutionary history and ensure that gender roles with respect to the cycle of war and peace and evolving technology are studied objectively, but they aren't. Academic feminism has been allowed to propagate the idea of Patriarchy theory, which asserts that divisions along gender lines are a result of top-down masculine oppression rather than survival mechanisms that evolved to enable the most efficient operation of the tribe. But it's a lie, and not just any lie -- it is a lie in pursuit of political goals, promulgated by those who cannot compete in the female social hierarchy that is based on reproductive value. Patriarchy theory acknowledges none of the aforementioned technological and diplomatic advances that have provided the conditions that enable us to even consider allowing women to venture out of the home and into the workplace to confront risk. Moreover, it diminishes the value of femininity. Motherhood is beautiful; perhaps the most beautiful aspect of our human existence as men will literally lay down their lives to protect it. Yet it, and womanhood in general, are now portrayed as burdens because we have lost sight of the greater reciprocal masculine burdens that are not temporally constant. We aren't managing the envy; we are embracing it, and we have allowed an ideology -- a pseudo-religion -- to develop that asserts that women are intrinsically victims of masculine oppression while acknowledging none of the benefits and concessions (i.e. privileges) that they receive.

However, I think we collectively and subconsciously know this in the deep recesses of our animal brains in spite of all of the public displays of cognitive dissonance and doublespeak. We intrinsically know that it is difficult to "man up", but there is no social incentive to say so, so we don't. Thanks to the false knowledge of Patriarchy theory that is rapidly propagating through the academy and media, i.e. the institutions that influence the way people think, we instead denigrate masculinity; we label it toxic and disincentivise traditionally masculine behaviours because we can absorb the cost, at least in the short-term thanks to the enormous capital generated by our ancestors. But at the same time, we tell women that the best way to be women is to be men -- to supplant men as the producers and providers. It is a thoroughly confused ideology that is producing thoroughly confused people. It has distorted the social and sexual economies and completely disincentivised the challenging transition from boyhood to manhood. If there is no benefit to "manning up", why do it? Why accept the risk of responsibility if there is no potential reward? Why not avoid it altogether and forever remain in infancy or, even better, undergo a different transition: a transition to womanhood and an acquisition of all of the unacknowledged social concessions that come with it. In this way, society sheds itself of the excess males but in doing so overcorrects and diminishes masculinity altogether. The absence of an existential threat itself becomes an endostential threat -- when the threat does not come from without, it comes from within. Thus, WAR IS PEACE.

In my estimation, the absurd behaviours and obsessions with sexuality, gender and ideological purity that we observe at Ree are symptomatic of this mass regression to infancy. I call them Peter Pansexuals.

*Am I treading along the same lines of logic that led Sally Miller Gearhart to proclaim that, in the future, the proportion of men should be reduced to less than 10% of the population?
Not leaving the family nest due to crippling student debt and unaffordable housing costs is no doubt a factor. I really can't see them changing sexes just because of an easier life but I can see them classifying themseves into ever diverse groups in order to get attention. There's already a lot of gay, bi, trans so they want to be different.
 

Ol'Scratch

Member
Feb 17, 2019
422
489
285
I dunno but the trans people I've read/know about in my country aren't aggressive nor do they condemn cis-men 24/7, nor are they pushing agendas. They support and want equality in a peaceful manner, that's it. They're also well respected and loved.
This weird transition (no pun intended) seems to have happened, where instead of a person being defined by their actions and their deeds and who they are there is this weird mandate that has rolled out that people are defined first by race next by sexual identity next by political leanings and then somewhere way down the list is the rest. And look I am not one of those that can not admit that yes there have always been people pre-judged by their skin color or their looks or other things. I know this is taboo to say but it happens to all walks of people in some form or another and always has. It is this massive "us vs them" mentality that is reaching a boiling point where people can't even say what they would consider a win. There is no want of discussion or a point of compromise for progress. I think you also see alot of outside influences stirring the pot because it creates a chaos and discord that undermines our society.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nush
Dec 14, 2008
32,496
362
1,055
Restera is officially more miserable than 4chan. At least you have freedom of speech on 4chan.
4chan is a very fun place if you avoid the miserable parts as it turns out.

I don't even consider ResetEra a forum.
Ree is a virtue signaling delivery system.
Claiming to be a forum implies discussion of multiple points of view, something that Ree decidedly lacks.

Cyberpunk IS fetish. That is part of the appeal. A huge part of Cyberpunk is the atmosphere and the aesthetic. What the fuck are they looking for and expecting? Fucking hell I feel a hate crime coming on.
It's too much to expect anyone at Ree to read an actual book, but if any of them had actually read Neuromancer, you know, the book commonly regarded as the one that invented the genre vaguely described as cyberpunk (and even William Gibson declines to accept credit for inventing a genre which is so poorly defined), they would have realized that an integral part of the dystopian tech-infused science fiction future which is typically associated with cyberpunk is casually and relentlessly erotic.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
I dunno but the transgender people I've read/know about in my country aren't aggressive nor do they condemn cis-men 24/7, nor are they pushing agendas. They support and want equality in a peaceful manner, that's it. They're also well respected and loved.

We even had our first openly transgender congressman who was trending well back in 2016.
Note that I am referring only to Class II established here: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/not-another-trans-thread.1478260/

Not leaving the family nest due to crippling student debt and unaffordable housing costs is no doubt a factor. I really can't see them changing sexes just because of an easier life but I can see them classifying themseves into ever diverse groups in order to get attention. There's already a lot of gay, bi, trans so they want to be different.
Go deeper and question what precipitated the high levels of student debt and housing costs.
 

Barnabot

Gold Member
Oct 16, 2018
1,143
1,370
550
From a macrosocial perspective, I believe that we are witnessing a mass regression to infancy in the absence of an existential threat. Becoming an adult is difficult. Becoming an adult male, specifically, is the most difficult as it comes with the significant burden of responsibility. Males are traditionally protectors, producers and providers -- all forms of self-sacrifice for the good of the tribe. Protecting means dying on a battlefield, fighting fires, taking a proverbial bullet so that others may live. Producing means slaving away in a coal mine or tilling the fields. Providing means accepting the responsibility of venturing out into the world to confront and overcome risk in order to put food on the table for the women and children. The archetypes built into our stories portray the great difficulty of being a good man; of being a leader; of doing what is right, not necessarily popular. Women and children have none of these expectations and our entire social system is structured around this. Men are disposable, but for good reason.

In the modern context, we have lived in a prolonged period of peace since the end of World War 2, thus the need for masculine protection has diminished. We have developed technological means of automating and improving the safety of hazardous occupations as well as various forms of birth control, thus the need for masculine production has diminished. We have secured our sustenance and implemented social welfare programs so that the poorest among us do not starve to death, thus the need for masculine provision has diminished. We live in a world that needs traditional masculinity less than ever, but our social systems have not yet adjusted and the supply of males has remained constant and near parity with females*. The question then becomes: what do we do with these extra males in the new social economy that is not frequently culling large proportions of them via war? With newfound peace and prosperity, human (male) resources that were previously allocated to defending ourselves are redirected into developing and implementing technology to sustain ourselves, i.e. the most desirable occupations of the peaceful ebb of history. This should be a wholly positive thing -- husbands and sons no longer dying on battlefields and instead working to benefit all of society -- but our animal brains have not adapted. While men are ostensibly enjoying the sacrifices of their forefathers, women are still doing the same things they were doing during wartime: producing and raising children. This breeds envy as, in the absence of the responsibility of protection and the relative occupational safety provided by modern technology, production and provision can be thoroughly satisfying endeavors.

The envy could be managed if we sought to understand our evolutionary history and ensure that gender roles with respect to the cycle of war and peace and evolving technology are studied objectively, but they aren't. Academic feminism has been allowed to propagate the idea of Patriarchy theory, which asserts that divisions along gender lines are a result of top-down masculine oppression rather than survival mechanisms that evolved to enable the most efficient operation of the tribe. But it's a lie, and not just any lie -- it is a lie in pursuit of political goals, promulgated by those who cannot compete in the female social hierarchy that is based on reproductive value. Patriarchy theory acknowledges none of the aforementioned technological and diplomatic advances that have provided the conditions that enable us to even consider allowing women to venture out of the home and into the workplace to confront risk. Moreover, it diminishes the value of femininity. Motherhood is beautiful; perhaps the most beautiful aspect of our human existence as men will literally lay down their lives to protect it. Yet it, and womanhood in general, are now portrayed as burdens because we have lost sight of the greater reciprocal masculine burdens that are not temporally constant. We aren't managing the envy; we are embracing it, and we have allowed an ideology -- a pseudo-religion -- to develop that asserts that women are intrinsically victims of masculine oppression while acknowledging none of the benefits and concessions (i.e. privileges) that they receive.

However, I think we collectively and subconsciously know this in the deep recesses of our animal brains in spite of all of the public displays of cognitive dissonance and doublespeak. We intrinsically know that it is difficult to "man up", but there is no social incentive to say so, so we don't. Thanks to the false knowledge of Patriarchy theory that is rapidly propagating through the academy and media, i.e. the institutions that influence the way people think, we instead denigrate masculinity; we label it toxic and disincentivise traditionally masculine behaviours because we can absorb the cost, at least in the short-term thanks to the enormous capital generated by our ancestors. But at the same time, we tell women that the best way to be women is to be men -- to supplant men as the producers and providers. It is a thoroughly confused ideology that is producing thoroughly confused people. It has distorted the social and sexual economies and completely disincentivised the challenging transition from boyhood to manhood. If there is no benefit to "manning up", why do it? Why accept the risk of responsibility if there is no potential reward? Why not avoid it altogether and forever remain in infancy or, even better, undergo a different transition: a transition to womanhood and an acquisition of all of the unacknowledged social concessions that come with it. In this way, society sheds itself of the excess males but in doing so overcorrects and diminishes masculinity altogether. The absence of an existential threat itself becomes an endostential threat -- when the threat does not come from without, it comes from within. Thus, WAR IS PEACE.

In my estimation, the absurd behaviours and obsessions with sexuality, gender and ideological purity that we observe at Ree are symptomatic of this mass regression to infancy. I call them Peter Pansexuals.

*Am I treading along the same lines of logic that led Sally Miller Gearhart to proclaim that, in the future, the proportion of men should be reduced to less than 10% of the population?
That's a great text, Matt. But you should have saved that for that forum's funeral when the site is definitely imploded. That speech would be the cherry on the cake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyberPanda

ROMhack

Member
Jul 14, 2018
1,424
1,120
550
It actually sums up the mentality very well to describe them as wanting a 'PG13' game. That's really the crux of any issue I see coming out of the forum.

Another thing I find weird is how quick they are to ban. Even if somebody does come out with a shitty post, why not let the actual members quote and discuss it to show how and why they disagree? Banning can be done effectively if it's for really asinine or overly personal posts but their moderation team doesn't seem to put any trust in the community.

Like here, I've got a whole bunch of people on my ignore list. I'm happy to do so and don't want them banned just because I disagree with them.
 
Last edited:

Barnabot

Gold Member
Oct 16, 2018
1,143
1,370
550
  • Like
Reactions: RSB