Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="porco-dddio" data-source="post: 82753" data-attributes="member: 656">[ATTACH=full]17758[/ATTACH]Here, I cropped it. Since im not a right winger, my analysis always had crucial flaws, and I always slandered right wingers. I mean, with my observation I always understood a key element in the right wing obsession about women, but I simply thought it was romantics and narrative. The way I talked about it was using my D&amp;D lore nerd understanding, and I thought right wingers are normies. Normies follow norms. Normies are depatterned and norms change or cease to exist. Outdated normie = right winger loating current culture and daydreaming of a past where his program functioned. Right wingers are scapegoated = they lose access to sex. Right wingers are bottom tier, so they attract more losers, cycle continues. Right wingers are lowIQ so their analysis is weak and they cannot fix their issues due to lack of intel gathering. This was TLDR of my analysis. I dont think my analysis is completely false, I also used the sobek concept of &quot;gynocentric misogyny&quot; and the insight from Hemi called &quot;homosocial masculinity&quot; and I borrowed from judith butler the idea of &quot;MAGA postmodern masculinity&quot; to derive better intuition of what is it that the right wingers are after. But lately I found a right wing website, which offers some insight about simping. The right wingers were slandering simping, and I didnt give much thought to this stuff, I simply came out and admitted I simp freely and I dont give a fuck. I jerk off, and use twitter only to simp sluts and then jizz and no fucks be given for their feeble &quot;anti-simping&quot; nonsense. This essay I cropped instead seems more intelligent, it gives us an updated concept to work on, and boosts our understanding of the right wing enemy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="porco-dddio, post: 82753, member: 656"] [ATTACH type="full"]17758[/ATTACH] Here, I cropped it. Since im not a right winger, my analysis always had crucial flaws, and I always slandered right wingers. I mean, with my observation I always understood a key element in the right wing obsession about women, but I simply thought it was romantics and narrative. The way I talked about it was using my D&D lore nerd understanding, and I thought right wingers are normies. Normies follow norms. Normies are depatterned and norms change or cease to exist. Outdated normie = right winger loating current culture and daydreaming of a past where his program functioned. Right wingers are scapegoated = they lose access to sex. Right wingers are bottom tier, so they attract more losers, cycle continues. Right wingers are lowIQ so their analysis is weak and they cannot fix their issues due to lack of intel gathering. This was TLDR of my analysis. I dont think my analysis is completely false, I also used the sobek concept of "gynocentric misogyny" and the insight from Hemi called "homosocial masculinity" and I borrowed from judith butler the idea of "MAGA postmodern masculinity" to derive better intuition of what is it that the right wingers are after. But lately I found a right wing website, which offers some insight about simping. The right wingers were slandering simping, and I didnt give much thought to this stuff, I simply came out and admitted I simp freely and I dont give a fuck. I jerk off, and use twitter only to simp sluts and then jizz and no fucks be given for their feeble "anti-simping" nonsense. This essay I cropped instead seems more intelligent, it gives us an updated concept to work on, and boosts our understanding of the right wing enemy. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread