I though the idea was to deface the post to show that you disagree with it.

My kids sometimes like to watch compilations of "fail" videos. The sheer number of clips involving adult-age males either punching or ripping their televisions off the wall as a result of a sports (or video game) outcome amazes me (but probably shouldn't). I always tell me kids (especially my daughter) that if they ever see someone do this, they need to leave immediately and not have any kind of interactions with this person. If they're willing to beat the hell out of a television, they'll do the same to you.

I've launched a few controllers in my day. But that day was when I was like 15 and I was an emotionally volatile little shit who still needed to learn to manage his emotions. Can't believe that we have dudes who never grew out of this phase, only doubling down, running around acting like they're the superior sex.

Those are justified emotions!

:::spoiler spoiler /s :::

Philadelphia officials grease city light poles, often with Crisco or hydraulic fluid, to prevent fans from climbing them during major sports celebrations, notably for the Philadelphia Eagles.

Sometimes it's a willful misunderstanding of feminism.

A strawman they've built in their heads from the words of their tv news preachers enables them to continue to hate women.

Listening to actual feminists and taking a minute to understand how it benefits everyone is hard and means they might have to stop feeding their delicious hate.

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

And killing people!

Only when it comes to women

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

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

*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

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.

I have BPD and it makes perfect sense to me.

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'm pretty sure it's ~~jaicilgin~~

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

Technically he isn't arguing that men don't have emotions but that they don't have 1000s of emotions per minute.

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.

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

You expect empathy?

Have you ever watched hentai?

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

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!