Concealed Weapon

36 Years Old. Cis, Asexual, White Male. He/Him pronouns. Autistic. Former incel hoping to prevent others from going down the same path. TERFs, Nazis, those who believe in "narcissistic abuse", and other bigots are not welcome. Please let me know if I accidentally reblog from them. I don't post pornography, so minors are welcome. Images I post are usually shared from someone else, and text I post is usually my original work.

[theconcealedweapon]

Human evolution favors parents who spank.

Two children are spanked. One grows up believing that it's good parenting. The other grows up recognizing it as abuse.

Think about how each one views the world in general.

The one who supports spanking believes in the just world theory, in which bad things only happen to those who did something to deserve it. Since they don't see how cruel the world is, they have no objections to having children. In fact, they spent so long tolerating being oppressed and hoping to one day become the oppressor, that they now can't wait to have children and abuse them.

The one who opposes spanking can't even process how cruel the world is. They're overwhelmed by how parents can scar their children for life, come up with the stupidest justifications for it, and still receive support from others. They also see many other examples of cruel people with power receiving the utmost compassion while the vulnerable people who they terrorize are seen as deserving of it. They can't understand how people got this cruel, and they can't figure out how to convince people that cruelty is wrong. Because of how cruel this world is, they refuse to bring a child into this world.

So, what ends up happening is that those who support spanking reproduce while those who oppose spanking don't.

[theconcealedweapon]

"How can people actually believe this?"

You often ask yourself this whenever you see the stupidest justifications for acts of widespread violence and hypocrisy.

How can parents actually think that hitting their children is good parenting and that there's any logical reason to do it?

How can bigots actually think LGBT people are pedophiles while legalizing child marriage and protecting actual pedophiles?

How can Trump and his supporters condemn violent extremism from the left while pardoning the January 6 extremists?

They're able to do that because they're not trying to be logical. Their goal is to show off how stupid they can be while people still support them. When you logically explain why they're wrong, their response is to brag that even though they're logically wrong, no one can stop them.

[theconcealedweapon]

Bootlickers: "Universal healthcare is government overreach. It's not the government's job to protect your health."

Bootlickers: "We need laws against drug use, because those laws protect your health."

[pancakeke]

I don't know if any of you had the same experience as me, but I tried therapy when I was a teenager living in an abusive household and thought it was a waste of time. Ultimately my biggest problems (dad) were beyond my control and no amount of coping would make them better. Now that I'm an adult with actual control over my life and don't live with my dad anymore therapy is MUCH more helpful.

If any of you had bad experiences with therapy when you were younger it may be worth it to try again now.

[pancakeke]

THE SAME GOES FOR MEDICATION!! I tried meds as a teenager and they were powerless to help much due to my living situation being horrible. I thought that meant medication didn't work for me. Now that I'm out of that situation and trying agajn I can really see a difference.

[theconcealedweapon]

They're trying to end birthright citizenship.

Yet again, they're exactly like the Nazis. First go after illegals, then slowly increase the number of people who qualify as illegals.

[theconcealedweapon]

Autistic Person: (complains)

Society: "Quit being so negative. You're always complaining nonstop. Your life isn't as bad as you're making it seem. If you just started thinking positive, your struggles would vanish."

Autistic Person: (is happy)

Society: "Quit glorifying autism. Not everyone's autism is a superpower. Many people struggle because of it."

[theconcealedweapon]

[theconcealedweapon]

[theconcealedweapon]

"But I can't have privilege. My life is difficult."

This becomes easier to understand when you see privilege not as a perk, but as an expectation.

The purpose of the system giving some people privilege isn't to help those people, but to manipulate those people into upholding the system.

When you're privileged, you're taught to expect success. You're taught that if you just work hard and make good decisions, you'll be successful.

Some people will live up to that expectation. They were taught that if they worked hard and made good decisions, they would succeed. And they did. They worked hard, made good decisions, and succeeded. Think about how they'd respond to that. They'd see that as evidence that what they were taught is true. They'd assume that anyone who isn't successful just didn't work hard enough or made bad decisions. The system would use their story as evidence that the system works. Survivorship bias would cause people to see the success stories and not see anyone else.

As for those who don't become successful, they'll struggle to figure out why. They clearly see evidence that the system works because of all the success stories being shared, so there must be another reason. Many assume that they just need to work harder and harder. Some will eventually succeed and become another success story to promote the system. Others will still be trapped in poverty no matter how hard they work. To satisfy them, the system provides a scapegoat. They're told that they're struggling because of immigrants, or socialism, or DEI.

Those without privilege are taught to expect pain and suffering. They're taught about all the bad things that will be done to them. They're more likely to rebel against the system. And when that happens, the privileged people who were taught to expect success see them as lazy and violent.

[theconcealedweapon]

This also happens to those who are labeled as "gifted".

The first trillionaire is autistic. Many other billionaires are also autistic. Autistic people are likely overrepresented in billionaires.

As children, they were likely treated like most "gifted" children are. They had a special interest that caused them to be labeled as "smart". They were expected to be smarter than everyone else. They were expected to tolerate having no social life as a child because their vast riches as an adult would make up for it. They were traumatized by the ridiculous expectations enforced on them, but the people enforcing the expectations still insisted that it's worth it because it will eventually lead to success. They were bullied nonstop for being weird, but they were taught that the bullies are just jealous and will eventually get karma when they're rich and the bullies are working for minimum wage.

Think about what happens when someone who's raised that way actually meets the expectation and becomes rich. They're going to think they earned it. They're going to think they deserve it as a reward for their traumatizing childhood. Their going to see poverty as karma for all the times they were bullied. If you attempt to tax them or help the poor, they'll see that as you trying to take away their well deserved reward or their bullies' well deserved karma.

Meanwhile, most "gifted" children are not going to become filthy rich. Most "gifted" children have a talent that makes them appear brilliant but isn't very useful for a career. But because of the success stories that exist, people who enforce the expectations insist that the expectations are for their own good. They grow up traumatized with nothing to show for it. But they still think they're better than everyone else, because that's what was expected of them. They can't understand why their life isn't as good as what was promised to them.

[theconcealedweapon]

"But I can't have privilege. My life is difficult."

This becomes easier to understand when you see privilege not as a perk, but as an expectation.

The purpose of the system giving some people privilege isn't to help those people, but to manipulate those people into upholding the system.

When you're privileged, you're taught to expect success. You're taught that if you just work hard and make good decisions, you'll be successful.

Some people will live up to that expectation. They were taught that if they worked hard and made good decisions, they would succeed. And they did. They worked hard, made good decisions, and succeeded. Think about how they'd respond to that. They'd see that as evidence that what they were taught is true. They'd assume that anyone who isn't successful just didn't work hard enough or made bad decisions. The system would use their story as evidence that the system works. Survivorship bias would cause people to see the success stories and not see anyone else.

As for those who don't become successful, they'll struggle to figure out why. They clearly see evidence that the system works because of all the success stories being shared, so there must be another reason. Many assume that they just need to work harder and harder. Some will eventually succeed and become another success story to promote the system. Others will still be trapped in poverty no matter how hard they work. To satisfy them, the system provides a scapegoat. They're told that they're struggling because of immigrants, or socialism, or DEI.

Those without privilege are taught to expect pain and suffering. They're taught about all the bad things that will be done to them. They're more likely to rebel against the system. And when that happens, the privileged people who were taught to expect success see them as lazy and violent.

[theconcealedweapon]

My sister used to be a feminist and a supporter of LGBT people.

She then became one of those "moderate" anti-LGBT people. She still "supported" LGBT people as long as they stayed away from children. She insisted that she couldn't be a bigot because she's bisexual.

She's now so obsessed with religion that she thinks Halloween is a sin. She now fully believes that being LGBT is always a sin. She "repented" for her bisexuality.

I have a theory about how someone could change this much. At first, her beliefs seemed like regurgitated Trump propaganda, which included pretending that LGBT people are pedophiles. This could happen if someone is exposed to Trump propaganda and not exposed to anything refuting it. This likely came from her current boyfriend. She lives with him and rarely interacts with anyone else, so he has a lot of influence over her. He likely pretended to be supportive of LGBT people at first in order to win her over then slowly exposed her to Trump propaganda. But the beliefs like "Halloween is a sin" are not typical Trump propaganda, so that isn't very likely to come from her boyfriend. This is more likely to come from an online cult.

An online cult alone isn't very likely to turn someone from a LGBT supporter to obsessively anti-LGBT, because a LGBT supporter would most likely reject an anti-LGBT cult. So my guess is that she started off being manipulated by her boyfriend into typical Trumpish bigotry, then went online to find supporters of her new beliefs and found a cult, then became obsessively calling everything that's fun a sin.

[theconcealedweapon]

People are such bootlickers that they'll look at a video of a cop shoving someone, in clear view of multiple other cops, while the other cops are completely unfazed, and say, "Some cops are bad, but..."

If it's only some cops who are bad, why are bad cops fully emboldened when around cops? Why aren't they even a little afraid of how the good cops will treat them?

All cops are bad. Not some. Not most. All.

[theconcealedweapon]

Person A needs something that Person B has in order to survive. Is it justified for the government to commandeer it from Person B and give it to Person A, or is it government overreach?

If Person A is a sick person and Person B is a rich person whose wealth can keep Person A alive, the government commandeering Person B's wealth to give it to Person A is considered government overreach.

If Person A is a fetus and Person B is a pregnant person whose body can keep Person A alive, the government commandeering Person B's body to give it to Person A is considered justified.

Why is there such a massive discrepancy? If there are some things that can be commandeered by the government to keep someone in need alive, why is someone's body considered fair game to be commandeered but someone's overabundant wealth isn't?

[theconcealedweapon]

"Don't like police? Then next time you need them, don't call them."

This is typical abuser propaganda. You're dependent on the abuser, so you're not allowed to criticize them.

The only difference is that typical abusers try to hide when they do this, while police make it their official mission statement.

[theconcealedweapon]

There are definitely times when lust is a deadly sin.

For example, if you have sex with a Nazi because you care more about how good the sex is than about the evil they are, then you're committing a deadly sin.

But simply having sex for pleasure is not a sin.

[theconcealedweapon]

The media, whoever they are, are not making me see ICE as monsters. ICE are.

I literally base 100% of my beliefs about ICE on what they do and say.

ICE say that they won't kill you if you obey them. Only a monster would say that.

[theconcealedweapon]

An ICE agent is standing near the front of your car and tells you to leave. What do you do?

If you don't leave, you get shot for disobeying.

If you do leave, you get shot for looking like you were trying to run over the ICE agent.

Hurry. You only have 3 seconds to decide.