Israfil

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    629

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Israfil

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

    I like you too, I saw a video of you recently and it looks like my alternative, more hypomanic and Asian version.

    I want us to have a video debate against the pro vegans of the forum aka @undeather and @Michael569.
    We will very partially name this live "CHAD meat eater rich in testosterone MOG two pro vegans"
    “SPOIL ALERT, PLOT TWIST: Michael leaves in  RAGE and returns to eat vegetable sausages in the rain with his overweight Protestant English wife after being moped by Chad Valentin and his big brain fed on duck fat raised in the Périgord sun”

    It would be fantastic.

    It never fails to amuse me how much you live up to your Alias.

     

  3. Posted

    On 17/03/2024 at 1:44 PM, Butters said:

    I think it is fundamental to understand these principles or you'll suffer. 

    Some will call this "Red Pill" but being stoic, masculine and on-purpose are just life fundamentals for guys, and understanding how this ties into dating is important. 

    Thoughts? 

    Whichever way you choose to frame other people, there's evidence that supports that claim. You can generalize this statement to every belief you have. It's called confirmation bias.

    This kind of idealization of what a concept is is so far away from the truth that it hurts to see. You are watching a guy talk about his particular experiences and views about women and assuming it is true. That's akin to listening to someone who prefers dogs over cats describing a cat's appearance and behavior to you. The bias plays an important role in how he portrays the animal. In the given case, the average dating coach is not particularly interested in your relationship success, but in how to convince you that he has what it takes to give you success and keep you coming back whatever the result may be.

    People who talk about "female nature" and "male nature" often have little to no psychological or philosophical knowledge to sustain their analyses. Although some generalization is possible, the amount of cultural and geographical differences in the female population is so large, that it is shallow and unproductive to approach dating psychology in such a way. 

    We have been through thousands of years of human life, living in various environments that pose different threats and needs to us. Nevertheless, we were practically genetically identical throughout this entire time, displaying very different behaviors and cultural values, even comparing societies that lived under the same geographical conditions.  Social conditioning and cultural manifestations are accepted by anthropologists and biologists alike as the most prevailing factors in defining behavior in people.

    The point is that there is nothing inherently negative or positive to any of the genders' psychology necessarily. The crisis and problems we are facing between men and women today, and therefore, the "dark traits" people exhibit, are the fruit of the mode of socialization that is pervasive in our current society. The way we influence and build people's personalities has way more to do with dysfunctional relationships than an inherent evil trait in all of us.  

  6. Posted

    7 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

    Yall can't resist personally attacking me, can you?! 

    Firstly, I would struggle to see any of the replies directed at you as a personal attack—advice or recommendation at best. And you even dismissed actual arguments as personal attacks.

    Secondly, the "intellectual discussion" you are trying to have is based solely on your biases. Socialization shouldn't adhere to idealistic rules you are stating they should follow, but it is a process that happens materially and can only be properly understood in practice. That's why anthropologists observe as people live, record their habits and rules, and report back.

    As long as you keep refraining from genuinely engaging with people, you will keep repeating this pattern of trying to describe the behavior of people, or worse, trying to prescribe how people should behave based on an ideal created over internet content. There's nothing "intellectual" about your arguments. You're simply using sophistry to justify your social inadequacy. That might be a good defense mechanism but is not exactly intellectual work.

    Thirdly, be open to the possibility that people on a self-development forum are interested in helping you develop yourself. Your defensiveness is only detrimental to both your social and intellectual development. Your refusal to engage with comments that challenge more deeply your convictions might be holding you back in the endeavor of constructing a more coherent worldview.

    May you find peace, man. 

  7. Posted

    1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

    It's still bad, stressful energy that makes you crazy in the long run, but people ruminate anyway because it's worse than having no energy at all. (as in depression).

    Stress is one of the greatest stimulants that are available to us endogenously. If you're depressed, you might unconsciously seek stress as a way to self-regulate. 

    My caffeine abuse in my late teens was exactly this.

  10. Posted

    53 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

    @Israfil Its a huge difference if what someone does comes from action or reaction.

    It could also mean that at that moment you are in reaction and she goes into action.

    What I meant is that the characteristics you mentioned - authenticity (1), a realistic approach to dealing with the world (2) and not having a victim mentality (3) - are not necessarily "male characteristics". 

    Also, "action" and "reaction" are labels you can arbitrarily place in behaviors. Every "action" can be reframed into a "reaction" if you argue differently.

     

  11. Posted

    8 hours ago, NoSelfSelf said:

    @Israfil 1.Thinking that a man thinks in a weird resentful way towards a woman, or look towards a woman to now determine if he should do this(be toxic) or not he doesnt do that.He acts according to his own principles if they are toxic then he will have a reason and the reason is not a woman.

    2.Man doesnt comes to absolute conclusions about anything outside of him because he is working internal for himself ,so he can only talk in absolutes about himself,with this comes alot of deceptions and assumptions from feminine guys like you hear :oh she must have a boyfriend i wont approach"thats not how man thinks.

    3.Again same principle you dont heal a toxic relationship with women you dont look at women as an object of a problem you see your own toxicity that you choose to fix or not.

     

    I can go on but thats basics of what i see with this...you cant say feminism is right or wrong if you never been a man first...

    I read all this, but I've met very feminine women doing those things. This doesn't seem like necessarily masculine. 

  14. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

    Most people like body hair.

    Quote

    In Europe? Maybe. Many people get grossed out by armpit hair or even pubic hair.

    17 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

    Junk food, most content on social networks and television, loud music, idleness etc. are just as much evolutionary nonsense, a regression of human consciousness.

    Quote

    I do agree. But porn is a hiperstimulus. Seeing a pair of breasts is not. 

  15. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

    But above all: it's like saying that we shouldn't open a banana from the protruding end, because chimpanzees intuitively open it the opposite way for some reason.

    It doesn't matter what the tribal people do, what brings us to higher levels of overall experience and therefore in fine the delights of consciousness matters, and this includes and begins with the mastery of sexual energy.

    All we gain in a liberated, hypersexualized and relaxed society in general is less excitement and pleasure.

    Too much chocolate kills the chocolate.

    I'd say those "tribal" people are much less sexualized than we are. The sexual act is way more respected than in most modern western societies. 

    The bias of confusing technical material progress with development is one I see too frequently here. 

    28 minutes ago, mmKay said:

    your position is backwards. Breasts appear in females during puberty, signaling the beginning of fertility, therefore triggering sexual attraction in males.  The fenomenon you're pointing out is due to partial nudity being socially normalized, that has led to reduced arousal and ultimately desensitization. The logic puts the cart before the horse

    But I appreciate challenging my perspective. makes me think

    Also, the argument that the normalization of nudity decreases the arousal of observing a breast only proves my point. The social dimension of clothing norms, in this case, nearly nullifies completely the natural arousal of seeing a breast.

    Many other bodily changes that also indicate sexual maturity, such as the development of body hair is seen as neutral or even unattractive to most people. Attraction is a matter far deeper than "see big boob, get big dick".

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, mmKay said:

    @Israfil yes, personal preferences , personal obsessions like crush psychology  ( aka " infatuation"  ), ethnicity , emotional connecion and cultural upbringing are a factor in attraction, both for females and males, but  only after biologically wired definitions of sexual reproductive value.  A long neck or a twisted foot will never be a trigger of attraction for males by itself, but ass, titties and youth will, and the point of the thread is to point at the possible evolutionary reasons why they are what they are. Pick up explains all of female attraction psychology mechanisms beautifully and this is male's version, often dismissed and undefined

    the title of the thread should be " understanding male biological attraction " . If any mod reads this, edit the title.

    The biological evolutionary origin of the existance of the " crush " fenomenon is pretty fascinating . It's a psychological strategy to increase reproductive success by facilitating mate selection and bonding. So cool. Reminds me of the " imprinting mechanism" in ducks and other birds

     

    There's nothing inherently sexual about tits, man. Indigenous tribes of the Americas don't walk with shirts and males from those tribes are not constantly walking around with boners.

  17. Posted

    39 minutes ago, mmKay said:

    @Israfil why are you personally attracted to ass and titties over kneecaps and elbows, and prefer young girls over grandmas? i'm curious

    If you read what I wrote you wouldn't have to ask me this.

    Plenty of cultures emphasize legs or the mouth over breasts, for instance. Socialization is not separated from biology. It is the "software" that is placed on top of the biological "hardware" to run the "human system". The fact that we feel attracted to each other is biological. What is erotic can be skewed to serve social purposes. Take foot binding or neck stretching. We were socialized to find these practices unattractive. Those people were socialized to find them attractive. 

    So to answer your question, I was raised seeing big asses and tits in music videos and porn was pervasive on the entirety of the internet. This lead me to connect those physical features with what is attractive or not. In my adulthood, where I actually explored my sexuality, I find that what I authentically experience as attractive is not as simplistic as an "hourglass body, symmetrical I've met models and women with "the perfect body", that were beautiful, but not attractive to me. That's why I said you were being reductionist.

  18. Posted

    On 19/02/2024 at 6:17 AM, mmKay said:

    Yup we guys like a piece of ass and titties. for some men that's the end of the story and that's fair enough.

     

    I've always been intrigued WHY do I find specific things sexually attractive and other things sexually repulsive .  Why am I attracted to ass, titties, a beautiful face and smile, well put together, youth, slim , makeup and color? 

    Today I'm excited to share some simple but personally satisfying answers. 

    It felt like zooming outside of my human being to become conscious of myself being this chimp, and that this chimp has specific preferences and dislikes, like love for sweet and hate of bitter, or being a bee and realizing the evolutionary reason why I'm drawn to flowers

     

    This may apply to males at large but I've noticed that different guys have slightly different preferences, which only makes sense because of different successful genetic backgrounds ( if your ancestors mated with females with "X" traits, and you're alive here today, it means traits "X" work for survival and therefore are attractive to you)

    Quick note. All of this is from an non judgemental POV with the sole purpose of noticing and understanding . In no way I'm trying to make women feel worse about themselves.

    Second quick note. Since in the scope of our evolution the risks of sex are minimal for men compared to women (besides getting your head smashed in by another male/gang of males for having sex with the wrong woman ) we are more okay with just sticking it in literally any chance that we get and possibly skipping on any of these preferences. 

    Women on the other hand get f*cking disabled for a year and they can LITERALLY DIE if impregnated. ACTUALLY LITERALLY DIE. Therefore they are a little more picky.

     

    Anyways, from my BIOLOGIES POV, for me to be attracted to a woman she has to display physical traits that mean she can bear children GOOD,  and a minimum degree of mental capacities ( otherwise it would be a turnoff because it signals bad genetic material)

    For me personally, I know if I'm physically attracted to a women immediately. At a primal biological level. In a single glance. 

    Now since I'm not an absolute chimp, her personality can be a further turn off if it's just not for a pump and dump.

     

    This one I found to be the most interesting. And it's the exception to the rule:

    • Beautiful face , smile, teeth.

    A symetrical Golden Ratio face doesn't provide much raw survival value or information about fertility. The value of a symmetrical face is a strange loop. It's valuable because we value it.

    Beauty is slippery. We love the golden ratio. Beauty is valuable because we value beauty. But a pretty face by itself is not enough of an attraction cue as you may have noticed.

    You've got all teeth? Clear sign of youth and health. Showing your teeth in monkey societies signals submission . Perfectly aligned teeth are more of a aesthetic and universally recognized love of Beauty in the abstract, like Greek sculptures. 

    • Why men/I'm not attracted to chubby / fat women

    This one I've been racking my mind over the longest, and the Insight came to me watching an Instagram reel of a couple dancing bachata.

    It was a before / during pregnancy dance video.

    In the initial video the girl was slim and I felt she looked very attractive. Few seconds later, the video was cut to them dancing months later where you could tell she is just a tiny little pregnant, she had an inflated belly and my attraction was immediately killed!!

     

    So the Insight is that I'm genetically not attracted to chubby or fat women because it resemblances pregnancy. That their fertile real estate is currently taken and therefore not worth pursuing. Also you can't tell THAT easily if they're pregnant already .

    Imagine you had sex with a female thousands of years ago and she was pregnant already and you raised a child that's not yours. It's shooting yourself in the foot genetically. Although you may argue being overweight was pretty uncommon throughout history. I know personally men who are into chubby girls.

    On the other hand, easily storing fat would be extremely useful and therefore attractive for species who have to survive in places of extreme cold like Alaska. Otherwise It kind of signals scarcity of food and the need to hoard. Historically Surviving is easier if you're capable of consistently obtaining food from outside of your own fat sources. It's more efficient to be thin.

    • Make up , Youth , Color

    An appearance well taken care of is the physical visual equivalent of seeing muscles on a guy . It's a what's called a "honest signal" , which means it's a conveyance of value that can not be faked. You are strong, end of story. Or in her case , you have put time and effort into your appearance, which signals good caretaking , which is essential for raising children. Contrast it with looking like this

    A dishonest signal of value would be mentioning you get laid a lot, even if it's true . Because that CAN be a lie and not true.

    Make up covers skin signs of ageing. And genetically we're attracted to young women because they're in their prime for bearing children.

    I'm genetically attracted to female eye contact, a primal indicator of sexual interest.

    Once two attractive women were in front of me. Only one had done her eyes and eyelashes done. It emphasizes her eyes A LOT more.

     

    Colorful make up for eyelids, lipstick etc, simply draw attention for humans overall, not just for men. I have been using my smartphone in black and white mode for the last few weeks and it's astonishing how much less distracting app icons are.

    Color provides vital information about ripeness of food, time of day, poisoning factor of food or animals or insects, purity of water, etc. Conclusion : color draws attention because it conveys information.

    • Why the hourglass shape?

    Thin body with broad hips is the genetic  preference. I didn't know this but broad hips are a big factor on how well the mother can give birth. The mother can literally die if her hips arent wide enough, because of the size of human babies. Nowadays C-sections exist which would minimize the attraction to wide hips, but it's still there instinctually.

    • Why the attraction to booty?

    It comes from our monkey times. Bonobos and macaques specifically find swollen buttocks more attractive because it signals more estrogen and fertility

    • Titties?

    I was watching  a absolutely non sexual video. Some people were talking . The woman was wearing a loose shirt. For a speck of a second, she accidentally pulled on a part of her shirt and it slightly shaped to the form of her bra. I instantly noticed I felt a primal feeling of attraction. It was so quick I barely noticed it happening, and had to rewind the video to investigate what the fuck had just happened

    If she has breasts , biologically it means she is past puberty and ready to bear children. Non sagging breasts are a signal of youth as well.

     

    All of this is just from a primal perspective. Of course modern humans have the capacity to appreciate personality, and for quality couples it's an absolute must.

    Hope I shared an insightful perspective about why men judge women that heavily on physical appearance.

    Let me know if you want to share some interesting take.

    Do not turn this into a gender war post 

     

    This is fine as long as you perceive it as your personal view on attraction, based on a series of social narratives you've been fed throughout your development.

    If you generalize this, although many people do share this perception of male attraction, you fall into the trap of reducing the very complex social, biological, psychological and spiritual phenomenon that is attraction to a series of material indicators that, for the most part, are the least important ones when evaluating it.

     

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, erik8lrl said:

    The complexity of the information/political landscape is in direct relationship to the size/complexity of the population due to the differences in the survival agenda of different races, classes, and cultures. In a small country, this is not a problem since most of the population shares the same worldview, culture, and survival agenda. However as the size of the population increases, the information landscape increases in size as well. When you have a nation full of different people with different values wanting different policies, the difficulty of reaching a deep understanding of the political whole of society increases dramatically as well. At a certain point, if the information landscape is not limited in any way, it will become so chaotic that no individual person can make sense of the whole anymore. The power of a Western democracy lies in the ideal that people understand and care for the greater good of a nation as a whole, to have the power to decide what is good for society and themselves. However, when the information landscape becomes chaotic, this power then becomes divided, confused, and ultimately corrupt. When people can't figure out what is truly good, and when the process of sense-making becomes so difficult that they stop trying, that's when they start to simply choose a belief that aligns with their own individual survival needs, even if it's at the cost of the survival needs of others.  
    Those who seek power in a democratic system understand this, so they employ tactics to obtain this power from the people. By gaining control of the information landscape/media itself. By diluting the information landscape with endless perspectives and opinions of their agenda, they can control the bias of the power of speech. Yes, everyone has freedom of speech in the West, but a level of self-censorship will be applied whenever you speak due to the bias of the society at large and often the bias of those in power. Even if you don't self-censor, if what you say is in the opposing view of the masses and of those in power, your view will likely be censored/de-ranked through algorithms, and removed of power.  (This is generally speaking, since the situation of those in power is also complicated when the population is large. The US, for example, likely doesn't have an individual group of people who have all the control, but it's likely a complex mix of different powerful people with slightly different agendas, and not all of them are equally corrupt. Elon Musk's push to make X/Twitter a free speech platform is a good example of this complexity, since he's business benefits from a multipolar world)  
    This chaos in the information landscape will lead to instability and conflict since it's driven by survival conflict of different classes of people. This is inevitable in large and complex nations like the US for example. This division will lead to a number of problems politically and socially. To counter this division in democracy, one of the best methods that people in power developed is to create a common enemy. When you always have some threat looming around, it's easier for people to unite and work together (hence so much fearmongering on Russia and China in Western news). However, this method is not limitless or sustainable, if no such threat exists yet the media keeps selling you its existence, eventually people will realize they are being manipulated. Even if they never realize it, continuing to vote for leaders who don't have the best interest of the nation or the people will lead to more and more degradation of governance and society at large. Ultimately, for a democratic nation with a large population to achieve a healthy democracy, the people would need to be able to make sense of the chaos, which is extremely difficult if not almost impossible for any individual alone.    
    Non-western-democratic nations with large/complex populations when faced with this problem choose to solve it through censorship/information control. China, for example, mainly uses censorship as a stabilization tool. Most people don't realize just how diverse China's population is culturally. There are 56 major ethnic groups in China all with different languages, cultures, climates, and different survival needs. If information is unlimited, it's likely that it will create hate speech, conflict, destabilization, and division between different parts of China (as it has throughout history). Division and destabilization is the enemy of progress and development. One of the reasons why China developed so fast in recent decades is because the people are united and society at large is very stable, which they were able to maintain due to censorship. The censorship is more like a filtering system that filters people of lower development/education from the complex nature of the global information landscape. Even though by law it is illegal to use a VPN to bypass censorship, no one will get arrested just by simply using a VPN in China. Hundreds of thousands of people access uncensored internet daily. In fact, most VPNs that Chinese people use are built and hosted by Chinese people, and approved by the government. The main purpose of censorship is to limit/protect the size of the information landscape for underdeveloped/uneducated people, which is a fair amount of the population. People who are educated and more developed can access VPN freely if they want to. The government doesn't censor criticism from the public as long as it's constructive and reasonable. There are even government phone lines that people can call at any time to give feedback or try to solve problems regarding government and policies.  
    Western democracy functions on the ideal that the people are developed and wise enough to vote and do what's best for a nation/society. Which in reality is rare and difficult depending on the size and development of the population. Eastern democracy/Authoritarian meritocracy functions on the belief that most people are not wise/developed enough to vote or understand what's best for the nation/society thus more power should be given to those who are wise enough to do so. Ultimately, it comes down to one's perspective of human nature. People in Western democracy fear authoritarian government because most believe that people in power are prone to evil and corruption, they want to believe that normal people are good and wise enough to vote for the betterment of society and for each other. People in Eastern democracy believe that everyday people are by nature more prone to evil and corruption due to the lack of wisdom and education, thus they believe it's better for someone good with merit to hold power and lead the masses. This difference is the result of the causality of history. In reality, everyone is prone to corruption the less developed they are, but generally speaking, the more population you have, the more underdeveloped people you have, the more selfish/corrupt the people are, the harder it is for Western democracy to succeed due to the complexity in the information landscape and the differences in survival agenda. Eastern democracy/authoritarian meritocracy can be good for the collective development of large populations but is not sustainable if the people in power become corrupt and start to act in their self-interest.  
    In the best-case scenario, you achieve a balance. Western democracy will increase government regulations and policies like media control and education to help people develop and sense make better and vote for good leaders and policies, and Eastern democracy will decrease government regulations and control as more people become developed and educated.

    You repeated textbook liberal propaganda.

    This western exceptionalism narrative is ironically detrimental to western development in general.

    The nations that proclaim themselves to be the most enlightened are the ones committing the most heinous acts worldwide. And history repeats itself by coating it with the narrative that they're civilizing or defending their rights, when in reality they are sustaining the everlasting cycle of destabilization and then suppression of developing competitors of their imperialist system.

    The current and previous US and EU-backed conflicts are simply a way to keep western hegemony, coated with "we're saving them from tyranny and authoritarianism and terrorism", when the west is the largest investor in tyrannical dictators and terrorist groups in the world since it provides them with the so desperately needed demand for their military complex. It's the oldest play in the warmonger book.

    Putin's invasion is obviously an act of violence with little justification, but it shys away from the more than 30 wars and interventions the US has waged since WW2 and more than 70 coups and political interventions it has promoted across the globe. All in the name of "freedom". That number does not account for the proxy wars they make their "allies" fight for them. 

    Those "freed" states were left in a state of utter chaos and almost none have recovered until today.

    And much like the colonization process we are barely getting out of, a view of a conscious and developed west "helping" the "underdeveloped" world is disseminated to the general population so the United-Statians can eat big macs watching the super bowl without feeling guilty for financing the market of blood which provides them with the material conditions they enjoy.

    As soon as the western population in general understand that the "underdeveloped nations" were underdeveloped on purpose, usually with the use of violence and economic terrorism, and actually pressure their governing elites into surrendering their grip over the lives of those people, we can maybe begin to have the possibility of leaving the world of mere demagogic narratives and enter into the world of factually describing an overarching western political mentality that is not predicated into exploring weaker nations.

      

  21. Posted

    16 hours ago, bebotalk said:

    Maybe it's some norm in India to gain pleasure from comically invasive questions. 

     

    Imposing me a nationality that I don't have was supposed to do what exactly?

    16 hours ago, bebotalk said:

    Most actions are extrapolations of basic needs. Nobody needs to watch TV, but we do for entertainment or to be informed. Those are needs. I don't see the connection in this context. You seem to have an issue in anyting that doesn't meet some spritual basis. 

     

    That's why I used the word "instrumental", a goal that serves other goals. I had no aggressive tone when I wrote that. I just try to be concise when I'm writing.

    What I wrote is very practical. Your position is that there must be a reason to contain happiness or displays of joy, my point is that you could flip that argument and look for a reason to contain a harmless feeling. Smiling is simply that, smiling. People do it when they're joyful. If others perceive it as foolish or stupid it's their projection of a completely normal human behaviour. Maybe some people just wish to be confident enough to be more open with their emotions and shame people when they do it.

  22. Posted

    On 06/02/2024 at 4:53 AM, bebotalk said:

    Why would a person radiate happiness for the sake of it?

    Have you ever felt happiness? Expressing happiness is simply joyful and pleasurable. That's why people express it. 

    You seem too keen on looking for a reason to smile but, fundamentally, over 90% of what we do as a species is completely unnecessary. Theoretically, we just NEED to eat, drink water, shit, piss, and sleep. All else is superfluous or instrumental to that.  

    If I feel like it, I will smile. There's no need to contain a harmless feeling for the sake of it too.

  23. Posted

    1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

    Is it a good habit or bad habit, socially? Is it appropriate or inappropriate? 

    I used to think of it as a bad habit, because I hated it when others did it. Yes, there were those people who kept talking on and on and on. I had two strategies to deal with such people. Either be a good listener and listen to what they're saying, if it's interesting. Or, if they're boring, avoid them. 

    But then, in a recent situation where they wouldn't stop talking, I realized the reason for it. It's that they're not a curious person. And, I realized that not only are they boring right now, they're never going to stop being boring, because they're not learning anything new! Nothing new is entering their mind, because they're not learning. 

    So, my new rule - if they're being boring, it's okay to interrupt them. If they're interesting, they can keep talking!

    Thoughts? 

    If you start ranting in front of me, especially if you interrupt me, I'll straight up turn my back and walk away.

  24. Posted · Edited by Israfil

    12 hours ago, Yousif said:

    letting you see that your ego is just the image of yourself and not the real you in the front on me is not attacking, I personally would thank a person that tells me I’m wrong when I am.

    Medicine for duck is poison for swan. Don't go around lecturing everyone on the nature of reality unsolicited. That's also egoism.

  25. Posted

    On 30/01/2024 at 10:43 AM, Schizophonia said:

     

     

     

    You are just confronting your emotional castration, your lack of masculinity.

    Possibly your need to look like someone more caricaturedly serious to hide the fact that you are factually less intellectual and developed than you would like.

    :)

    I just think the execution is poor. I listen to a lot of trollish or otherwise "bad" music. 

    What cringes me is the lack of rhythm by Shapiro.