How would you know if they do or don't deserve it if you're choosing not to pay attention beyond the presumptions though?
It also means that if they do make a good argument that you'd be that much less inclined to hear it, to give it weight. Sometimes bad people make good arguments, and trusted people make bad ones, and if we aren't otherwise impartial then we end up insulating ourselves against other possibilities.
And this objectively has been an issue she has had.
When people criticize her overall discourse her default has been conspiracy.
If someone makes a valid point the valid point is ignored and instead her focus is on who manipulated A into believing X without realizing that X is a side effect of her discourse being irrational. She states that this is only because X deserves a beating despite the fact that often enough X has done nothing except make a valid point that she dislikes and so she creates a equivalency between A and some other individual B who was unjustifiably rude to her - if A makes a point then they must be in league with B so I should treat them like B.
Take this last response she has given:
> shut your filthy mouth u whore u deserve to get raped
and
> your kids deserve to be dismembered
are not good arguments.
I dismiss ppl like that instantly as scum bc that's what they are.
If you're out in the woods and you hear a moose bellowing, but you can't see it yet, you have about one second to decide if you want to run up a tree, or shoot it.
Taking it home and keeping it as a pet and tryinta communicate with its better nature is not an option.
Any creature who expresses no interest in me beyond rape, torture and mutillation gets treated the way I would treat any raging animal that means to kill me and dismember my children.
It is also assumed by those of us who are civilized that human beings ought to be able to show better self control than a raging moose.
So if those lowlifes behave like raging animals in my presence, they get treated like food, thx.
Here she claims all of her actions have been derived from B making inappropriate comments, and I agree these comments are rude.
But when those who are not B make claims she still treats them like B.
Examples from this thread:
lol srsly Alice?
I thought you were smarter than that.
Comparing me to those guys is what this stupid forum has become?
I call somebody a pointy head weirdo, and then the same 4 idiots tell me for weeks that my round head is rlly the one that's pointy?
You people have reached new depths of lame.
The Peewee Herman school of trolling. Just duh lol
It doesn't, sweetness.
I see ppl all over this forum actually doing the vile or just plain stupid things these idiots accuse me of all the time, and they don't care.
Their rationale is simply that if somebody dislikes incels, then the way to really annoy that person is to call them an incel.
Or fat or freckled or w/e the person expresses annoyance at.
They don't actually care about the lies they make up as excuses to dislike me. They're just lazy trolls who don't know how to properly get under somebody's skin.
Hint: there are no female Incels for good reason. No woman, no matter how ugly, is ever involuntarily without sex. A woman can always get sex, and often with much younger men, several hotness points higher than she is.
Because men are like dogs and will fuck anything. They don't even need much alcohol, only enough to use as an excuse ;D
This thread should actually be called "Cavalier's Delusions wrt Xena, and the Bobbleheaded Sheep Who Constantly Repeat Them."
This is just from the first 5 pages of this thread and the list goes on not only here but every other thread she comments in.
She consistently equivalates all to B and missing any and all points.
You have to vile or misguided to believe her irrational or delusional, it reminds of Ed in a way.
This is very common in the incel ontology among all those isomorphic with that ontology.