>>101194851>>101194723>>101196187What people find to be entertaining doesn't have an obligation to conform to your sense of ethics. I'll admit that
>>101194909is an edgelord and would probably change their opinion if they were actually subjected to violence, but you're still wrong in assuming that war "is" or "isn't" cool. It's how they feel about it, and nobody has any obligation to feel otherwise. Your somewhat random use of labels doesn't really work to push your moral indignation, either. For example
>>101195889>You want to kill me because I don't think war is cool, which is tribalism.How so? Anon isn't trying to defend some collective group against another group. Violent? Shortsighted? Sure, but if that defines tribalism, then tribalism is just a synonym violence. The word doesn't really mean anything significant.
>You keep using derogatory terms once backed into a corner, and that's toxic masculinity.Are you implying that aggression and conflict are masculine traits? These are human ones, and not just human; conflict and strife are found throughout all of nature. You dilute the term even further in
>>101194962, implying that insecurity and superiority complexes are either associated with or deriving from "toxic masculinity." The term again becomes meaningless, and no longer has any relevance with the concept of "masculine," because of the seemingly random connotations you claim it implies which are not necessarily associated and exist separately from masculinity. If a woman is insecure, do they suddenly become masculine? If it's unrelated to gender, then why call it masculinity? In your attempt to throw this anon under the bus of your sense of morals, you have used an array of words which become easily charged with tangential concepts of ethics but hold little weight as a result, and it's reflected in your argument. Quite frankly, even if it wasn't, you would not persuade anyone to adhere to your moral compass.
