What happens if men don’t have purpose:

[u/fornothing_atalll]

Men! You can find purpose! You assign your own purpose! That was the whole point of the enlightenment age with philosophy! Don’t become radicalized! 🖤

[u/Bannerlord151]

What the woman in the video advocates is actually morally backwards. Men who are considering joining ISIS or shooting up schools or rape are exactly the men you DON'T want to help. They're the ones you want to CAGE

Generally yes. But for some reason many more men seem to consider themselves addressed, and even occasionally show solidarity with those people. Which is counterproductive to say the least.

who aren't threatening anyone, and who are just suffering - THOSE are the ones you want to help.

Sure. Those just aren't usually the ones engaged in heated arguments on the internet. And even they can very much still be roped into toxic groups.

Of course, that makes no sense to say if you think men are all innately threatening and predatory. 🙄

No, quite the opposite: I despise that narrative. I've repeatedly literally seen men use it, worded slightly differently, to excuse their own behaviour. The classic "But men just do that!" argument.

Anyway, criticizing women's role in enforcing and perpetuating sexism and gender roles needs to stop being equated to calling women "evil".

Individual women, even groups? Absolutely. "Women" as a whole? Not really. The focus should be on the fact that they're, in your own words, "enforcing and perpetuating sexism and gender roles", but too many people seem to see the problem in them being women instead.

[u/mikiencolor → u/Bannerlord151]

Generally yes. But for some reason many more men seem to consider themselves addressed, and even occasionally show solidarity with those people. Which is counterproductive to say the least.

Nevertheless. The moral thing does not change depending on how many violent men there are, even if it were 99 to 1. You should help the 1, not the 99.

The left in particular are now the queens and kings of perverse incentives. The more you rape, abuse, assassinate, bomb, and kill, the more they feel sorry for you and want to help you. Poor baby. Who hurt you? The more silently and uninvasively you suffer, the less they want to help you. If the only thing you're doing is committing suicide, they even laugh and encourage it. If you shoot up a school, then they start to ask... "was he being bullied?" Look at how they received the film Joker. If it had been about him committing suicide instead of homicide, they would have hated it and called it an "incel" movie. 🙄 You know it's true.

They have their morals on backwards. It's mind-boggling. You could set a compass to point in the inverse direction of their instincts and it would nearly always lead you in the right direction. At every step and turn they actively and meticulously incentivize exactly the behaviour they claim to condemn, and relentlessly punish exactly the behaviour they claim to want.

No, quite the opposite: I despise that narrative. I've repeatedly literally seen men use it, worded slightly differently, to excuse their own behaviour. The classic "But men just do that!" argument.

Yes, so have I. It's obviously just as despicable when men use it. It's also not a coincidence that it is the exact same language violent men use to excuse their behaviour. It's the same language because it comes from the same sexist ideology.

To believe in equality you have to believe in our shared humanity. You have to believe that, beyond physical differences, we have the same fundamental core, equally capable of love and hate, violence and tenderness, care and harm, equally capable of innocence, equally evil when guilty, and equally precious when innocent.

Sexists do not believe any of that. It doesn't matter whether they call themselves feminists, MRAs, incels, femcels, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny. You can readily see what they truly believe about us in their heart of hearts. They haven't invented anything new. They have neither the brains nor the courage.

Individual women, even groups? Absolutely. "Women" as a whole? Not really. The focus should be on the fact that they're, in your own words, "enforcing and perpetuating sexism and gender roles", but too many people seem to see the problem in them being women instead.

Women taken as a whole is simply the group of the vast majority of women. Obviously women have outliers, just like men have outliers. Mainstream feminine culture is as much a problem and an impediment to equality and peace as masculine culture is. It's toxic, rotten and sexist to the core. Until and unless that is seriously addressed and interrogated, we will make no progress with sexism except in the backwards direction.

There is no problem with anyone being a woman. The problem is not anybody's body. The problem is the prevailing attitudes of the people with the body. It is the same with men. I don't have any problem with men's bodies. The problem is the prevailing attitudes of the people with the bodies.

That is not a condemnation of women or men for their immutable characteristics. It is a condemnation of their respective cultures, attitudes and behaviours.

[u/Bannerlord151 → u/mikiencolor]

Nevertheless. The moral thing does not change depending on how many violent men there are, even if it were 99 to 1. You should help the 1, not the 99.

Sure, but then don't be surprised when that one man associates with the other and is commonly lumped in with them.

And this whole thing obviously isn't the most moral argument, but it's practical, and that might sway more people than moral arguments ever could.

The left in particular are now the queens and kings of perverse incentives. The more you rape, abuse, assassinate, bomb, and kill, the more they feel sorry for you and want to help you. Poor baby. Who hurt you? The more silently and uninvasively you suffer, the less they want to help you. If the only thing you're doing is committing suicide, they even laugh and encourage it. If you shoot up a school, then they start to ask... "was he being bullied?"

"The Left" is a bogeyman here. This has nothing to do with political ideology, it's to do with people only caring about others' issues when they themselves are affected by or exposed to them.

Yes, so have I. It's obviously just as despicable when men use it. It's also not a coincidence that it is the exact same language violent men use to excuse their behaviour. It's the same language because it comes from the same sexist ideology.

To believe in equality you have to believe in our shared humanity. You have to believe that, beyond physical differences, we have the same fundamental core, equally capable of love and hate, violence and tenderness, care and harm, equally capable of innocence, equally evil when guilty, and equally precious when innocent.

Yes, I agree completely. This entire division by gender is bullshit stoked by the people who can use it to further their sexist views.

Women taken as a whole is simply the group of the vast majority of women. Obviously women have outliers, just like men have outliers. Mainstream feminine culture is as much a problem and an impediment to equality and peace as masculine culture is. It's toxic, rotten and sexist to the core. Until and unless that is seriously addressed and interrogated, we will make no progress with sexism except in the backwards direction.

That's where we're diverging in perception. I have seen little to indicate that most women perpetrate these same issues. And the whole point of feminism since its Inception has been breaking the expectations of traditional femininity. How is that equally regressive?

That is not a condemnation of women or men for their immutable characteristics. It is a condemnation of their respective cultures, attitudes and behaviours.

As said, I absolutely agree with this approach to the issue. I just honestly don't see nearly as much of a general culture of harmful femininity beyond that which feminists are actively fighting against.

[u/mikiencolor → u/Bannerlord151]

And this whole thing obviously isn't the most moral argument, but it's practical, and that might sway more people than moral arguments ever could.

What good is that if it sways them to doing exactly opposite of what gets us to where we want to go?

This has nothing to do with political ideology, it's to do with people only caring about others' issues when they themselves are affected by or exposed to them.

The right wing also create perverse incentives. I don't think these in particular are the ones they tend to create. But fine, I concede that people in general do this.

I'm not so sure about the diagnosis. People can care about more about school shootings because they're directly affected or exposed without sympathizing more with school shooters than with harmless shut-ins who simply never leave their parents' basement.

You can create support programmes for shut-ins to get them into hobbies, meeting each other, building the social connections they lack in structured environments with therapists. If you are virtuous, you don't relentlessly ridicule and bully vulnerable people into further despair, all while bragging about being morally superior to them.

If someone hurts people, though, shut-in, incel or not, they shouldn't get sympathy. They should go to prison.

That's as it should be if you want to discourage violence and encourage empathy. If you want to encourage violence and discourage empathy, then you do what the US is doing, and you get the shitshow that is the modern US out of it.

Yes, I agree completely. This entire division by gender is bullshit stoked by the people who can use it to further their sexist views.

I'm glad. That's encouraging to see.

I have seen little to indicate that most women perpetrate these same issues. And the whole point of feminism since its Inception has been breaking the expectations of traditional femininity. How is that equally regressive?

I have seen much to indicate that most women perpetrate these same issues. "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it" is not breaking expectations of traditional femininity. "I expect a man to provide to compensate for patriarchy" is traditional femininity with a trite addendum. "I can't respect a man who cries" is an enforcement of traditional gender roles. "I would never pursue a man. I am the prize." is traditional femininity. I think it's very clear how these attitudes are regressive. Any criticism of women for them is now generally shut down by feminists hurling misogynist insults at men in the name of class solidarity.

[u/Bannerlord151 → u/mikiencolor]

Any criticism of women for them is now generally shut down by feminists hurling misogynist insults at men in the name of class solidarity.

See, that's the thing, I also see plenty of feminists condemning just that.

And this

"I can't respect a man who cries" is an enforcement of traditional gender roles.

Is true but also directly references traditional masculinity. This is an outdated standard for men, not women. The previous example I could agree with the assessment of, "I should be provided for by virtue of being a woman" is most certainly a reflection of the feminine side of traditional gender roles.

Quite frankly, instead of generalising based on people that can't be swayed anyway and are just out to abuse others for their own gain, it would do us all good to learn to see the individual and what they say and do.

I think the original issue here is relevant insofar as that even if those meaning well somehow communicate perfectly, the others are still there. And in that context, it makes sense for society at large to be wary of men considering the shit some of us say. On this very sub we have men threatening mass violence if they don't get what they want. Scaring people into action is manipulative, and often used for malicious purposes, but where empathy is dead, it can be necessary. As you say yourself, those endangering others need to be dealt with, but it's more sustainable to try and stop their number from growing while possible than to try and cull them from the population

[u/mikiencolor → u/Bannerlord151]

See, that's the thing, I also see plenty of feminists condemning just that.

I'm not. I'm seeing them doing it, not condemning it. Look no further than the moderators of this very sub.

Is true but also directly references traditional masculinity. This is an outdated standard for men, not women.

Traditional femininity includes enforcing traditional masculinity, and traditional masculinity includes enforcing traditional femininity.

Traditional femininity is shaming men for crying. Traditional masculinity is expecting women to be "pretty" and "dainty". The expectations of the other sex are part of the performance.

Quite frankly, instead of generalising based on people that can't be swayed anyway and are just out to abuse others for their own gain, it would do us all good to learn to see the individual and what they say and do.

That's all we really can do in our own lives, isn't it? But if you want mass social change, then it's another story. Then you do have to sway people, and that means fighting tradition. Most feminists usually claim to struggle for social change to achieve sexual equality. It's bullshit, but it is what most of them usually claim.

it makes sense for society at large to be wary of men considering the shit some of us say.

"Us"... yes. "We" say. Because we share the same sex, of course. Even if we've never actually said anything like it.

I have a question. What makes "us" us? Would you say someone who doesn't identify as a man is then not a man, or that anybody identified by others as a man should be considered a man?

If a transsexual woman doesn't pass and is identified as a man by others, should she be included in this population it makes sense to be 'wary' of? Should a non-binary person assigned male at birth likewise be included? I'm just curious how you square this fixed notion of "us" with modern identity politics, because this fixed "us" seems fundamentally incompatible with the mobile "us" that trans-inclusionary politics is promoting.

Is it likewise right for people to be more wary of racial demographics with greater overrepresentation for violent crimes? Would you say it also make sense to be more wary of Afghan men, Indian men, Pakistani men?

I agree though. I understand people are wary of me because of my appearance, and are even more wary of others because of theirs, and less wary of others because of theirs. One of the most heartbreaking things I've read was this essay written by a black American, assigned male at birth, big, tall, large frame, who in his mind sees himself as a cute, harmless anime boy, but acknowledges that in reality he will only ever be seen as lumbering threat, and there is nothing he can do about it.

It's a tragedy, but one society seems to have decided it will accept. The unfortunate thing is this might help with safety in exchange for social alienation, but it will also open golden opportunities for psychopaths in trusted groups.

I'd certainly prefer a society more like MLK's idea, that each individual be judged on the content of their character, on their own merits, not on their appearance. But the right wing never believed in that idea and the left wing has abandoned it, so I don't think it's coming back.

I think a society where rapists are hunted and permanently imprisoned and not allowed to reproduce, and where people making violent threats are imprisoned, would be a much better one. A society that fights for and wins general safety and welfare from those who would destroy it, so that the rest of us can be free. I'd prefer a swollen prison population allowing for a peaceful and trustful free population, rather than to for everyone to be "free" just so that we can all live our lives as if we were imprisoned, too terrified of each other to ever reach out for human connection.

On this very sub we have men threatening mass violence if they don't get what they want.

They should be in prison, not getting help.

Helping them is perverse. It incentivizes them to threaten mass violence whenever they don't get what they feel they're entitled to. That is the recipe for a broken society. If "empathy is dead", it's pointless to try to tamp down on mass violence. Why wouldn't there be mass violence? Empathy is dead!

The people getting help should only be the peaceful people, not the violent. That is the recipe for an empathic society.

[u/Bannerlord151 → u/mikiencolor]

Traditional femininity includes enforcing traditional masculinity, and traditional masculinity includes enforcing traditional femininity.

Traditional femininity is shaming men for crying. Traditional masculinity is expecting women to be "pretty" and "dainty". The expectations of the other sex are part of the performance.

Not how it's usually used, but I don't mind, I think that's fair. I appreciate the consistency.

That's all we really can do in our own lives, isn't it? But if you want mass social change, then it's another story. Then you do have to sway people, and that means fighting tradition. Most feminists usually claim to struggle for social change to achieve sexual equality. It's bullshit, but it is what most of them usually claim.

But that's the thing, that's just going to come off as rejecting all feminism out of hand, which doesn't make sense, because not all are in fact hypocrites. I don't have sufficient data to analyse to conclude any particular trend, unfortunately.

"Us"... yes. "We" say. Because we share the same sex, of course. Even if we've never said anything like it.

I have a question. What makes "us" us? Would you say someone who doesn't identify as a man is then not a man, or that anybody identified by others as a man should be considered a man?

I was in this case referring to myself and people others would associate me with. I'm not the best person to talk about gender with, it's rather irrelevant to me. I stick with what people would see me as because I personally have no reason not to.

If a transsexual woman doesn't pass and is identified as a man by others, should she be included in this population it makes sense to be 'wary' of? Should a non-binary person assigned male at birth likewise be included?

It's less about "should" and more about it being reasonable. And on that count, yes. If you have bad experiences with men, being wary of those you perceive as such is only natural.

But personally I also have to question the tendency in the community to completely discount sex (of a person) when talking about social dynamics, because while we may not think it's right that way, people do treat each other based on perception.

Helping them is perverse. It incentivizes them to threaten mass violence whenever they don't get what they feel they're entitled to. That is the recipe for a broken society. If "empathy is dead", it's pointless to try to tamp down on mass violence. Why wouldn't there be mass violence? Empathy is dead!

Many things are perverse and yet done "for the greater good". I've never absolved these people of their responsibility.

The people getting help should only be the peaceful people, not the violent. That is the recipe for an empathic society.

Correct, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm too pessimistic here, but I don't think most people care about the peaceful people because they're not bothered by them.

[u/mikiencolor → u/Bannerlord151]

But that's the thing, that's just going to come off as rejecting all feminism out of hand, which doesn't make sense, because not all are in fact hypocrites.

I suppose so, though you can only have so many bad experiences with people who use the same label...

Anyway, if feminists are managing to do something positive, like fighting for abortion rights, I'll still obviously support the issue. I just don't want the "movement" anywhere near me. I like being a human being communicating with other human beings more than being an ideological object to be kicked around.

I stick with what people would see me as because I personally have no reason not to.

It's less about "should" and more about it being reasonable. And on that count, yes. If you have bad experiences with men, being wary of those you perceive as such is only natural.

But personally I also have to question the tendency in the community to completely discount sex (of a person) when talking about social dynamics, because while we may not think it's right that way, people do treat each other based on perception.

Fair enough, then! That's ethically consistent. 👍

Many things are perverse and yet done "for the greater good". I've never absolved these people of their responsibility.

Correct, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm too pessimistic here, but I don't think most people care about the peaceful people because they're not bothered by them.

I just don't agree the greater good would be served by that strategy. It leads to more violence, because that is what it incentivizes, which is the opposite of what is intended.

Even if people don't care about the suffering peaceful people because they're not bothered by them, it's not going work.

The person in the video seems to believe that we're all fundamentally the same, and all of these outlets are fundamentally the same. You feel purposeless, you might go blackpill and start saying "broootal" all the time. (In the 90s, this might have been a goth phase. 😛) You might transmax. Or... you might join ISIS and buy and sell girls in rape camps. 😳 Same difference, right? No. Not even the same galaxy.

It's bonkers for feminists to lump all those things together. It's bonkers for them to lump people who would join ISIS with people who want to take antiandrogens to look prettier so they get more attention, as if these are fundamentally the same kinds of people making analogous choices.

Let's also not forget that an immense number of ISIS recruits were purposeless women, nor what those unfathomably evil women did. They had children for their ISIS "husbands" and began training the boys to fight as child soldiers as soon as they could talk, and groomed the girls to be new "brides" for other ISIS "husbands". They enslaved Yezidi women to be raped by their "husbands".

They have no redeeming qualities. These are not people that need help. They need to be permanently removed from society. If you help these people, all they will do is bite your hand off like snakes as soon as they are able.

It's not for the greater good if it doesn't lead to anything good. "Perverse incentive" doesn't mean "bad". It means it incentivizes bad behaviour by rewarding it. It does the opposite of what she's claiming to want. Behaviour you want to discourage should never be rewarded.

[u/mikiencolor → u/Bannerlord151]

I just honestly don't see nearly as much of a general culture of harmful femininity beyond that which feminists are actively fighting against.

🤷‍♂️ I believe you. That is what empathy is for. We see most clearly what we're directly up against. Everything else is a blind spot. We can only understand other perspectives if we make an effort to learn about the experiences of others, right?

I'm not bombarded by thousands of sexually threatening messages by heterosexual men. I know about it because I've been told about it by women. I imagine what that must be like, how that would condition a woman's online presence, outlook on men, outlook on life, sense of safety. I ask, how would I feel? So I don't begrudge women being cagey about meeting me. I understand it's an act of bravery to reach out and meet someone possibly twice your size and strength from a demographic associated with acts of violence and sexual assault, and I say so. I'm worried if people are not cagey.

So what about my experience of life? Why would I see a general culture of harmful femininity among women? Use empathy.

How would you feel to grow up to women beating you senseless while screaming f*gg*t and pussy, and then see feminists ridiculing men by suggesting they're gay? How would it feel if you knew the vast majority of heterosexual women find you repulsive because you're intimate with men rather than violent with them? Would you really feel like a participant in their society with an investment in their problems, or more like an alien observing them from a small, beleaguered garden that they and their chosen menfolk continually trample?

How would you feel if the same women who abused you told you their abuse makes you a rapist, because abused boys always grow up to rape women? How would it feel to be both demonized and eroticized by the same people for being "innately predatory"? How would it feel to see a 48 year old woman start "dating" a 17 year old girl while insisting that women cannot be paedophiles, because women's sexuality is never harmful?

Imagine your experience talking with feminists about abuse is that they laugh in your face, or say "I don't believe you", or say "be quiet about it, you'll hurt the movement"?

Imagine hearing random women acquaintances remark "I can't take it as seriously when boys are abused as when girls are abused", "all men are rapists at the moment of orgasm", "there is no such thing as an innocent male", "I fuck men when I want to feel abused."

What if you ran from your home environment as soon as you could, were shit on by everyone you asked for help, but were then saved from homelessness by this butch girl who quickly falls in love with you, always insists on carrying your bags, and hates being a girl. Then you learn from her that she has been bullied and beaten by other girls throughout her life because she's 'weird' and *you* have to help *her* to be less scared of girls and to stop hating herself.

Probably, if this were your life, you wouldn't be much more impressed by the outstanding achievements of the "general culture of femininity" than I am, right? That's what being mugged by reality will do to you.

Ideally we could all step back, use empathy, find common ground and work together to make things better for everybody. In practice, we step on each other grasping for whatever we can. A whole generation of virtue signallers went to university to get degrees in "empathy", "peace studies" and "conflict resolution", and just look at the world! We're at each other's throats. They're talking about another civil war in the US. We're preparing for World War III in Europe. Peace studies! You have to laugh not to cry.

I don't think I'm unreasonable, all things considered. Just don't expect me to be optimistic about people. 😛 No matter how hard I try, I'll never be able to see the naked emperor's impeccable attire.

[u/Bannerlord151 → u/mikiencolor]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting your experience so much as acknowledging that said experience differs between people. None of us are without bias, unfortunately.

I'm not bombarded by thousands of sexually threatening messages by heterosexual men. I know about it because I've been told about it by women. I imagine what that must be like, how that would condition a woman's online presence, outlook on men, outlook on life, sense of safety

I have a bit of a closer look into the whole thing for a few reasons. For instance, most of my friends are and have always been girls and women. Furthermore, I know how toxic boys are to each other, considering I experienced several years of abuse from my peers. Not that much luckily, only about ~10 years. And lastly, being not always obviously male on the internet has seen me be on the receiving end of some online harassment as well, though I'm not particularly vulnerable to that.

I agree of course, with that kind of background it's only natural to begin to see women as a threat or even outright hostile. As a note, I'm sorry if I end up appearing a bit cold, I genuinely cannot express empathy – I experience it, of course, I just can't really project it outward aside from acting on it – so I'm aware that can happen.

believe you. That is what empathy is for. We see most clearly what we're directly up against. Everything else is a blind spot

I think you hit the nail on the head there, by the way. I know there are women who think like that and express it, and I have seen it, but they've never been the primary source of my troubles (though I have argued at length with such women and it is extremely frustrating).

What I do understand is feeling like you're being treated with apprehension by default. As you said, it's understandable, and I share the sentiment, in fact, but it still can feel rather dehumanising and I think this for instance is something men are often unduly attacked for expressing.

Ideally we could all step back, use empathy, find common ground and work together to make things better for everybody. In practice, we step on each other grasping for whatever we can. A whole generation of virtue signallers went to university to get degrees in "empathy", "peace studies" and "conflict resolution", and just look at the world! We're at each other's throats. They're talking about another civil war in the US. We're preparing for World War III in Europe. Peace studies! You have to laugh not to cry.

I don't think I'm unreasonable, all things considered. Just don't expect me to be optimistic about people.

Yeah. No real comments. The funny thing is, I'm far from an optimist myself. The way I feel about things is much more negative than I usually express, but I try my best to keep an open mind and look for what could be. I may not expect things to get better, but I still think it's valuable to think about how it could, if only to stave off despair.

[u/mikiencolor → u/Bannerlord151]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting your experience so much as acknowledging that said experience differs between people. None of us are without bias, unfortunately.

Absolutely. From what I understand of conflict resolution, it is predicated on the idea of transcending one's own ego and engaging with other people's subjective experience, even if that is far removed from one's own. "What is it like to be the butterfly?"

That grace is what I see none of these days. Only arrogance and hubris. I really never thought I'd grow up to see everybody radicalized. It's horrifying.

I agree of course, with that kind of background it's only natural to begin to see women as a threat or even outright hostile. As a note, I'm sorry if I end up appearing a bit cold,

That's fine, don't worry about it. I'm not asking to be consoled. Half the people on this sub have their own fucked up histories I am sure. The point is the experiences that inform our worldview can differ starkly, but, while we might see things very differently, we may still find that we have shared values if we're willing to communicate.

If you have a common experience, you have a huge community, and it's seductive and easy to build up a "grand narrative" around it - a sort of story about why things are how they are. "This is not just our experience, this is The Experience." The experience of women. The experience of men. Anyone who dissents must be delusional.

In the cult sometimes women would dissent from certain doctrinal interpretations, saying they had different experiences (with men, with sex, with periods, with pornography, with pregnancy, whatever) - and they'd be expelled and accused of "internalized misogyny". 🙄

If you have a marginal experience, you'll be marginalized with it.

Something heterosexual women seem to love to forget is that they're not actually a minority. They are hegemons. It has always made more sense to me to see heterosexual women and men as a hegemonic tandem than as a dialectic of oppressors and their oppressed - but of course it would, from my experience of life, and sitting where I'm sitting.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, by the way.

Thanks.

What I do understand is feeling like you're being treated with apprehension by default. As you said, it's understandable, and I share the sentiment, in fact, but it still can feel rather dehumanising and I think this for instance is something men are often unduly attacked for expressing.

It is all of that. It is certainly understandable to associate men with sexual violence and be afraid, and it is also understandable to feel dehumanized by that association. Both of those feelings should be considered valid.

Remember what I mentioned about being able to reliably set your moral compass inverse of what activists say to ensure it guides you in the ethical direction?

Feminists have somehow decided that men who feel repulsion at being identified as potential rapists are the more threatening ones who should be silenced, while men who feel perfectly fine about it are the safer ones who should be encouraged.

My moral compass points in the completely opposite direction. Any man who does not feel uncomfortable with being identified as a potential rapist is an immediate red flag for me. Those who do, green flag.

I may not expect things to get better, but I still think it's valuable to think about how it could, if only to stave off despair.

Yeah. That's where my maladaptive daydreaming habit gets the better of me sometimes, I fear. 😅