~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
deepthrill
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The 48 rules of power is the next book I have lined up.
[–]jmikolash1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Reading it right now; 48 Laws and Mastery are mind benders.
[–]gosurobber0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Would you like to share what books have you read as well as those you are planning to?
I have just finished Mastery, starting on 48 Laws of Power now.
Planning to read some books on body language and sales (to make the mad cash)
[–]someonewrongonthenet2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
The whole point of having power is to use it to fulfill your preferences. Your preferences always take precedence over everything else.
If you embrace this philosophy of having your primary goal to win the game and gain power, taken to a logical extreme would mean that murdering somebody in order to take his money would be acceptable, since it furthers your own power.
If you are like most people, your primary goal is probably not "to gain power". Your primary goal is to fulfill your preferences, and power is the means to that end. If you are like most people, killing people goes against your preferences.
Sometimes, you can make a trade:
1) Do something that goes against your preferences
2) Your actions have a result (power, in this case)
3) Use that result (power) to fulfill more of your preferences....effectively making up for the loss in step 1.
^ you only do the above if it results in a net gain in preferences being fulfilled. For example, doing work costs 10 utils, but gets you money, and with that money you can buy things that give you 100 utils, for a net profit of 90 utils If there isn't a net gain, there is no point in doing it.
So there isn't a conflict between power and morality. The reason one doesn't typically murder people is that the death costs you 10000 utils...whereas the best possible thing you could use the power for is only a gain of 500 utils. That would leave you with a net loss of 9500 utils. It's simply a bad trade.
Some people have a stronger weight on the "morality" sub-set of their preferences, and some people have less. People with a stronger "morality" weight aren't "opting out" of the game...it's just that they have a different set of Win Conditions for the game.
Sure, the game might be easier with a set of Win Conditions which is less morality weighted...but you can't really alter (and by definition you do not want to alter) your fundamental preferences.
For example, if "don't torture innocent people" is fundamental value, then you don't want to torture innocent people and you don't want to want to torture innocent people. Any time an innocent person get's tortured, your preferences are being violated and that counts against your score in the Game. Stopping the torture, even if it brought you no power or personal benefit, would be part of the Win Condition for your Game.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Awesome post, very insightful. I've never thought about it in that depth, but I agree with you.
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Thanks. It's important we challenge assumptions and think deeply about the world if we want to grow.
[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Empathy relies too much on emotions.
I agree.
I don't necessarily like that empathy is an emotional response, but I would be a fool to deny it.
Now, is that the best way to live and should we simply accept our emotions without trying to overcome those which we do not believe furthers our goals? Not at all.
However, using the Non-aggression principal, and you get the same results without having to succumb to emotions.
So from I'm reading about NAP:
NAP is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate
If that's the underlying axiom, then you can simply say it's immoral to act aggressively to further your own self interest. It's the underlying assumption so it would be impossible for me to refute its morality.
"NAP defines aggressiveness as immoral. Therefore, under NAP, it's immoral to act aggressively in your own self interest. Problem solved!"
I'm not saying I disagree with NAP, but it seems to simply define aggressiveness as the assumption, which is an easy way out, while I am defining evolutionary imperatives as the driving assumption.
If I am working at a retail shop and I tell a customer that I cannot issue a refund on an item, a lot of times where they get emotionally upset because they cannot get the money they think they should get. If I worked under the framework of empathy, I might issue the refund anyway because I would probably want that if I was in their situation.
I disagree that I would issue the refund in this situation. I claimed empathy is a driving force as long as it does not supersede my increased power and self interest. So in this situation, I may feel empathy, but would choose consciously to still act in my own self interest.
[–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Empathy works great to help you not beat a baby senseless when it won't stop crying.
Empathy is a really poor way to approach relations with adult women, or business relationships, or legal adversaries.
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's why I claimed that empathy only stops me from purporting heinous crimes such as murder. In general, self interest and ambition drives me to an extremely high degree. It's only when I consider physically hurting someone to further my own goals does empathy "kick in".
Thanks. Only watched the show so far; haven't read the books yet. Will do soon.
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
i will comment on the only part i believe to be of interest to me - opting out.
powerlessness will make you miserable
not true given the appropriate mindset, living as intoxicated cattle is no less or more valid than having made it in life if on your scale of values they are equal (blabla nihilism blabla).
By pretending you're not playing, you're simply letting others take advantage of you.
if its the matter of someone getting a boost off of you - why not, unless it costs you disproportionate effort.
You will sit comfortably on your high moral horse while others lead your horse wherever they please.
nyes. while certainly remaining stationary i will continue not giving a fuck.
What's ironic is that by protesting the idea of a game of power in order to claim moral superiority and righteousness, you are actually doing it to further your own emotions and are therefore actually acting selfishly.
i wont claim shit, this is most certainly an "evil" and shallowly self satisfying way of life (from society's point of view).
[–]kzwrp1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
powerlessness will make you miserable not true given the appropriate mindset, living as intoxicated cattle is no less or more valid than having made it in life if on your scale of values they are equal (blabla nihilism blabla).
Do you not want to shape the world according to your ideas and views?
... you think you remain stationary, meanwhile the cart you're in gets ever closer to the cliff. It all depends on your frame of reference.
[–]manhunt0r -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
no. scale of values - mine tells me that the next cycle of history will be the same shit, no reason to bother.
yes, well aware. not something i care about. every transportation will reach its cliff, i see not why yours would fall any different than mine in the end.
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
If you do not want to shape the world .... why have you not killed yourself yet?
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
because clearly that would do a service to my remaining family. also, why the fuck project your goal as The singular reason detre?
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Yes, it would.
Non sequitur, nowhere did I state that fucking is my sole raison d'etre.
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
then i am assuming that your standard family is something i have yet to encounter in my life, or you just havent witnessed loss and some of its results yet.
tbf nowhere did i accidentally state that it was.
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No true nihilist would care about doing a service to his family...
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
a "true" nihilist wouldn't breathe or eat. few things about humans are binary.
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes, only real things are binary. Like death or pregnancy.
Seeking excuses not to act are not.
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
living as intoxicated cattle is no less or more valid than having made it in life if on your scale of values they are equal
I suppose it depends on what makes you happy. It makes me happy to not be taken advantage of, and to be able to achieve my ambitious goals in life, so for me power makes me happy and opting out, knowing I'd be getting taken advantage of, would make me miserable. I doubt I'm alone. Many people may pretend that putting their head in the sand would make them happy, but there will always be instances when they complain about getting taken advantage of.
Effort is not what makes me unhappy about someone getting a boost off me. In fact, I have no problem spending effort on things which further my goals. But that's the key. Everything I do is to further my goals, which are clearly defined.
If others taking advantage of me neither hurt nor helped my goals, I would have no problem with it. However, I do not believe that is the case. If anything, your reputation is tarnished. It also leads them to believe they can take advantage of you in the future. If you are viewed as weak, they will continue to exploit you. That may not make you unhappy, but for example if you keep giving rides to the same girl over and over with nothing in return, you may claim that it costs you very little effort and doesn't necessarily hurt you. Well, my time is valuable and it would be better spent furthering my own goals. Any amount of effort with no return is too much for me. To each his own.
while certainly remaining stationary i will continue not giving a fuck.
Would you really not give a fuck to opt out if it meant getting taken advantage of? Would you be comfortable with remaining stationary? Would you feel alive?
i wont claim shit
Fair enough, you may never complain nor whine nor make those claims. Then I have no problem with you opting out.
this is most certainly an "evil" and shallowly self satisfying way of life (from society's point of view).
I've taken great care in this post to not simply use labels such as immoral or evil without trying to define them logically. I could make the counter claim that everything is "shallowly self satisfying". What would be a "deeper" way to live? What are your goals?
[–]manhunt0r -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
so as to not overblow this with quotes i will shorten your passages.
I suppose it depends on what makes you happy.
i believe i tried to imply this also - you have your goals necessitating power, i dont.
If others taking advantage of me neither hurt nor helped my goals
i do not care for my reputation, if i am considered weak so be it. if i deem someones usage of me excessive or too bothersome i will stop providing assistance - i believe in most parts of the world this does not require power. in general my belief is that if i dont give a fuck while somebody does - might as well make someone's day better.
Would you really not give a fuck to opt out if it meant getting taken advantage of?
im not The dumbest critter critter to walk this earth, i am normally always aware when im being taken advantage of - many a year later i still dont care and actually cant remember caring after going the through the oh muh feelz phase. as for feeling alive i honestly have no clue as to what you refer to.
i was using those words ironically - i believe most mature people understand that evil does not exist as anything other than what the person using the word believes that word to mean.
i assume from the post common point of view non shallow ways of life contain building a house, planting a tree and raising a son - so basically leaving beneficial shit behind when you go. but in the end i believe that everything is shallowly self satisfying, however i do understand that my point is invalid by society standards.
my goals - could not find any in the last ten years.
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Fair logical points, although I think you and I simply have a difference of subjective opinion and level of ambition.
as for feeling alive i honestly have no clue as to what you refer to
I was referring to your
while certainly remaining stationary
quote.
Also now that you've said,
Going through life without drive, ambition, and goals to me would be very depressing to me. It makes me feel alive and makes me want to wake up every day and own the world.
[–]manhunt0r -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
we absolutely do, however for me this was fine mental entertainment and so i see no reason not to engage in a logical dispute even if it results into nothing of value - there are far worse things you can do with your time on rebbit.
[–]corsair_d -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
fuck you jackass
[–]Hokuten85-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
Herp derp...I don't have a good reason why I don't rape.
sigh there's an entirely rational reason for not condoning this. There'd be a lot of dead people(women). There's be a lot of fatherless children. There'd be no ability to ensure the survival of one's genes if we lived in a world that allowed this.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Rape doesn't mean you have to kill her.
[–]Hokuten85-5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Certainly doesn't, but there is violence involved with rape. There is now and has been historically, much death caused by rape. A society that would allow rape you see an increase in death due to said rape.
[–]Hokuten85-5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Are you really trying to question a post that is providing justification against rape? Against legitimate rape?
There'd be all kinds of death. Women death. Men death. Rape as a means for procreation is retarded.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I'm not saying you should go and rape women and then kill them. All I'm saying is, just because you raped a woman doesn't mean you have to kill her. (Even though it might be a smart idea since it lowers the risk of getting caught).
Stop using female "logic" and look at what I wrote.
[–]Hokuten85-5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
What value does this statement have? Of course it doesn't mean you have to kill her. What would the purpose of the post be, except for some retarded means to discredit what I said.
It's not female logic... to logically deduce that you were trying to in some way refute what I said...while simultaneously being a fucking retard.
lol dude. lol...
[–]enticingasthatmaybe2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
He's asking you to provide proof as to where all this death would come from because rape in itself isn't fatal.
I think you saw rape in a Red Pill post and needed to spread your vag all over it.
[–]Hokuten85-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You're cute ;) When you come back to reality let me know and we can continue the discussion.
[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 12 years ago | Copy Link
[+]Hokuten85-6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Rape doesn't make sense. We've evolved to be the most dominant species on the planet and we don't rape because the practice wasn't the most effective means of distributing genetic material.
The society that runs around raping has died off because there was no ability to ensure the survival of their genes. If that wasn't the case...we'd have packs of your alphas running around raping people.
From a purely selfish standpoint, there is so much wrong with allowing rape, that I cannot understand how someone could NOT have a justifiable reason to not allow it. It' pretty much invalidates all of the OPs bullshit and makes the sub look fucking retarded.
Just because I didn't cover all bases does not mean I am wrong in any of my points. Just as you are not wrong in your assessment that having two parents for a child is another justification for not allowing rape.
Your second point is silly. Yes...in a lawless place you'd like a pack mentality. This has proven to be less efficient at spreading genes...regardless of your alpha-ness...and doesn't exist because of it.
[–]enticingasthatmaybe1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This has proven to be less efficient at spreading genes..
Where are you getting this BS? The fact that we are here typing this is empirical evidence against what you're saying.
[–]Hokuten85-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The fact that we are here typing this is empirical evidence against what you're saying.
Is it? When I say rape. I'm not talking about the current rape culture bullshit where a chick is down to fuck and then decides it made her uncomfortable 2 months later. I'm talking about legitimate rape.
I'm making a claim that rape isn't as efficient means of distributing genetic material as not raping someone to distribute genes. My claim is based on what's brought our civilization to where it currently is. Not being cool with rape. Not being cool with people that are cool with rape.
If rape worked. We'd be doing it. It would be favored. Since it's not, it seems that not having to worry about fighting off other rape-packs assists more in furthering our genetic materials chances of being passed on.
[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten850 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
sigh you're just... ugh
Not capable of thinking beyond the end of your dick?
Best way to impregnate women, sure... Best way to ensure that those children survive? No.
You don't even have to imagine the environment this would create because history paints the picture for you. Hunting and gathering. Raping and pillaging. It was less effective than setting up fort and then fucking.
Raping as a means for procreation creates the environment of constant brutality. Have to worry about holding on to your women. Have to worry about keeping yourself and them alive while other dudes are trying to take them and rape them. You literally only have to look back a couple thousand years to see this in practice.
Behaviors other than actual fucking contribute to the successful distribution of genes as well.
A culture that favors rape is going to perpetuate brutality that's just going to get in the way of procreation and advancement of that culture. Women become a resource that people will fight over and die over. It got in the way. Societies that took a different route were more successful.
Why do I say this? Because that's what actually fucking happened.
Why are we even arguing about this?
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
No need for the tone. I post to get feedback and hone my thoughts.
I agree with what you said for some. I feel like many don't rape because of morality and more specifically empathy as I outlined. Now you are talking about societal and evolutionary reasons why people don't rape. Well, some people do, and many other animals, even some higher order animals, do rape, so there is some evolutionary advantage in the animal kingdom. I think society would fall apart, however, if rape was widespread, and as social animals we learned long ago to shun the rapists in communities, for the protection of all.
[–]Hokuten85-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I guess maybe we have a different understanding of what empathy and morality is.
I don't believe in absolute morality. Things just are. Morality is defined by what best suites myself and the continuation of my genetic line. There are behaviors that allow for more successful distributing of genes and rape is not one of them.
In the same way, I don't really know if empathy is anything more than intellect. We can understand that certain things are not pleasurable, thus when someone else experiences these things...we can reason that we'd not want it to happen to us. Essentially what I'm saying...is that I think it's entirely selfish instead of selfish vs empathy. Its selfish now vs selfish later...where we have the intellect to understand that actions now effect things that happen later.
The herp derp, was probably a bit too far. At the same time...this subreddit gets enough shit, that we shouldn't let an arguments like this particular part of your post fly without some kind of course correction
The herp derp, was probably a bit too far. At the same time...this subreddit gets enough shit, that we shouldn't let an arguments like this particular part of your post fly.
Concern trolling
[–]Hokuten851 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Notice I didn't start a new post complaining about it. I remarked on a poorly thought out point, which is what we should be doing. I provided the OP a reason why I was calling it out so he'd know if was less of a personal attack and more of a "don't let poorly thought out points sit without being challenged".
I don't believe in absolute morality. Things just are. Morality is defined by what best suites myself and the continuation of my genetic line.
I can get behind that.
Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, I'm unsure a bit because I may consider not having kids. Therefore, while I will be doing what best suits my needs, I may not actually be extending my genetic line. Interesting that selfishness can override even the genetic desire to have kids.
In the same way, I don't really know if empathy is anything more than intellect.
Eh, perhaps. But when I feel empathy, I feel it emotionally. It pains me emotionally to see a child get taken advantage of. I'm not sure if I'm using my logical, rational, part of my brain when I feel empathy. I think it does have some evolutionary advantage and may be biological. But alas, there's no way to test which of us is correct!
thus when someone else experiences these things...we can reason that we'd not want it to happen to us.
Hm but logically how would refraining from hurting another person mean that I won't get hurt? I suppose in the case of murder, you may wish to not get hurt in jail. Or in the case of punching somebody, you may not wish to get punched back. But in general, there are situations when there would be no consequences to me, yet I refrain from performing those actions because of empathy.
I have no problem getting called out on incorrect statements if people make logical arguments for it, which you have. Note, however, that I didn't actually say anything about condoning rape, but rather it was more me considering that actions such as rape could have an evolutionary advantage, and questioning my own motivation for NOT having any desire to perform them.
[–]Hokuten85-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is where the now vs later thing comes in. If we lived in a world that allowed people to run up and jack people in the face...you'd have more people running up and jacking each other in the face.
I refrain from punching someone now even though there are no immediate consequences for doing so because I know that there are long term consequences for it. If everyone allowed it, there'd be more of it going on. My day would be worse off if I had to worry about people punching me in the face.
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah, that is exactly what the Buddhists refer to as enlightened self interest and is exactly why they appear to be so altruistic. It's truly their motivation for giving to others and acting kind. It's a very long term view of the world and the consequences of your actions, and may go against immediate gratification. But it's logical.
[–]kzwrp-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
in which /u/kzwrp destroys the feel good bullshit seen above by quoting the Bible, one bad-ass Philosopher and a libertarian hero.
This "dilemma" you stipulate can be solved rationally and easily by principles outlined by Jesus, Kant and Murray Rothbard.
Jesus preached "Do unto others what you want them to do to you."
Kant called it cathegorical imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
Murray Rothbard phrased it as "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."
The common meme inherent in the three statements quoted above is that it is perfectly within your self-interest to not commit murder, theft, rape or any other action which you'd not have done onto you.
You do not need to emphathise with the used-car dealer (also, they're all sleazebags trying to screw you over as much as possible).
You do not need to emphathise with the guy whose house you do not break in.
You do not need to emphathise with the broad you're not going to rape (she might have a bad-ass motherfucker brother who'd deflower your anus painfully).
Stop spilling feel good bullshit, get rational and things will become clear.
EDIT: Woops. Mixed up emphasise with empathise. Fixed, thanks.
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wasn't trying to make it feel-good, but simply trying to address the specific reasons we act a certain way. I proposed empathy because it made sense to me, not because it was easy to swallow.
"Do unto others what you want them to do to you." Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor
In general, society may benefit if people do not act aggressively except in self defense.
But I don't think this actually addresses my dilemma. You've listed quotes from notable philosophers, but haven't addressed the issue at hand.
While people overall may benefit if everyone else "did unto others...", that will not actually benefit me personally.
Therein lies the problem. You may hope that all others will "do unto others..." but the minute one person doesn't, it becomes in your self interest to act aggressively.
In fact, with the above quotes, how is it in my immediate self interest to do unto others as I'd want done unto me? It's in my self interest to do whatever helps me the most. Who cares if I am not doing unto others as I'd want done to me? All that matters in the moment is what helps me and my goals the most.
[–]kzwrp1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There is no problem. Self-defense is not aggressive: The Non-Aggression Principle is not about pacifism, and allows you to defend yourself in situations where other people overstep your (emotional and physical) boundaries.
You can read much more on this elsewhere, and the general idea is that you may harm others if that is the only way to stop harming you or your property.
how is it in my immediate self interest to do unto others as I'd want done unto me?
Iterated prisoner's dilemma. Once you allow for self-defensive actions as well as ostracizing of aggressors, it becomes a dominant strategy not to overstep others' boundaries.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]jmikolash1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gosurobber0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]someonewrongonthenet2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]kzwrp1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]manhunt0r -1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]manhunt0r 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]kzwrp0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]manhunt0r -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]manhunt0r -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]corsair_d -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-4 points-3 points-2 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-5 points-4 points-3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]enticingasthatmaybe2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points | Copy Link
[+]Hokuten85-6 points-5 points-4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]enticingasthatmaybe1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten850 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]enticingasthatmaybe1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten851 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hokuten85-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kzwrp-2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Senior Contributordeepthrill[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]kzwrp1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link