u/PassengerCultural421

I ask this question. Because I'm creating this story in the SCI-FI genre based on Ghosts. I wonder if it's a little to far fetched to explain the existence of Ghosts via Interdimensional Beings.

By similar, I mean supernatural creatures that can convert regular humans into one of them.

Demons or angels don't count here. Im talking about creatures that used to be regular humans, before they were turn into monster.

I ask this question because of this one Blade comicbook I can't remember. Where a huge chunk of the population get their "supernatural creature X-Gene" activated, and they start tuning into monsters.

1. PCP Body: The user body naturally produce PCP. And user also spread the PCP to others via a gas. There isn't necessarily a limit to the amount of people the user can affect. The user can affect 10 or 100 people at the same time. The biggest limitation for the user is stamina. The body will still need recovery after every time the user release the gas. The more the user release the gas, the weaker the gas is, and the user can also die from trying to spam the gas too.

2. Homunculi Master: The user can create small living creatures from their own biological material, each no larger than a rat or cat.

The homunculi possess razor-sharp claws, powerful jaws, and enough intelligence to follow complex commands.

They excel at stealth, slipping through vents, cracks, and shadows to stalk or ambush targets.

Each creature can overwhelm a person by attacking vital areas such as the throat, eyes, or arteries in coordinated swarms.

The user maintains a limited telepathic link with every homunculus within range, allowing precise control and reconnaissance. The limits for the user here. Is that creating and maintaining them drains the user's stamina, limiting both the number and duration of active homunculi.

3. Combustible Burst: The user can ignite a person's body with their mind, causing combustible flames to erupt directly from the target without needing an external fire source.

The intensity ranges from painful surface burns to rapidly engulfing a victim in deadly flames with sustained concentration.

The user can ignite multiple nearby targets at once, making the ability devastating against groups.

The flames spread naturally to clothing, flammable objects, and the surrounding environment, creating additional hazards beyond the initial target.

Limitations: The user requires a clear line of sight, the power has a limited effective range, highly fire-resistant targets can withstand or reduce its effects, and repeated use quickly causes mental fatigue.

Could be my algorithm. But I noticed a lot of recent discourse about the Get Out movie.

Im pretty use to the racism based on hatred. Where people want nothing to do with us. And want us to go away. Again this was always the default for racism, whenever I thought of racism.

But this racism based on fetishizing us, creeps me tf out. I remember when I first saw the movie, I was ignorant of this type of racism. And I did a lot of research. And look into the disturbing history with slave owners, and cannibalism. And how they were so obsessed with black bodies. Thought black bodies were supernatural, (literally the Viltramite meme).

This recent discourse from the movie got me thinking. Especially with the eugenics mentioned in the Jeffrey Epstein files. Mfs with this mindset actually existed in real-life, and still in modern times too.

Of course Pro Wrestling like the WWE is scripted.

But im more so asking if Gladiator combat would be a spectacle type of entertainment or just two guys hitting each other.

This is a gross way to describe MMA. But it's the only simple way I can describe MMA though.

I don't really want to do oppression olympics here. But this question is so interesting though.

So I wonder if the plight of Mutants would be equal or somewhat different from the plight of other marginalized groups.

Obviously that boy Jeffrey is out of the picture, so he can't be questioned. But his wife is still around though (for now at least).

I ask this question because the EP files came with more questions than answers. So wouldn't it make sense to questioned Ghislaine about the validity of thw files? Sure can still lie. But is still worth a shot though? At least do ot before it's too late.

Obviously that boy Jeffrey is out of the picture, so he can't be questioned. But his wife is still around though (for now at least).

I ask this question because the EP files came with more questions than answers. So wouldn't it make sense to questioned Ghislaine about the validity of thw files? Sure can still lie. But is still worth a shot though? At least do ot before it's too late.

I don't know that many secret societies in both worlds. Outside the Court of Owls. Who I think are just a bunch of rich snobs. And the League of Assassins or Hand aren't necessarily secret societies per-si. They are more akin to terrorist groups or criminal organizations (in the Hand case).

I ask this question because of that one episode from the Gotham TV show. Where the League of Assassins buried the F out of the Court of Owls. Treated those rich snobs like a bunch of WWE jobbers.

This is funny. Because you would assume secret societies would actually be this omnipresent shadow Government force in a superhero world. And actually live up to their Eyes Wide Shut hype.

So back to my title question. Are secret societies more likely to be cowards, when it comes to villains? Whether the villain is a terrorist, CEO, Government official, crime boss, or even a simple serial killer.

The Mob is scared of everyone lol. Douda, Quentin, Reg, Nuck, and now the janitor dude.

In real-life gang leaders aren't really a thing nowadays. The closet thing to a structure in gang culture is maybe Los Angeles. But every other city is every man for themselves though.

There are way too many reckless young dudes out there. And they will be super less likely to take orders from leaders lol. The janitor dude has a whole room of 50 gangsters scared lmao.

I know we like to make fun of the Chi when it comes to how the show potray realism. But this issue isn't exclusive to The Chi though. A lot of grounded crime shows like to portray the Mafia/Cartel/Gang boss as a comicbook villain for some reason.

It's so common for feminists to pretend like men have nothing to worry about when it comes to false allegations. Saying that only creepy men worry about coming off as creepy to women. I see this as the Kafka Trap because simply caring about how I am perceived gets treated as proof that I have bad intentions.

They also say women have to be cautious because they are not mind readers who can tell the difference between good men and bad men. I understand that argument on its own. People should be allowed to take precautions if they feel unsafe.

Here is where the double speak begins. In the same breath, the very same feminists will praise men who cross the street to make women feel more comfortable. They applaud those men and call them considerate and one of the good ones.

So which is it? Am I paranoid for limiting my interactions with women, or am I a good man for changing my behavior to avoid making women uncomfortable? If avoiding women is irrational, then why is crossing the street encouraged as a responsible thing to do?

I cannot accept both arguments at the same time because they directly contradict each other. Either men have legitimate reasons to think carefully about how they interact with women, or they do not. You cannot ridicule men for being cautious while celebrating other forms of male caution when it benefits your narrative.

This is why I believe some feminists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want men to read the room perfectly while also pretending mixed messages do not exist. They want men to approach when they personally approve, but they also want the freedom to shame men for approaching when they do not approve.

The reality is that men respond to incentives. If enough men are told that approaching women is risky, creepy, or socially dangerous, many decent men will simply stop approaching altogether. That should not surprise anyone because people naturally avoid situations where they believe they are likely to be judged harshly.

I am not saying women should ignore their safety or abandon their boundaries. I am saying that if society encourages men to constantly monitor how women perceive them, then it cannot turn around and mock those same men for acting cautiously. That is not consistency. That is wanting the benefits of both positions without accepting the tradeoffs that come with either one.

I make this post because of the recent situation with Chud the builder. It's so funny seeing progressive people hide behind the "He is being a hypocrite for sleeping with men, while being anti LGBTQ" excuse. As a way to get away with making homophobic jokes about a guy they don't like. By calling him a bottom or trying to associate his misogyny/racism with being gay.

Im a black man, and I hate it when liberals do this dumb shit. Make up this BS narrative about all bigoted men being secretly gay. I even have to call out this nonsense from other black people saying this too. It's so interesting how people feel comfortable associating the most negative traits/beliefs in society with gay men.

The ironic thing here is the person "accusing" Chud of sleeping with them, is a trans woman. And the last time I checked trans women are women. And the men who date them are still 100 percent straight. But yet many of the people who would consider themselves "woke" still made these homophobic jokes about this Chud situation though. The trans woman even brought up this hypocrisy on the Left in her Chud video too.

So these aren't the usual suspects making these homophobic jokes (I.E. conservatives or right-wingers). They are too busy being silent due to second hand embarrassment from Chud. So the majority of the jokes in the discourse is coming from left-leaning people.

Back to my title. You know what is the most funny thing about this whole Chud situation? Another person accusing Chud of having sex with them is a black woman. But yet people don't care about this type of hypocrisy though. Most people aren't making jokes about Chud sleeping with black women, while also being super racist in public.

That's because most of society doesn't view white men having sex with black women, as something to mocked or make jokes about. But society does view men having sex with other men as something to mocked or make jokes about though. Especially if it's a closeted man. That justs add on more to the humor.

Again it was never about hypocrisy. It's not that deep. You just thinks it's funny when men like other men in secret. Don't try to justify it with some self-righteous BS lol. If you were being honest. You would have that same energy for racist men who sleep with minority women or even misogynistic who still sleep with women too.

In conclusion: Some self-described progressives resort to jokes that echo homophobic stereotypes when attacking men they dislike.

I work at a warehouse job I hate so much. I unload trucks that have really heavy furniture on it. It's a 10 hour work shirt. And we unload for hours.

I wake up 2:00-3:45 in the morning. I only eat food before and after working. Eating during work makes too sleepy. I wake up this early to get head start before my cousin in the bathroom, and also to have a longer time eating breakfast too.

Today a old coworker told me "Boy you need to get some p*ssy, you have no strength".

All because I was struggling this get this fuck-ass heavy rolling table over the fucking gap in the trailer. Trying to make sure the stupid table don't roll out of the dolly too.

A supervisor was there when he said that. All the supervisor did was said his name, like how a Parent react to their child saying a bad word "NATHAN". Btw both the coworker and supervisor are black.

I was so pissed after hearing with the old man said in the trailer. I try my best to distract myself by asking the supervisor "I just want to know where does the table go".

After setting up this dumb table (that couldn't stand on it's own by the way). I went to the bathroom with my fists clinched up.

Then when I came back with my fists clinched up. My cousin saw this. And he asked if I'm alright. I just nod my head, and walked past him.

Later on that day, I punched a box, and my hand start bleeding. I did this for two reason. 1: The box was hard to move. 2: I was thinking about what that old man said in the trailer all day.

I wanted to say something back to him at the time. But it wouldn't be nice though. And I also have a feeling this job would favor this old man over me. And also my family always consider me the bad guy in these situations too.

Wearing these uncomfortable jeans pants piss me off. Wearing these uncomfortable steel toe boots that squeezes my toes piss me off. And the steel toe boots makes even harder for me to lift these heavy boxes with the dolly too.

And also im 5'8. So it's really hard for me to keep my foot on the ground with the dolly, while also reaching the top of these tall ass boxes with long couches in them. Every time I reach for the top, my foot leaves the ground. And everytime I put my foot on the ground, my hand isn't on top of the box anymore.

And since this is a two person job sometimes, depending on the size of the box. I have to think about all of this shit while another coworker on the other side of the box is pushing the box on me, to tilt the box on the dolly.

And the dollies are so useless. Sometimes out of sheer anger I just pick up these fucking heavy boxes with my bare hands. And drag them to where they need to be. If I was crazy enough. Today I would've roll that fucking table off the trailer like a coin (table was shaped like a coin).

The job always virtue signal about safety being a big deal too. But I have to still work fast while worrying about safety though. Mfs like this old man actually throw the boxes onto you, before you can even set up the damn dolly under the boxes. And then I have move backwards with these 7 foot tall boxes, while trying to navigate 3 people with dollies behide with me. To make sure I don't trip while carrying heavy shit.

But im trying to look for a new job though. Because the more I stay in this job. The more I see something bad happening one day. Whether it's a new job or college.

Everyday somebody is trying to try me at this job. This is corny. But fuck it though. The saxophone music from Boys in the Hood is always playing in my head all day at this job too.

For my studies. Im trying my best to avoid overlap between both. And I think versatility is a great way to avoid overlap between both.

Well at least how certain people on the Left interpret both.

On one hand it's considered Islamphobic to talk about how middle countries have bad views. You are automatically written off as a right-wing nutjob who thinks all Muslims are savages.

But from a feminist standpoint. All of a sudden it's now ok to talk about how misogynistic middle east countries are. And how dangerous life is for the women, who live in those countries.

I'm a black man. I see this contradiction a lot in the black community.

Any criticism for the black community gets you call a racist or C slur who thinks all black people are violent criminals.

But yet it's fine whenever black feminists say that black men are the weakest link or the white people of the black community. And paint this narrative of black men being a unique type of violence.

It's the same with Rap music too. I get call a C slur for saying that Drill music is not good for the culture. Because Rappers shouldn't be making millions off dissing dead kids, who are the victims of gun violence.

But yet it is fine whenever feminists make think pieces about the misogyny in Hip Hop or Rap lyrics though. Even saying that Rap has a serious misogyny problem. There literally feminist articles titled just like that.

I could give countless examples here. Even Latin countries can be used as an example here. One minute, they are just innocent immigrants who are being demonize by bigoted Conservatives. But the second one of them kill a woman. All of a sudden we being lecture about how these men come from patriarchal cultures that view women as people.

You can replace sexism with homophobia in the title. And the contradictions are even worst.

It's not that I disagree or even agree with what is being said here. I just don't like the contradictions.

In conclusion: A lot of flip flop going on here. One thing can be considered a awful thing to say in a racial context. But the same thing is also considered ok/factual when said in a gender context though. Make it make sense. Is it bad or good to say that Afghanistan is a sexist country?