>>10
That being said, interacting with other people naively will stunt emotionally as well, you certainly do not needed for it to be pointed out to you the millions of sociable people that are, nonetheless, alienated from any sensitivity no matter how dull.
Also the main drive in human desire is not escape from pain; nor it is conditioned by pain. Pain only acts as unit of exchange inside disciplinary systems, but not only our modern social systems work on the level of control, spectacle, and soft-power, rather than hard-discipline; but that the necessary revolutionary subjectivities that have to be brought forth in order to truly emancipate the NEET/schizoid/antisocial subject from its position of subjugation.

Any compromise with the sociable-bunch is just surrendering yourself to the normie power-control-mechanisms and accepting your place in society as a bottom-feeder and a foot-stool. "Yes, I'll play my role in your farce, I'll surrender myself willingly to it, it is the best for me after all, I wouldn't like to be a basement dwelling neckbeard after all" -- they beat us down with semantic tricks and ideology.

Also it sickens me to the core to see this endless dynamic and though terminating cliché of "personal growth" being constantly turned as a weapon towards this great forming underclass of the hikikomori/laying-down-person -- it is always the people who know the least about "personhood" and "growth" that throw it around without a care in the world.

The NEET/schizoid/antisocial subject cannot be emancipated from subjugation (by who??) because the regulatory mechanisms of society are what create the NEET to begin with. If they disappear, so does the NEET.

That is precisely the point. The problem is where to go from this realization onwards.

There is no difference between most users or this site and so called normies.

To this I have to use a very traditional concept -- that which is the same is indistinguishable -- I think that we can in fact very clearly see that there is a difference (a distinction) between this thing I named the "schizoid" subject and the "normie" subject.

I admit I was hasty/overly-emotional in calling them a "underclass" (I doubt their class character); but I do think there is a difference between both subjectivities. I think the difference is the most easily seen in the way this two conceptual "groupings" interface with themselves and society; this is why this is made the main point of contention when someone talks about "NEETDOM"; that is indeed the main point, this extreme rejection of many basic social instincts (learned or otherwise).

There is, I think, something important/interesting, even if it only exists in the purely critical/negative (and therefore useless) sense in this "NEET/schizoid/antisocial" interface, even though I can't quite put my finger on it. I got very angry with >>10 because it introduced precisely the line of discourse that completely denies this subjectivity as mere abnormality -- and therefore as something unimportant that merely exists as a "shadow" to the prevalent majoritarian (normie) existence.