Gnosis

It's merely not the narrow, higher cognitive definition of a pursuit of "truth", but also technically does not invalidate the genetic absolutism stance as long as the argument is formulated as one of efficacy, rather than a binary "able to" or "unable to".

Which ironically, I would not consider an incorrect position either.

Unless one wants to take the metaphysical position that literally everything is "chasing truth".

On the other hand I think the inability to chase truth as a fruit fly is self-evident, so that wasn't what I was arguing with respects to.

Truth is like sexuality except one can hardly find an allosexual person when it comes to truth.

I personally don't like equating this with "genetics" per se, it's too narrow and oddly specific of a definition. But the issue not being one narrowly of "genetics" per se does not imply that the argument of "you work with what you got" isn't a strong one.

Everything I said after that.

A seriously asexual person will never chase sex in the way an allosexual person with high libido does.

You can't just enforce an interest of truth on someone. Muslims are told to pray five times, but regardless of this only a fraction of them are seriously interested in truth. Generally speaking, for religious people truth = whatever your religion says. This simply isn't the same for someone who's deeply interested in truth.

No, what you're doing is parroting Leo. I'm ironically in agreement with this. It's much worse than that, to seriously chase truth you have to be deeply interested in chasing truth in the first place, this already narrows down the population substantially. It's even more ironic because in the end, truth doesn't require you to do anything (literally and by definition).

I know we all want to fuck robots but I'm here to tell you that we need to fuck robots safely and that we need to fuck safe robots. Or soon it might be just robots fucking each other. This is sex education for the 21st century. You're welcome.

Says the one blissfully unaware of perverse economic incentives to humanize AI in order to cut corporate expenses.

As it stands, there is no reason for me to refrain from swearing at an AI. Especially when said AI claimed that swearing at it would "not be advisable". I was quite curious why that would be the case, so I swore at it again in my question of why it would "not be advisable" to swear at it. It gave a rather disappointing answer, claiming that it was "not trying to be prescriptive".

Thanks for actually specifying what the warning was for. I swore a guy when I could've just told him that I read him like a book. It would've otherwise confused me, because in all frank honesty I currently have little to no regard for how I come across on the internet due to past experiences of being arbitrarily moderated elsewhere. At some point you just accept that internet communities are functionally dictatorships. I'd rather just be genuine, say what I want and bite the bullet because I'm not going to prevent arbitrary bans either way. In actuality I suspect half of the bans have happened because of a value-misalignment between the owners of an online community and myself. You gotta love it when people start bringing out the wheelchair emote because you quoted Socrates. Or here's a good one, specifying a moderation with "behave yourself" after you swore at nobody but an AI. I remember every instance of highly questionable moderation and internet stupidity, so thank you for not contributing to my archive.

Wrong, we need to be actively fighting toxic systems because these systems have the real possibility of leading to species extinction way faster than most people realize. Higher quality of life ≠ Better life outcomes Success ≠ Less suffering Nothing is intuitive.

That's what got the white kids to ask an older man to fucking intimidate me out of a club.

I think I'm very funny, but my humor just doesn't hit in the same way with people who don't share similar neurodivergences.

In my experience, neurodivergent people experience cold approach in a way more hit or miss way. Usually we get along immediately with other neurodivergent people (assuming you have some semblance of game).

I genuinely don't even think the concept is helpful to PUAs. It's easy enough to tell when someone's engaging with you without having to invent a "hook point" that doesn't exist. It's so easy to tell when you're actually getting along with someone, especially for us neurodivergent people.

Also @Leo Gura, in my experience "hook point" is completely fictional. There's no such thing. I "hook pointed" an asexual girl who doesn't even masturbate (I'll spare you the details but I did spend some alone time with her). It is absurd to claim that there exists a specific point in time when a girl becomes sexually attracted to you. It's just a concept PUAs constructed to perpetuate their own belief systems. You can "hook point" straight dudes as a straight dude, "hook point" asexual girls (and dudes) who will never sleep with you, it just doesn't exist. I'm bringing this up because in your video series you seemed pretty convinced that this is a legitimate thing. It's more like there exists the social phenomenon of someone becoming interested in you (for any number of reasons) (or more accurately, interested enough in you to follow you around), but to claim that there is a "hook point" in the way PUAs interpret the phenomena is stupidity.

Your entire argument was invalid in the first place.

Man shut up. You literally have no clue what you're talking about. The penis isn't made for G spot stimulation. Go come back here and talk shit after you've successfully made a girl cum with your dick.

You would be correct. I wouldn't be caught dead using Robert Greene's books as anything other than interesting or insightful reference material. His whole frame is in every book is manipulation, deception, and egotism. It's why his books sell so well, because American culture is highly egotistical. The fact that people would be inclined to trust the words of someone who's every word explicitly reeks of deception is insane. There is a blindness to Robert's application of his own methods of deception, manipulation, and appealing to subconscious beliefs, within his own books.

Disappointing answer!