Fredodoow

After 5 years of not acting on my desire to get better with women, I finally had the courage to break off my relationship, wich was amazing, and probably the person I loved most in my entire life, but as a friend or a sister. The sex thing just wasnt there. Now next step : gotta move to Paris. I live one hour away wich is just too far away. Can't get the motivation to go often enough. I don't have a car, I don't have a place there to pull, I have nowhere to sleep in Paris after a night out, the trains stop at 11 pm. Anyway, I am done with excuses, done with bullshit. I know my flat will be very small, and hard to find, but I don't care, I was burying myself in this confy flat in a small town. I know I'm gonna do it now, it's time. Every night I dream about girls, and it's getting to a point where it's freaking psychosis. I know I have some advantages (I'm a comedian, I can be very charismatic, funny, interesting, I have a purpose, I'm someone people remember) and some defects (I think I have a huge ego and I hate rejection. I love being loved and hate the opposite, more so I believe than most people). To extend on my deffect, I think I can be the most amazingly charismatic, but I soon as I feel I'm not loved or liked, I can deflate like a balloon and become literally the least charismatic person. Story of my life, a roallercoaster of charisma. But now, no more excuses. I'm looking for a flat in Paris. Plan is simple : I need to be somewhere where if I wanna go out, I just grab my coat and go out. I already did my first day game approaches, in Avignon, wich went absolutely horribly, way worse than I imagine it would (I am NOT a shy person at all, and I just turned into a shy person for my first approach. I was so scared and I think my emotion rubbed on the girl because she looked actually scared as well, wich was like a cold shower, I felt like a creep after). It made me realise even the first step was not a simple as I thought it would be. Now I'm working on expressing my personnality and being more funny and flirtatious in every day environnement. Today I did it with the lady who cut my hair, and it was amazing. Not even trying to pick her up (she had just come back from her honey moon) but just being myself, stop with this shyness bullshit, actually being here and expressing my personnality, in a seductive way. Anyway, as soon as I'm settled in Paris I will go out like crazy. I think I wanna start with night game, because I believe my crazy extraverted personnality will be great there. I'm confortable with being the center of attention, and being silly and crazy, and I think that might work well. The more subtle approach needed with gay game scares me, I will do it, but after. This is no excuses, I needed to thing to starts : 1 : breaking off my relationship. That was so hard but I did it. 2 : living in paris. I am doing it. After that, no excuses. Not sure what I'm looking for, any advices, encouragements, notes if you have been to paris, or if you know the game scene there. I know I don't post much, but I have been a avid consummer of leo's content since day 1 (well maby day day 4).

@numbersinarow psychosis brainrot

I would just like to push back on something I heard Leo say more and more as of late. It goes along the lines of "Meditation should be done seriously. Don't half ass it. If you're gonna do it, go all in. No point in just meditating a few minutes every day, you will just waste your time". This does not resonate with my personnal experience, and it goes in direct contradiction with something the great zen master Shizen Young said : there is a world of difference, a WORLD of difference, between 10 minutes of meditation a day and zero minutes of meditation a day". Now, I'm not saying that you can get enlightened, or get any of the crazy stuff on a few minutes a day, but if it does help you process emotions, sleep better, think more clearly, discipline your mind, even just a bit, isn't that huge ? This bugs me, because when I was starting out working out, I heard some people say stuff about running like "if you're not gonna do at least 45 minutes, it's useless". And I can tell you that's completely wrong for pretty much the same reasons.

@r0ckyreed Well of course that's what you're gonna get from Rocky.

Personally, I don't use it at all. I'm only interested in diving into something from beginning to end, with actualized and other channel, otherwise it feels like distraction. Like having a bag of chips at 6 pm instead of waiting the right hour to have a nice dinner. That's just me, I'm just giving feedback as a representant of that viewer demographic. Hope the shorts are succesfull, anything is good if it makes the channel reach more people.

I have a theory on this subject, wich I ruminated a lot. Read if so inclined, I would love to hear your thoughts. I'll try to lay it out as clearly as I can. Pardon my spelling errors, I'm french. I believe a lot of people are stuck in a blind spot/double standard on this topic. I also think it's actually rarely seriously discussed because it is a sort of taboo. Yet this blind spot makes for a huge percentage, if not the totality of all conflict. My area of expertise, and profession is art. I'm a musician and an actor/playwrighter. This is my world, I was basically born into it and I consider myself a master. Really really not trying to sound arrogant, or tryning to do an appeal to autority just trying to paint a picture of where I come from without bulshitting. Therefore, I'll aply this theory on art and art appreciation, even tho it can expend to other things. Let's say Lea loves Chostakovitch's "9th symphony" (modern russian classical composer), and she hates Nicky Minaj's "Starship". She feels the symphony is a marvel of beauty, depth, complexity, and the song is childishly simplistic, not infused with any interesting musical ideas and musically dead. Marc feels the opposite. He thinks the symphony is a bunch of garbage sounds, very unplaisant, not catchy at all and boring, and that the songs, is upbeat, beautiful, sexy, and just makes him feel good. Those two have an heated discution about there vision of music. We'll analyze this argument there having from an exterior perspective Let's analyse one type of paradigm to this situation, wich I will call the "subjectivity paradigm". It would go something like this : "Marc and Lea have different tastes. It's okay, one isn't better than the other. They are both right, what matters is what makes them feel good. It's okay to have different opinions." Now let's analyze the other type of paradigm, we'll call it the "objectivity paradigm". It goes like this : "Lea simply has better taste than Marc and she is right. The symphony is a massively better piece of music than the song. The work of Chostakovitch is a thousand times more intricate, rich, intelligent, beautiful, philosophically and musically rich, technically proeficent and complex than the song. The symphony is objectivally better". So, what is the right paradigm ? If we take the spiral dynamic approach, the objectivity one, (we'll call it OB) seems blue/orange and the subjectivity one (we'll call it SUB) seems orange/green. I put orange in both because orange seems to have a mixed approach to art, where on one hand it might likes to classify it good or bad, but on the other hand, it might argue that it is not science therefore not objective and a matter of sensibilities. I believe I have the green perspective. Here it is. OB and SUB are both right on one level and wrong in another level. In order to understand what we’re talking about, we need to understand what those levels are. OB is right on one level of thought and SUB is right on another level of artistic appreciation thought. What are those levels of thoughts ? LEVEL ONE : basic sensory appreciation. No analysis, just "how does it make me feel". This is a subjectivity level. LEVEL TWO : Attempt at objective analysis. Analysis of the art according to a huge quantity of different human artistic standards to arrive at an objective answer with measurable qualities. Note that there are many different standards to use to measure. LEVEL THREE : absolute thinking. Everything is one, one piece of art isn’t better than the other, because that would be according to human standards, and this level is from an absolute perspective. Note that from this level, murder isn’t any more evil than the collapsing of a star. It’s important to understand that there is no hierarchy between those levels, there can be compared to sight, sound and touch. Now the huge problem when people fail to communicate while talking about art is that they don’t know on what level there are talking. Two persons talking about a music piece from different levels won’t be able to understand each other. The dialogue between them would be akin to: “The banana taste sugary, right” and the other “No, it's yellow.” SO is art subjective or objective ? The answer is this : From level one art is subjective, from level two it’s objective and from level three it’s subjective. Therefore a productive conversation about art should begin like this : “ - Let’s talk about art. - On what level do you want to talk ? - Let’s have a level two conversation. - Alright, Chostakovitch symphony is better than Starship because so and so and so.” - Now let’s have a level one conversation. - Alright, I don’t like the symphony because I’m not sensible to the aesthetic of violence that he’s trying to evoke. It doesn’t move me because so and so and so. Using this model, a person who wants to think greatly about art should be able to love a piece on level one, but admits that it’s not a good piece from level two, and, inversely, hate a piece from level one, but see it’s qualities from level two. Using a personnal exemple, I like barbie girl from aqua. It makes me feel good, those harmonies and melodies evoque something in me (level 1). However I don't think it's a very interesting, intricat or brilliant piece of music at all (level 2). I think Schuman's second piano concerto is a great work of harmonic complexity, structure and innovation. (lev 2). However, his style doesn't do anything for me, I get bored listening to it, because it doesn't evoque anything in my emotionnal mind. Lacks humor, and rythme stability to captivate me." (lev 1) Level one and two are the levels primerly useful here. I won’t go into level three because it’s not practical for this use. Level three isn’t conversational, to determine anything because it’s just one simple truth : there are no good and bad in the absolute thinking. Everything just is. Using this approach, one can finally stop having this redundant sentence that resonates like a perpetual apology : “It’s just my opinion”. You can just say “I’m talking from level one”. If you’re talking from level two, it’s not “just your opinion”, you’re trying to get to the truth and you either succeed, or fail, or, most of the time, fall in between. If you guys read this far thank you very much. I’ll be happy to clarify and discuss.

Hi everyone. I already made a post about that, but I thought I would try again, being more precise. I'm going to get into details, but if you can please beare with me I will be very grateful, because this is really bugging me. I'm 25, french. I live in a small (25 000 people) town that is 50 km away from paris. Some could call that the "far away suburbs". I live there because the rent is cheap, while still being a beautiful place. Basically I can afford a 229 square feet appartement wheareas in paris I could only afford a 65 square feet appartement, and that would bum me out. I'm a artist, no 9 to 5 job, I'm the master of my day. My plan is to basically be a parisian, game in paris, even tho I don't live in Paris. I can get to Paris in 1 hour in train (sometimes 30 minutes but the quik train is rarely at the right time). I don't have a driving licence, but I hear it would be worse than train (traffic, having to focus on driving, parking spaces, gaz...). The train cost is not a problem as I pay a montly subscription anyway. The main issue is the one hour (minimum) commute, and the fact that the last train to get back from paris is about 20 and a half pm. So basically if I'm still in paris at 22 and a half, I can't get home. On the plus size, I know a theatre (I'm a comedian) where I can sleep. I just crash in anytime. However, can't bring a girl there, that would be risky/not respectful. It's not the most confortable, but it's a couch, I can crash and shower. There, you know my situation. Now my question is : is this viable ? Can I game in Paris this way ? Is the fact that I don't have a place to pull gonna be bad ? Is the fact that I live in a small town 50 km away gonna be a problem ? Is the one hour comute going to dry me out or smthing ? I would really love feedback. Part of me is saying "you're just making excuses not to start, you're situation is fine, of course you can game". The other part is like "No, you're right to be worried, this is not gonna be sustainable". Thank's a lot in advance.

Hello everyone ! So basically, I would like to start doing pick-up/chatting up girls, but my logistical situation is a bit complicated. I would really love to be able to share it here, and get some opinions... Thank's in advance ! I'm 25. I live in France, near Paris. Obviously, Paris is a great city for game. Here's the deal, I live a one hour train ride away from paris. (30 minutes if I get the fast train, but it's usually not there at the right times) (about 50 km), in a little town (20 000 people). Transportation fees are not an issue (I have a subscription anyway). The reason I live in this town and not in Paris, is simply for rent : it's a gorgeous town wich makes me happy, I have a beautiful appartement three time the size I would get in Paris, cost of living is cheaper, my parents are nearer (wich actually paradoxically allows me to be more independant, cause I never have to sleep in their house when I'm in this town). This town also has a place where I can work on my field (trying to stay vague) wich is really an asset. I don't have a 9-5 job, so I'm the master of my day (I am quasi-financially independant, I'm a artist). So basically Paris is the city to be in. My goal is to be a parisien without really living in Paris. Biggest issue is this : trains to get back home from Paris stop at about 10 and a half pm. So If I do anything in Paris after that hour, my options are very limited (sleep at someone's house : not a very long term solution, I'm not gonna consistently invest someone's couch... Wait for the first train in the morning, at about 5 am... Kinda sucks if I want my night to end at midnight or 1 Am. Find a hotel is just not compatible with my budget, same for taxi. I really don't want to live in Paris, I can't afford the rent, I don't want a tiny place, I love the pure air in my city... Should I invest in day game ? Any ideas ? I really don't know if I'm fooling myself and being unrealistic or if it's perfectly doable... Anyway, some feedback would be great ! I hope my post makes sense. You all have a nice day.

Frank Zappa is my No 1 musical influence. Here's a take of his on the USA.

My take on privilege. I would love to have your thoughts on it. I'm ready for a civil discution, Feel free to completely disagree but please don't be too harsh in your response (I know this sort of take can trigger some) and I will answer from a place of open mindedness to the best of my ability. The notion of privilege is something I find problematic. Let's take for exemple people who have back problems. A portion of the population has chronic back problems. Therefore they have a a problem. I don't have back problems, I don't have that particular problem. Now could you say I'm privileged in that regard? Let's "healthy-backed privileged?" Well if you look at it a certain way, yes you could. People with back problems are disadvantaged and people with no back problems are privileged. However, this is what bothers me : by talking about privilege, instead of pointing towards the problem that some people have, and how to go about fixing it, we are directing attention to the unfair advantage that some other people have. Therefore we don't think in terms of rising one groupe up, ut in terms of bringing the other group down. The notion of privilege always brings the notion of blame. The discussion goes like this : certain activists - "White people, you are to blame." Me : "But I didn't do anything" activists : "no but you benefit from it. You are privileged". Me "Maybe, but not to blame, since I didn't do anything". And so on and so on. Until thee activist says "ok, you are not directly to blame, but you benefit from that privilege, therefore it is your responsibility to do such and such for the underprivileged group." My position is this : I'm happy to make the world a better place, to help people, but not to be blamed. Never, ever. No white guilt. Guilt isn't, to my opinion, a good motivator to do anything. Instead, it's often what prevents people from taking action, because then they feel attacked, defensive. "Go help black people, go raise money for them, go make the miserable less miserable" Sure, I would love to. "Take a good look at yourself, acknowledge your privilege, bring yourself down, tell us how arrogant, self bias you are." Nope, not even in your dreams. Oh, and every time I hear "white people are privileged." I can't help but think : is that how the holocaust started? A bunch of germans saying "look at jews, how privileged they are?" Once again I am not saying that the holocaust is coming for white men, don't stop at the dramatic comparaison, but just try to see the similarity in thinking. A nazi saying "Jews control the media, the finances and lots of other areas. They need to be put down a noch." And there were no question of holocaust at first. I can imagine, during the rise of nazis, someone saying "guys, your rhetoric is dangerous, don't you think?" And the nazis responding "of course not, it's not like we're talking about killing jews! No one wants that! No we're just talking about their privileges, and what could be done about it". And to some extent I'm sure the germans were right, I'm sure the jew community had some privileges some advantages, they didn't just make all of that up. But the outcome was a massacre. And one more thing. I have a ego. I'm a simple guy with an ego, and I like it stroked a bit. I have a tendency to prefer people who compliment me than people who criticize me harshly. Of course the truth is always best, but between a false compliment and a false attack, I prefer a false compliment. Wich means I most likely to help someone who asks kindly, than to help someone who shames me. (As for basically anyone). I don't think that's a shortcoming from my part, but then if I hear "hey, you, white people, the ones who suck, the evil of this world! The least you could do is help those guys over there!" Well "Fuck you, I didn't do anything". "Sure but you benefit from the privileges of years of etc etc etc" So, little strategic advice to the activists : you want more help from whites? Maybe try and tell them there's something else than a piece of shit every ones and a while. But I know what they think, they think we're arrogant, used to have everything handed to us, use to being respected for no reason. Well to that I answer, some of us yes, some of us not so much, but that doesn't mean we don't deserve respect. AND that doesn't mean that your all activism projet wouldn't work better. Try making us feel good about ourselves, manipulate us a little bit, we'll be grateful for it, maybe we'll even open up our wallets and acknowledge our privileges.

Hey, everyone, so basically I'm strongly triggered by what I consider hate speech against men, white people or straights. Now what triggers me per se is not the attack, primerely, but the reaction to it from the the mainstream media and the establishment. Or to be more accurate, the lack of reaction. What gets to me even more is the classic "you're such a baby, stop feeling victimized, your victimisation is nothing compared to the one that - insert oppressed group - endures. This is a damn if you do, damn if you don't scenario. Defend yourself, your race, your gender and you're at best a cry baby (they love to use this to try and make you feel small, wich shows intent to hurt) and at worst, a "racist, nazis, alt right, mysoginist, whatever". Then your only option, if you dont want to fall into disgrace, being categorized, labelled and cancelled, you can only shake your head yes and accept every thing, every feminist idea, every anti-racist idea. Questioning it, or simply saying fuck you, wich is your right, will only get you the treatment I explained earlier. Now, I would like to submit an argument. If a white, straight, male feels attacked in a racist, sexist or heterophobic way, the response he get to that hurt is this "you shouldn't feel hurt, you don't deserve to feel hurt and to express hurt or anger, because those other groups have been traditionnally opressed in history. My argument is this : isn''t that like saying "oh, you got punched in the face? Well we're denying you justice, compensation, acknowledgment, because those guys over there got punched a lot more time, or the guy who punched you got punched a lot more time in the past. How does that change anything?? I would love to hear your thoughts on that. I'm tired. If mysoginy, racism, homophobia are crimes (in the form of hate speech or such) Then Racism against whites (wich I endured in school), misandrism and heterophobia should to. I'll respect twitter the day I see a "fuck white men" tweet deleted and censored by twitter. Otherwise, we're living in a lie, a double standards, and generation of straight white men is going to be really pissed. That's ok tho, we'll just call them racists. Maby this is a rant, and maby it will get deleted but, i don't know, i just really felt the need to get that of my chest for anyone who's listening. Feel free to disagree, just please don't just dismiss me by puting a label on me "oh yeah it's that jp fanboy who doesn't get laid" because you don't know me, i don't like jp, i get laid, and I love Rihanna.

Yes, it is.

@Leo Gura I know my response seems obvious, but in this scenario, I HAVE to make the nuance : you didn't enslave my family, your grand grand grand father who you've never met enslaved my grand grand grand fathers family... The notion of priviledge still holds, but the notion of blame flies out the window with this nuance...

I like to hear myself talk, and sometimes I post primerely to be in the spotlight, to listen to people react to me. I look for validation a lot. Not always tho, depends on my state of consciousness i guess...

@Thought Art Thank you. I don't know many black people closely enough to have had some of your experiences first hand and I can imagine, It must be really tough. But if it was as simple as blacks have it 10 times worst, then there wouldn't be white suicides and blacks happy... There are so many factors in a human life. And sometimes I feel, when it comes to these matters, that as a white you simply can't say anything other that "I'm sorry you're going trough this." I would like to have your take on my extreme comparaison with the holocaust for exemple. (Once again I know this is highly hyperbolic). Thank for listening, really.

@Thought Art That's exactly the kind of attitude that I'm talking about. "You're ignorant" is all you know how to say. But you don't listen.

@Thought Art How deep is their love?

@Forestluv yes, I can only agree with everything you are saying. However, the notion of privilege is something I find problematic. Let's take for exemple people who have back problems. A portion of the population has chronic back problems. Therefore they have a a problem. I don't have back problems, I don't have that particular problem. Now could you say I'm privileged in that regard? Let's "healthy-backed privileged?" Well if you look at it a certain way, yes you could. People with back problems are disadvantaged and people with no back problems are privileged. However, this is what bothers me : by talking about privilege, instead of pointing towards the problem that some people have, and how to go about fixing it, we are directing attention to the unfair advantage that some other people have. Therefore we don't think in terms of rising one groupe up, ut in terms of bringing the other group down. The notion of privilege always brings the notion of blame. The discution goes like this : certain activists - "White people, you are to blame." Me : "But I didn't do anything" activists : "no but you benefit from it. You are priviledged". Me "Maby, but not to blame, since I didn't do anything". And so on and so on. Until thee activist says "ok, you are not directly to blame, but you benefit from that privilege, therefore it is your responsability to do such and such for the underpriviledged group." My position is this : I'm happy to make the world a better place, to help people, but not to be blamed. Never, ever. No white guilt. Guilt isn't, to my opinion, a good motivator to do anything. Instead, it's often what prevents people from taking action, because then they feel attacked, defensive. "Go help black people, go raise money for them, go make the miserable less miserable" Sure, I would love to. "Take a good look at yourself, agknowledge your priviledge, bring yourself down, tell us how arrogant, self bias you are." Nope, not even in your dreams. Oh, and every time I hear "white people are priviledged." I can't help but think : is that how the holocaust started? A bunch of germans saying "look at jews, how priviledged they are?" Once again I am not saying that the holocaust is coming for white men, don't stop at the dramatic comparaison, but just try to see the similarity in thinking. A nazi saying "Jews control the media, the finances and lots of other areas. They need to be put down a noch." And there were no question of holocaust at first. I can imagine, during the rise of nazis, someone saying "guys, your rethoric is dangerous, don't you think?" And the nazis responding "of course not, it's not like we're talking about killing jews! No one wants that! No we're just talking about their priviledges, and what could be done about it". And to some extent I'm sure the germans were right, I'm sure the jew comunity had some priviledges some advantages, they didn't just make all of that up. But the outcome was a massacre. And one more thing. I have a ego. I'm a simple guy with an ego, and I like it stroked a bit. I have a tendency to prefer people who compliment me than people who critisize me. Wich means I most likely to help someone who asks kindly, than to help someone who shames me. (As for basically anyone). I don't think that's a shortcoming from my parth, but then if I hear "hey, you, white people, the ones who suck, the evil of this world! The least you could do is help those guys over there!" Well "Fuck you, I didn't do anything". "Sure but you benefit from the priviledge of years of etc etc etc" So, little strategic advice to the activists : you want more help from whites? Maby try and tell them there's something else than a piece of shit every ones and a while. But I know what they think, they think we're arrogant, used to have everything handed to us, use to being respected for no reason. Well to that I answer, some of us yes, some of us not so much, but that doesn't mean we don't deserve respect. AND that doesn't mean that your all activism projet wouldn't work better. Try making us feel good about ourselves, manipulate us a little bit, we'll be gratefull for it, mabe we'll even open up our wallets and ackgnowledge our priviledges.

I think this Zen meditation teacher is fascinating. Maby the best i've seen. To me, he just screams "real deal". He's a master, yet so simple, humble and straight forward in his approach, I think he is truly a gem. I would just love to hear your thougts on this guy.

So I was thinking about global warming and all that situation, and then, was thinking about it from a stage green dynamic perspective. How amazing would it be if in 25, 50 or a century, basically every country had the standard of living that developed coutries have today? Think about having a world where there is no wide-scalde poverty anymore, where the concept of a poor country wasn't even that relevant anymore? I think that if global warming, and the general destruction of the environment wasn''t a factor, it wouldn't be idealistic to imagine that happening in less than a century. EVEN taking into acount greed, human self destruction instinct, wars, lobbies, etc... The progress is small, but real and undeniable. Unfortunately, there is this ecological problem creeping on us, looking like the one biggest menace the humanity has ever faced. Now I was thinking about what leo said about spiral dynamics applied to countries, and economics. The poorest countries, who are at stage red for example, must first developped a strong economy, a strong industry (stage orange) before than can even worry about the trees, the ice and the ocean. My question is, do we simply have enough time? How quick can a counrty, an economy move to a stage, implement it, digest it, and move on? Some countries are in such a diare situation, it would be so beautiful to see them blossom, one by one, and then move on to environmental issues... But it looks like the clock is ticking. What are your thoughts?

@aurum @LyubovI think you might have misanderstood what I was saying... I'm well aware of the problems that economic growth creates. To rephrase it for you : what's the path forward for the underevelopped countries then, how will they get the infrastructure that they need whithout adding to the dire situation?

@Lyubov So how does that translate in anything but a very sad scenario for the global warming...?

@wwhy A fairly interesting possibility, guess I'll have to amp up the meditation...

@Akira Sure "brown mouth" was a bit provocative, but the rest of it was not racist, and far more intelligent than the counterpart!

@Godhead It's true that there is little of it affecting me in real life, in a concret way... But when I see on twitter "death to white men" with upvotes, and no restriction, and then a comedian makes a silly joke about the jews and he's banned, cancelled, hated etc... I just think to myself, fuuuuck are we heading towards a white men holocaust? (Of course I'm being ultra hyperbolic here, I don't want to sound like I'm diminishing the holocaust) it's just that there something in this logic that reminds that to me.