something_else

Go to places with lots of girls and talk to them, and repeat. Clubs are a good place to start. You will learn 10x more through practice than listening to game coaches online. I guess it can help, but it's easy to fall into the trap of over-consuming theory.

Lots of people are driven by trauma on both sides. I'm not saying anti-feminists are driven by trauma, I'm saying you're driven by trauma. There are healthy criticisms of feminsm, and anti-feminism, but to make healthy criticism you need to be detached instead of heavily emotionally invested in one side. And, I'm not saying anything is evil. I don't think you are an evil sexist man, I just think you have had unfortunate experiences that have steeped you in this negative bias towards progressive people. It's you that talks like the feminists are an evil force coming to get you. That's why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you, because it's so plainly an unhealthy way of viewing the world. If you're not even willing to seriously consider the positive and healthy arguments of the opposing side, you are truly lost. You're on a self-development forum. The whole point of being here is to try and rise above our biases and develop empathy/understanding/consciousness. I don't even know what you're talking about here. It seriously makes me question where this lived experience is coming from and in what environments, because if you talk to lots of people, especially women, you see that most women don't go around trying to destroy the masculine/feminine dynamic, yet would also call themselves feminists. You're shadow boxing a strawman of feminism in your mind that sounds like it's been heavily constructed by consuming anti-SJW content online. Anyway, I'm done here. I don't see a point in discussion with someone who is so closed minded that they reduce the entire opposing side's argument to daddy issues.

Or maybe you don't know what works? You should always be open to that possibility instead of being stubbornly convinced that you know everything. Most people here are suggesting to you that the way you are thinking about this issue is quite toxic, and likely based on some kind of trauma. You even acknowledged that. But then you still stick hard to this conspiracy about the feminists coming to ruin your life. A great practice to build up some empathy and understanding for the opposing side is to build a steelman argument for it. Actually sit down and really try hard to write up all of the good points that 'the feminists' make, try to understand why they feel the way they do and why they are so passionate about their cause. You can't reduce it to 'all the feminists are evil' because that would be equivalent to you saying that half of the Western world are evil and morally inferior to you. Is that really a POV you think you can justify? If not, they must have some driving force behind them that is not evil. If you think you are capable of critical thinking (which I absolutely think you are) you should not have any trouble seriously considering what that might be. I'm not suggesting you post it or anything, just that you seriously try this out yourself and see what happens. It's what caused me to stop being a hardcore anti-fem person. The anti-SJW content on YT completely indoctrinated me when I was younger, but doing this helped me build empathy and un-indoctrinate me. I would recommend it.

@mr_engineer You sound like you’ve been hardcore traumatised by a woman you perceived as feminist. You sound like you go to bed at night quivering in fear over ‘the feminists’ coming to get you, which is trauma. If you really did get wronged by someone who think is a feminist that’s really terrible and I feel for you, but you need to realise that’s based on trauma, it’s not representative of most women. ’The feminists’ are mostly just normal women who want to be treated fairly instead of patronised and treated like unintelligent children who need to be coddled. It honestly sounds like you’re fighting a battle in your mind with an evil strawman of feminism that has been constructed in your mind over many years, and then you paint yourself as the victim of this strawman coming to get you.

I mean I agree with you here for the most part, but we’re not talking about hypothetical futures, we’re talking about statistical observations that you can make about current society and the levels of bias present in them. Right now, an individual that says “men are taller than woman” is not likely biased against women. But an individual who says “men are smarter than woman” likely is biased against woman. The discussion is about levels of bias in an individual in our current society with our current genetics for male and female. Yea of course if you had long enough you could breed anything you want into existence, following your logic you could even breed gestation out of woman, and so even that is a ‘bias’ to say that woman gestate. But that’s on the scale of many many lifetimes and not really relevant or practical to our current discussion.

Are you regularly talking to people from Mars? 99% of people you ever meet are going to understand that you mean on average when you say that, they’re not going to think you’re “being biased against women” Humans can barely even define what intelligence is. Most intelligence metrics we have focus on dry logical intelligence which is super fucking narrow. The point I was making is that the first of those statements is easily statistically probable while the second is a massive grey area. Because it’s such a grey area, people’s bias comes into play far more when they form a conclusion or opinion.

Saying men are taller than women is not bias. That sentence implies on average men are taller than women, which is statistically just true. It’s not biased against women. Saying men are smarter than women is bias. Because we have no clear cut way of measuring that and saying it’s true, so someone is using their preconceived anecdotal notions about men and women to make that conclusion, which is the definition of bias.

Its hard to argue that men being on average physically stronger than women is a bias. Or that men are taller on average is a bias. The gestation isn’t the only clear cut difference. It’s when you get into the territory psychological differences that everyone has a different opinion and someone’s bias comes into play a lot more.

Like which ones? The benevolent sexism ones are easier to argue truth for. The hostile sexism ones are the ones that if you are finding yourself agreeing with them consistently you might have some shit to work out…..

I agree with you about PHP 5 being insecure. Obviously that’s not ideal, but it’s unrelated to the file your AV picked up. Actualized.org is not likely to be attacked via CSRF, because it has nothing that would be valuable for an attacker to trick your browser into doing. The worst would be like an attacker tricking your browser into making a post here maybe?? Or changing your password? But the chances of these forms being vulnerable are unlikely. They will be using CSRF protection, which is what that csrfKey thing is related to. The CSRF key in that JS URL would not be able to contribute anything towards a CSRF attack. A CSRF attack does not need a CSRF token. It can be done specifically because a website is NOT using those CSRF tokens in the right places. A CSRF attack is also not going to be able to trick your browser into mining cryptocurrency. Those are unrelated threats. And your AV identified that file as a potential miner anyway, not CSRF vulnerability. The threat we are discussing here would be some JS someone had managed to get loaded in your browser on an actualized page that wasn’t intended to be there. It’s not related to backend PHP vulnerabilities. From looking at that file, there is nothing suspicious happening in that particular JS file. It’s all stuff that looks related to the forum software actualized.org uses. If there was specific miner code, your AV would have identified that exact JS file that was running the miner code instead of just a trace of it. Lots of AV identify false positives. It’s common. That is very likely what happened here. Not everything your AV points out is an actual threat. And it would have to be a serious, serious vulnerability in your OS/browser that allowed a process to use your CPU without it showing up in activity monitor or task manager. Everything in a tab in modern browsers is sandboxed inside a specific process you can monitor and see if it’s using a lot of CPU. Bypassing that is not something a random JS miner online is going to be able to do.

It’s not even obvious what CSRF attack an attacker would actually want to run on the profile page specifically. CSRF attacks involve tricking a user/browser into submitting a request they didn’t mean to, bad ones would be like a password/email change, but those are almost certainly protected by CSRF tokens in professional software like this. See below, especially the “impact” section https://portswigger.net/web-security/csrf But there are no such forms available on that profile page that would be a CSRF risk. And it’s not clear how that JS would play a role either. Generally it would be another website that told the users browser to make a request to a vulnerable actualized.org action/form which does not verify a CSRF token. That’s how CSRF attacks usually work. That JS file is very likely part of the forum software that actualized.org runs on. It’s not maliciously placed there.

I was saying that the /phpinfo.php route should be protected and not publicly visible. Most websites that run PHP hide that info because it’s very valuable for an attacker, actualized.org should have it secured. However I think the chance of that JS file being a miner is pretty low. I had a good look through it and I can’t see anything that suggests it’s dangerous, I work with PHP and JS pretty much every day as web developer. You can also see here that it was identified but marked as not a threat https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/sample/5ac82f8848374af9e726d97ab93344a95948a5b99768358b749246ddede31a18 It’s likely a false positive but still worth pointing out. That javascript_core library is used on lots of forums if you Google for it. They are likely all using the same forum software as actualised. And a ‘CSRF token’ is there to prevent CSRF attacks, not cause them

If there were no differences between men and women, there would have been no point for two different biological sexes to evolve. The degree of difference is what’s up for debate. The differences are on a spectrum, so some women will be stronger than men for example, but on average men are physically stronger because of natural hormones that average biological men have more of. It gets very fuzzy when it comes to mental traits though because the human brain is so flexible. That’s where sexism has a tendency to arise and become problematic.

Lol, you should not be able to view the phpinfo of a website that’s not ideal, neither is running PHP 5 I’m pretty sure that JS script is not a miner, you can see other references to that javascript_core thing online where it’s identified as a false positive. But you were definitely right to point it out @thepixelmonk even if you’re right, there’s no need to be a dickhead about it. I often find myself agreeing with you but you always have such a hostile tone that just isn’t necessary

People make it an ideology. But it likely is possible to deconstruct most of your ideologies, it just takes a lot of effort. So most people who are telling you they don’t have one are full of shit

I got 20% benevolent and 0% hostile. IMO the worldview that the researchers have is that there is no difference at all between men and women, which is the main criticism I have. There are subtle differences and pointing that out is not really sexism.

I’m not saying it can’t work, but it requires some setup. Just randomly calling a girl you don’t know well and haven’t met a few times in person is usually pretty badly received. Zoomers notoriously hate talking on the phone with strangers lol Ive called girls before but it was after texting them and then agreeing to call, I didn’t just unexpectedly call

If you’ve taken those mushroom dosages before you’ll likely be totally fine on the full tab assuming good set and setting

I’ve taken LSD maybe 10 or so times, (ranging in dose from 100ug to 400ug) and I wore contacts every time. I’ve never had any issues, and I’ve never worried about falling asleep in them because I usually can’t sleep for quite a while after taking acid anyway. I usually replace them with glasses towards the end of the trip like I do late in the day even when sober, or my eyes start to dry out. My only concern would be if you had monthly lenses, taking them out carefully while on acid might be pretty awkward. But I have disposables so I can just take them out and chuck them away.

Ehh. Voice notes maybe. Full on calling a girl you don’t know that well out of nowhere can come across as a bit too much, especially for girls in my age range of like 18-25

The only reason this stuff makes the news is because they are unique cases. What you are doing is very similar to not getting on a plane because you read about 50 plane accidents a year in the news, despite the fact there are like 20 million safe flights every year. To me it seems more like you prefer sitting complaining about society and how biased against men it is because it gives you an excuse not to actually take any action. “Oh, I’m justified in not taking action to improve my dating life because I don’t want to end up in jail for sexual assault because society doesn’t like men” is the impression you are giving off

You're pedantically focusing on OPs technically incorrect use of the word install, but it's pretty obvious what OP was talking about. You can infer from context that he is talking about malicious/trojan JS being downloaded and executed behind the scenes on the website. He even uses the correct word 'injected' in the post you quoted originally to give him a hard time about using the word 'install'. That original post more gives me the impression that you misunderstood what was happening, and you're clinging to the fact that he technically used 'install' incorrectly to avoid admitting that. Maybe because English isn't his first language If it was theoretical, no one would do it. But lots of people do. If you have 10k users running that script it will generate some income. There was talk of using that to replace ads on websites at one point. There is always a tradeoff between being too strict and too lenient with AV. If you are too strict, you get lots of false positives, if you are too lenient you get lots of false negatives. Considering the cost of a false negative (real virus not being found) can be very high (identity theft, money theft, theft of your computer resources, leaked passwords, keylogger, nudes sent to the entire world, blackmail, etc. etc.), good AV often errs on the side of caution and provides more false positives.

@thepixelmonk Websites mining cryptocurrency when you visit is absolutely a thing. And it is absolutely possible for it to be injected into a site, too: https://blog.sucuri.net/2018/10/obfuscated-javascript-cryptominer.html https://threats.kaspersky.com/en/threat/Trojan.JS.Miner/

In my experience they are often only for unity as long as it doesn't encroach upon their lives i.e. "gay people can get married, but I think it's disgusting when I see two men kissing on my TV, keep it to yourselves". That's a very common conservative viewpoint which shows the issue. It's a superficial unity. Unity and inclusivity has to be an active process because it goes against humanity's natural tendency to exclude people, and most conservatives love excluding people. The communism that the world has seen has been deeply SD stage Blue. It wasn't really progressive or liberal. It was on the same level of authoritarian consciousness as religions were. You can be conservative and developed, but most conservatives are not developed. Right now the average conservative in younger generations end up following the alt-right, or Tate and other such influencers. In older generations, the average conservative votes for Trump or Brexit. Conservatives have a really hard time integrating stage green in particular.

Sorry, I don't think you understood my point. Maybe I didn't explain it well so I'll try again: Most marriages are crap. They start out good, but they deteriorate into a toxic mess that would be better for both parties if they divorced. In stage blue cultures this is very tough because the community oriented nature of the stage means that they can't really divorce out of fear of judgement from whatever stage blue institutions they belong to. Most stage blue institutions essentially disallow or highly discourage divorce. However orange/green culture cares far less, and allows divorce in these situations. A lot of the bureaucracy that makes divorce so messy and biased is actually coming from stage blue which assumes that women are always better at raising kids, and that a man must always support his housewife. I've only ever heard you say negative things about green. In fact, you seem to me to be a quite a negative person overall. And you also seem to me to be more egoic than most other people on the forum who likely all put themselves around green/orange with a smidge of yellow. To me it seems like you are framing yourself as yellow because you want to classify your own stance and opinions as above those of others, not because you are truly neutral and holistic in your analysis of situations. These are simply my impressions. Maybe I'm wrong and my puny tier 1 brain can't understand your gigabrain tier 2 thinking. I suspect that is what you will tell yourself reading this. But personally, I think you still have a lot of growth to do (as do almost all of us on this forum) before you can start calling yourself truly tier 2. I'm saying this hoping maybe it helps you to stop sounding less of an arrogant dickhead, because that's sort of the impression you are giving off to others right now and it doesn't benefit you at all.