something_else

I think in the first message it is suggesting that the humour comes from subverting the expectation that spiritual person wouldn’t want to watch porn, which is partially true I suppose. But the actual bull of the humour comes from the use of the word disabled which it doesn’t reference at all in its first response, so I would say it’s not really correct.

99% of human beings will rightfully roll their eyes lmao Are you coming at this from the perspective that ejaculating is 'losing the energy it takes to produce the semen' as a man?

If you are good looking but you make a girl feel awkward or uncomfortable when you go and talk to her she is still not going to dance with you. A lot of really good looking guys have natural confidence from their looks which is actually what benefits them so much, rather than just being good looking in and of itself.

It's insanely good at programming, and it understands almost every language and many frameworks in those languages. Not quite good enough that you could rely on it without some reasonable programming knowledge, yet, but it's not that far off.

Lmao. I think the thing that impresses me most about it is that it can iterate on its own work. And also figure out its own mistakes and fix them with minimal help. I noticed the same pattern when asking it programming questions. It would make a small mistake, and all you'd have to do is say "You were close but you made a small mistake" and it usually finds and fixes it just from that. If that doesn't work you might need to give it a small hint. It's so human-like in how it can assess its own responses, it's amazing.

It gets there eventually, but it requires a hint or two

You’ve had uniquely bad experiences. You should realise that this is trauma and not an accurate representation of the world.

Yea well he ain't known for being level-headed or backing down from a fight lol If you pick enough fights eventually you're going to pick a fight with an opponent you can't beat, and I don't fancy his chances against a corrupt government who clearly doesn't like him very much Hell, he picked a fight with a 20-year-old climate activist on Twitter and got his ass handed to him so...

This takes a lot of energy. You're better just having casual sex or a few FWB rather than multiple actual relationships. It's much less likely to hurt anyone and it's less manipulative too.

Well generally speaking crimes with intent to do wrong are treated more harshly than similar crimes of negligenge I honestly don’t see how you can make the comparison between Tate and Leo here. I think your values are just substantially different from mine and that’s why I can’t see it, which is fine. But I don’t think anything valuable will come from our further discussion here. I wish you the best in whatever path you decide to take in life

One has clear intent behind it and the other does not. That’s probably the main distinction

The video is 3.5 hours long. Very few people see that and say “yea I’m gonna watch that”, it’s basically anti-clickbait. There’s also nothing wrong with covering lots of different topics to reach a wider audience anyway. You gotta pay the bills. But actualized.org could probably start making absolute bank if Leo did not have any integrity and pumped out content that would gain more traction on YT.

If he really had this mindset, he’d just monetise and water down the crap out of his content and make it far more mass appealing. It’d make him tons of money and attract far more dumb people to follow him and hang on his word The fact he doesn’t do this is one of the reasons I put faith in his content

His comments about women/dating are probably the number one criticism Leo gets on here. Actually Leo gets criticised a fair bit on here thinking about it. I haven’t seen any especially bad comments about dating/women from Leo in a while so it seems like he at least has the ability to change his own behaviour. Same goes for the suicide issue. I haven’t seen any especially bad one liners that might directly inspire someone to do anything stupid in a long time. There are also many disclaimers that you should not follow actualized.org content if you’re not mentally stable and in a good place. I don’t really know what more he could do whilst also still teaching his ideas. There is plenty to criticise Leo for but it still feels like a stretch to say he’s on the same level of toxicity as someone like Tate. Certainly not 10x more.

Like with a lot of stuff when it comes to dating you really have to just use your judgement and common sense. I’d say the point at which someone stops being able to keep track of a conversation, or they start slurring their words, is really when you should 100% bail. But probably even before that if you’re stone cold sober. There’s a point when you’re drunk that alcohol switches from being a stimulant to a depressant, and that’s around the same point you should bail too. If that person still shows lots of interest, just get their phone number and message them when they’re sober too.

The videos of that supposedly consensual BDSM don’t look especially consensual. Or at the very least the girls don’t look or sound like they’re very into whatever is happening. It was an extreme example but it fits in with his personality and the ideology he sells. Pursue sex at all costs without any regard whatsoever for women as human beings with feelings. There are many catches. When it comes to dating, the advice he offers is basically rehashed redpill, which might get you results sure, but it will also do lasting damage to your ability to form healthy relationships and deep connection with women. Hence the selling your soul to the devil for sex comment. You can learn to be attractive and have tons of sex without having to learn all the redpill Andrew Tate shit. So if that is possible, why bother following Tate?

How exactly?? I think my viewpoint is fairly reasonable, maybe presented a little harshly which I’m sorry for. But otherwise I don’t think it’s so crazy that you can just dismiss it with “you don’t know what you’re talking about” Essentially my point is “you are going to be influenced deeply by all aspects your role models so choose them wisely” which is not unreasonable I don’t think.

I don't feel hate, so much as confusion at why someone would think Tate is a good role model. The aggressive speech is more of an expression of confusion rather than hate. Look mate, if you wanna place him as your role model you do you. But you're ultimately not going to be able to take only the good masculine qualities of someone like Tate and discard the rest of his toxic traits. It just doesn't work like that for someone with such extreme viewpoints. At least Leo is a more balanced individual overall. And Leo also hasn't committed any heinous crimes. You're going to get negatively influenced by that stuff if you follow him, just like you end up emulating your parents' traits without even realising, good or bad.

If you think Andrew Tate is a good role model, by all means follow his example. Just don't bitch and whine when you end up in jail for rape or find yourself miserable, and morally + spiritually bankrupt. Even if he has some good masculine traits, you can find role models with those from many other places without having to deal with all the toxic rubbish that comes with Tate. If you think you can follow him and only extract his good masculine traits without being toxified by the rest of his personality and ideology, more power to you, but you're probably wrong. People get influenced extremely easily by all aspects of their role models. It's basically selling your soul to the devil for pussy and money, and frankly you don't deserve respect as a man if you decide to be so shortsighted and shallow as to do that. And you might not even get the sex or money promised to you because he's basically a con-man who offers little of real value to you beyond potentially being someone who's behaviour you could emulate.

I think that she might end up getting hurt. A lot of girls have an instinct to try and convert you from being a player-type guy into being in a committed relationship if they really like you. If she's messaging you out of the blue many months later there's a chance she likes you more than she is letting on and is saying whatever she needs to in order to see you again Or maybe she does just want it to be casual. But I would certainly be careful.

This sounds kinda manipulative, idk. it’s possible you’re in the right and he’s being toxic but the way you frame things thus far doesn’t sound particularly healthy to me either A parent showing concern/caring over their child is pretty normal, especially when they are potentially moving in with someone new. It isn’t toxic for him to simply not like you. My ex’s parents didn’t really like me and you just kinda have to deal with it As a BF you should never try to intentionally distance your partner from their family, even if you don’t get on well with them. That’s their decision to make. You support and offer perspective/guidance, but you don’t manipulate or scheme

It's pretty normal for people to call their family members every day. My current GF speaks to her mum on the phone once or twice a day There are a few ways to frame this. Either it's a rightfully concerned Dad who cares about his daughter, it's just a Dad who wants to keep in touch with his daughter, or he's being overprotective and controlling. You haven't given enough context for anyone to tell which it is. And either way, it's not really your place to do anything about it. You shouldn't be trying to interfere in her family matters. You should support her in dealing with family issues, but not get involved

if he was compassionate he would break up with her

I don’t care how you mean it, it makes you sound like an asshole and you should know that you’re being manipulative and likely hurting this girl

If you are choosing to stay with a girl you don’t really like, or respect, that’s incredibly selfish. And when you combine that with talking about how enlightened you are… Well, you shouldn’t be with a girl who you consider below your standards. Let’s leave it at that