something_else

Probably not as rare as a plane crash but rare enough you shouldn’t worry about it. The chance of you being retroactively accused of rape after sleeping with a girl consensually in a western country is really, really, really low. A women has so little to gain from making such a false accusation and it would be an exceptionally involved and stressful process. Also, see here https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape “Research has shown that false allegations of rape are rare. A CPS report published in 2013 showed that over a 17-month period, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and, during the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape.” Women need to be far, far more concerned with actually being raped (probably on the order of 100x more concerned) than you do with being falsely accused. So the system needs to be somewhat biased in women’s favour, as a perfect system is impossible. Your biggest risk is misjudging a situation and making an unwanted escalation. But women are not evil. They understand that guys misjudge. If a women tells you to get lost after you make an advance and you leave her alone, 99%+ of the time you’ll be fine. The guys who get into trouble are the ones who don’t understand what no means and either keep trying or throw some kind of hissy fit at being rejected. If you learn how to properly sense whether a girl is into you or not, learn how to properly escalate, and understand when to give up and move on, you are so so unlikely to run into any issues. I think your issue is that you’re calibrated mostly by what you read online rather than mostly by real life experience, which has put the fear of god into you. Because only the bad stories get circulated on the internet so it isn’t a fair representation of reality. It’s essentially selection bias.

You can learn all of what it has to offer without immersing yourself in its culture. The culture of redpill is mostly designed by sketchy grifters to prey on desperate men

And there's the trauma

I'm pretty sure it's edited as well. It looks somewhat unnatural.

Throw a lot of logic out of the window and just learn to be playful and fun. Fun conversations are rarely about the content of what you're saying, they're usually about the energy between you. The hardest people to have conversations with are people who have no energy, not the people who have nothing going on in life. It's easier said than done. But the gist of it is getting out of your head, not thinking about the content of what you're saying too much, relaxing, and letting go of the logical flow of a conversation. Learn to make stupidly lateral connections from what a person says, don't answer literally, intentionally misinterpret what they say etc. etc. For example if someone told you they were a cashier rather than just saying "oh thats nice, I bet you have interesting stories about shitty customers" you could say "i bet you must fucking hate people with a job like that" with a playful energy which well then coax out those stories in a more entertaining way

I recommend typing with both hands on keyboard instead of one hand on keyboard and one hand on dick

From some quick googling, it looks like processed meats are worse, but even unprocessed red meats are also supposed to be carcinogens. However I am somewhat inclined to agree that it might be a worthwhile tradeoff when you are young if the energy benefits are so great. It's kind of tricky to judge.

Yea, the terms used for a lot of the emotions are kind of weird. Usually the 6 basic facial expression emotions are: sadness, happiness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust.

Is excessive red meat consumption not linked to a pretty significantly increased risk of cancer? That's just something I've heard, no idea if it's true. It might be something worth investigating.

32/36. I feel like it would be quite easy for someone with autism to learn what to look for to identify particular expressions, though. The TV show Lie to Me is a good example of that kind of thing. There is a whole coding system for identifying facial expressions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_Action_Coding_System Obviously a lot of people do it without needing to be so explicit, but I think even someone with autism could learn to pick up on those explicit patterns fairly naturally in a test like this.

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