something_else

This is the funniest thing I’ve read today

yea, I think the fair conclusion is probably that neither of us were really in the right. It’s just a shitty turn of events I suppose, if the other girl had been into me it would’ve worked out better.

@Sucuk Ekmek @Carl-Richard Thanks for the re-assurance Well after he left we were alone sooo.... It's weird. Somehow the fact that all this happened made the sex soooo much hotter, which makes me feel like even more of a dick. Re-reading what I wrote, the only part of the narrative I left out is that much earlier in the night we'd agreed he would try to go for the girl I ended up with and I was gonna try to go for one of the other girls. But she wasn't interested in me in the end and the girl that we'd agreed he was gonna go for was. So I figure that makes it a bit worse. Or at the very least much more emasculating for him. I think you are right. I think that I could have handled it better when he came to me in the kitchen and maybe he would have been less upset. He wasn't really a loser. He doesn't seem to struggle with girls or guys too much. I think he'd just got his hopes up for this one girl and then got let down. I think if the roles were reversed, and I had to walk home alone knowing my friend was fucking the girl I'd got my hopes up for, I'd also feel pretty bad. We were actually pretty decent together as a team talking to girls, we had lots of fun and I am kind of sad that we won't be able to do it again.

No, no it is not ridiculous. Malls aren’t meant to be particularly sociable places and there’s a good chance you end up annoying or creeping girls out if you’re doing forward approaches. If you’re gonna talk to girls in a mall you gotta be more subtle, but honestly I wouldn’t say it’s a great place to begin with unless you have an actual reason to be there that isn’t picking up girls

Getting relaxed is pretty normal, it’s kinda the whole fuckin point

Why would your body care how much semen it has in it? Testosterone maybe but the amount of actual semen is not going to affect your mental well-being

If I remember correctly it produces semen at the same rate regardless of whether you ejaculate or not anyway

Those aren’t niggly little details, those are the entire basis of your argument. If you feel bad after cumming there is likely a reason for it, but your conclusion of physical energy loss seems very incorrect

Semen has like 5 calories and 200mg of protein per average ejaculation. You are losing as much energy and nutrients as a would be in like 5 cheerios.

I think it's pretty common for people to answer almost all personality tests with how they would like to be instead of how they really are, it's kind of a fundamental problem with them.

12/40 Though I feel like internally, I can be fairly narcissistic. But when I look at my external behaviour and how I act in the real world, I score quite low. I'm an only child, but I also would say I had bad social anxiety for my whole life, which as a combination might explain that. I also find it interesting how university students are getting increasingly more narcissistic as time goes on, according to the results page on that test.

He is an absolute dickhead of the highest order

Yea, the guy is a total tool. I do wonder how much blame the women involved should get. It's kinda hard to judge because I expect he used lots of really scummy methods to make them do his bidding. But at the same time I'm sure plenty were perfectly willing for the amount of money they made. I also find it exceptionally interesting to see how all of the dudes around him in that video react, or rather how they don't react. They don't seem to care or question him much at all. It's pretty disgusting.

It's not even that I think he'll get convicted for that necessarily, so much as it's a really good demonstration of how he incriminates himself just to show off. Here's the part of the 30 seconds or so of the video I'm talking about. You can watch the whole thing if you like. But this is the section where he literally and categorically admits to fraud. He said in one case a dude sent one of the girls working for him $1m. Don't know if it's true, but that's a lot of money for fraud.

There's a video of him literally admitting to scamming lonely guys. In it he talks happily about how he'd get Russian or Ukranian girls to meet American men online and ask them to send money for a visa, then if they agreed, they'd say they need a special visa that costs more because they are high risk, and if they agreed to that then they'd say they need money for a bank account they'll use when they arrive, and that they also need to buy flights etc. Then eventually they'd get like $10k from the guy. And he talks about it like this is just a normal ethical business that he's happily earned 10k in to split 50/50 with the girl. It's fraud and completely illegal. He just admits a lot of the sketchy shit he does to show off.

I don't think most suffering is the kind that produces deep trauma. Generally anything valuable that isn't immediate gratification requires some amount of suffering or sacrifice in order to obtain, for example. And most of that isn't traumatic.

It does, to a point. Suffering that induces deep trauma is probably not going to build character. Unless overcoming that trauma is something you put a lot of effort into. But the kind of suffering that is not going to give you any trauma is very good for personal growth and character building.

The thing is that unless you have the social parts of your life down, the higher consciousness parts are a lot harder to focus on. Well, for a lot of people anyway. Look at the hierarchy of needs. Sex and social security comes before actualisation. If you can’t focus on work because you want to explore sex, that’s not a bad thing. It’s your body telling you its priorities and you should listen.

Did you already cheat? Lol

Ask your roommate to take you out to meet girls, he’d probably make a good wingman lol Turn the jealousy into a strategic advantage

Realistically facing your fears is the only way to fix this. Yea, maybe if you improve your diet and work out it will help a little, but ultimately social anxiety comes from deep rooted trauma/fear. And the only way to overcome it is to face it and realise that people aren't something you need to be scared of.

It probably had content from this forum included in its training dataset. And possibly even YT transcripts. The dataset was largely scraped from billions of websites on the internet if I remember correctly lol

Yea it’s not perfect, but it is impressive. I thought I’d continue that chat with your response to see what I thinks of it It feels like it gets very close to agreeing but can’t quite make the final leap. I guess it’s a good thing. It tries to cover every perspective without agreeing too strongly with one or the other. ———- I would say that incompleteness does imply that reality is mysterious. Incompleteness is the very reason for mystery. If reality was complete it would could be fully explicated and therefore lack any mystery. Incompleteness = infinity = mystery It is a perspective that incompleteness implies that reality is mysterious. From this perspective, the incompleteness of any formal system, including those used in science and philosophy, highlights the fact that there may be truths about reality that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks. The limitations of our understanding, the incompleteness of the formal systems, might imply that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension and that's why it is mysterious. It's also true that incompleteness is closely related to infinity, and infinity is often associated with mystery and the unknown. From this perspective, the incompleteness of a formal system implies that there is an infinite number of truths and possibilities that cannot be fully comprehended or explained within the current framework. It's important to note that this perspective doesn't imply that reality is unknowable or that we should give up trying to understand it, but rather that it highlights the limitations of our current understanding and the potential for further discovery. It also doesn't imply that reality is inherently mysterious, but that our understanding of it might be incomplete, and that there might be aspects of reality that are beyond our current comprehension

It actually has a pretty good understanding of this. I had a chat with it the other day that was very very impressive, but it’s quite long. I think it would interest you though, it's related to content from a lot of your videos. It is biased towards science, but it can discuss other perspectives with some prodding. I'm particularly impressed with how it related Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to the discussion. It is a long chat but here it is anyway: -------------- What does the term 'God Realization' mean to you? "God realization" is a term that can have different meanings depending on the context and belief system it is used in. In general, it refers to the attainment of a state of understanding or awareness of God, or a higher spiritual power. In some belief systems, it is seen as the ultimate spiritual goal, and is often associated with enlightenment, self-realization, and union with the divine. Some people believe that God realization can be achieved through meditation, prayer, or other spiritual practices, while others may believe that it is an innate state of being that can be uncovered through self-discovery and personal growth. Some also believe that it is a state of consciousness that can be achieved through spiritual practices and that it allows one to experience the ultimate reality or the true nature of existence. It's important to note that the concept and meaning of God can vary greatly among different cultures, religions, and belief systems, therefore, the concept of God realization also can vary. What would a hardcore materialist think of that? A hardcore materialist would likely reject the idea of God realization, as they believe that the material world is all that exists and that there is no spiritual or supernatural realm. Materialists believe that the universe and everything in it can be explained by natural laws and physical processes, and that consciousness and mind are the result of physical brain activity. They would likely see the concept of God realization as a religious or spiritual belief that has no basis in reality. They would argue that the idea of God is a human invention and that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a higher spiritual power or ultimate reality. They would also say that the idea of God realization is unscientific and unprovable, and that it is not a concept that can be studied or understood through scientific methods. They would instead propose that the concept of God realization is an illusion, and that the ultimate goal of humans should be to understand the natural world and the laws that govern it. That's fair. What I don't understand is how something like consciousness could arise from atoms bouncing about. It seems impossible that something as unique and immaterial as consciousness could arise through the material world. The relationship between consciousness and the material world is a topic of ongoing debate in philosophy and science. Some scientists and philosophers argue that consciousness can be explained by physical processes in the brain, while others argue that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe that cannot be reduced to physical processes. Materialists, often called physicalists, propose that consciousness is a product of the brain's activity and can be explained by physical processes. They argue that the brain is a complex biological system that can generate experiences and thoughts, and that the mind is simply an emergent property of the brain. They also propose that the mind and brain are one and the same and that consciousness arises from the activity of neurons in the brain. On the other hand, there are theories that propose that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and cannot be reduced to physical processes. They propose that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and that it cannot be reduced to physical processes, that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality and that it cannot be explained by the material world alone. It's important to note that the question of how consciousness arises from the material world is still a topic of ongoing research and debate, and there is currently no consensus among scientists and philosophers. It's also important to note that many theories propose that consciousness is not just a byproduct of the brain, but it's an emergent property of the universe, that emerges from the complexity of the system, and the complexity of the brain is certainly a big part of it, but the question of how that complexity generates consciousness is still not fully understood. What would you say about the idea that consciousness is all that exists, and it is infinite in nature. As it is infinite in nature, it would contain all material reality including ourselves and our experiences. The idea that consciousness is all that exists, and it is infinite in nature, is a perspective known as idealism. Idealism is a philosophical perspective that suggests that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature, and that the material world is an illusion or a projection of consciousness. According to this perspective, consciousness is infinite in nature and contains all material reality, including ourselves and our experiences. This view holds that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe and that everything in the material world, including our bodies and physical objects, are simply manifestations or expressions of consciousness. This theory suggests that the material world is not independent of consciousness, but rather a product of it, and that everything that exists, exists only in the mind. It's important to note that idealism is a minority viewpoint in contemporary philosophy, and is not widely accepted by scientists and mainstream philosophers. The idea that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe, and that everything in the material world is simply a projection of consciousness is not a scientifically testable theory and it is not widely accepted by scientists and mainstream philosophers. It's also important to note that idealism, as any other theory, has its own set of criticisms and counter-arguments, and it's important to consider them before accepting any perspective. I would argue that philosophers and scientists may be biased by the material world and logic. Scientists and philosophers rely only on logical arguments, however the nature of reality may be beyond logic and require a more holistic or spiritual approach to understand fully It's true that scientists and philosophers rely on logical arguments and empirical evidence to understand the nature of reality. However, it's also true that some philosophers and scientists have proposed that the material world and logic alone may not be able to fully explain the nature of reality. They suggest that there may be other ways of understanding reality, such as through spiritual or holistic approaches. There are philosophers and scientists who propose that the limitations of logic and the material world should be acknowledged and that other ways of understanding reality should be considered. They propose that the universe might be more complex and mysterious than can be explained by our current scientific and philosophical understanding and that there are limits to what can be known through logic and empirical evidence alone. It's important to note that while some scientists and philosophers may be open to considering other ways of understanding reality, they still rely on rigorous testing and evidence to support their claims. They may be open to different perspectives, but still maintain that the ultimate goal is to understand the nature of reality as accurately and objectively as possible. It's also important to note that, as with any claim, it's important to consider the evidence and arguments supporting it, and to critically evaluate the assumptions and limitations of any perspective. What if the only evidence can be obtained through one's own direct experience? It is true that some philosophical and spiritual traditions propose that direct personal experience is the ultimate source of knowledge and understanding. They argue that knowledge obtained through logical argument, observation or scientific study is limited, and that direct personal experience is necessary to truly understand the nature of reality. This perspective is often associated with the field of phenomenology, which emphasizes the importance of direct personal experience in understanding the nature of reality and consciousness. However, it's important to note that direct personal experience can also be subject to bias and interpretation, and it can be difficult to verify or replicate. Personal experiences are also unique and individual, and not all personal experiences can be generalized to others. Additionally, scientific and philosophical inquiry rely on methods of observation, testing, and replication to establish evidence and knowledge. While direct personal experience can provide insight and understanding, it alone may not be sufficient to establish objective, verifiable knowledge. Therefore, it is important to consider both personal experience and logical argument, observation, and scientific study, to have a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of reality. Different perspectives and methods can offer different insights and understanding, and it is important to consider them all when trying to understand the nature of reality. What are the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem on this topic of discussion? Gödel's incompleteness theorem, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, states that any formal system that is powerful enough to express the basic concepts of number theory, such as addition and multiplication, cannot be both consistent and complete. In other words, any such formal system will contain statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system. The incompleteness theorem has implications for many areas of study, including mathematics, logic, and computer science. In the context of our discussion about the nature of reality and the limitations of logical argument and empirical evidence, it highlights the fact that any formal system, including formal systems used in science and philosophy, has limitations and cannot encompass all knowledge and understanding. It suggests that there may be truths about reality that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks of science and philosophy, and that there may be limitations to what can be known through logical argument and empirical evidence alone. The theorem does not disprove the materialism or idealism but it shows that there might be limits to the ability of our formal systems to encompass all the truth and knowledge about the reality. It's important to note that Gödel's incompleteness theorem doesn't imply that the reality is inherently mysterious or that there's no way of understanding it, but it points out that any system of understanding has limitations and that there might be truths that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks.

There are bots if you live in the worlds biggest cities but I’ve never had an issue with it. I doubt dates are being faked. And I’ve seen lots of places online hint at lots of female profiles on Tinder being completely fake and just added by Tinder so men have something to swipe on and feel sad when they don’t get matched, but I’m almost certain that isn’t true and is just cope. You can tell when profiles are real, especially since it’s a local thing. I know that tinder isn’t generating fake profiles with shitty in-jokes relating to the Scottish city I live in but most bios here have stuff like that Same goes for matches when paying for premium, they’re almost all real girls The manipulation is more in the form of manipulating your exposure level to girls and how it drip feeds you matches based on your activity and how likely it thinks you are to give them money