something_else

With, girls pretty much. I've found the more thought I put into messages the less interesting girls find me over text. Texting with girls should be fun and light-hearted, not serious. If I'm discussing philosophy or spirituality or something with a friend, talking with work colleagues, or talking on a forum I put a bit more thought in.

I don't require it. It doesn't bother me if they take longer to reply. But, as a general rule the kind of conversations I'm having with girls are not ones where I'm putting more than a few seconds thought into each message, and it's the same from the girl.

Girls don't do this. If she doesn't reply for two days it means she probably isn't that interested, unless she has some like legit actual excuse. Most of the time I've found that girls that are interested and that I end up meeting will usually reply in like an hour or two MAX. I can't really think of any time a girl has waited two days in between texts and then wanted things to go any further. This is pretty demanding/needy for a girl who you're not that serious with. I don't think this will work in your favour. As a general rule anything intense like this turns girls off. You usually want to keep a light-hearted and playful vibe. What you did is kinda like saying "it's annoying me that you're not giving me attention, give me attention"

I actually agree with you. I don’t think it’s ideal either. I was really just playing a bit of devils advocate as to why it could be considered a reasonable opinion. And the Epstein example also came to me and I felt like sharing it too

Dude I never did that shit. Calm the mother F down.

??? I don’t understand the point you are making. Being in the background of Epstein’s selfie in the middle of a city is different from a photo explicitly taken by Epstein with you and him in it together, which is what we were discussing. If you are close enough with someone to where you and them are joyfully and willingly taking selfies together you probably share a lot in common with each other A better point for you to have made would be that based on my argument a photo Epstein forcibly took of you and him without your consent is grounds for being cancelled, which of course it isn’t but that might be harder to prove.

Those values are then just learnt at higher levels of abstraction. And they’re open to more people. What you are doing is literally just gatekeeping, I’m sorry. There’s no other way to put it. ”Those AI artists making better art than me with less effort aren’t real artists”

Leo's video thumbnails are like one of the only things I can think of right now that could probably be totally replaced by an AI artist. AI art is exceptional when you want a single image that looks impressive, needs to vaguely represent a topic, but doesn't have any extremely specific details or requirements that require human levels of communication. More power to him if that's what he's doing. A good artist would see this as a new tool to enhance their work. To follow your chess analogy, many great chess players use chess computers to enhance their own skill. AI is a tool used extensively by the masters of chess. Our goal should be to make fields easier to get into, not gatekeep new people from joining a field by keeping it artificially difficult. What you are doing is just a really silly form of gatekeeping.

I mean, the same happened with people photographed with Epstein and in that case it's a pretty valid concern. You can judge people by who they associate with. Obviously Tate isn't on the same level as Epstein but he still definitely has enough toxic views that you could question the views of people who are spending a lot of time around him.

You shouldn't feel guilty. Guys mostly need to learn to accept this and not care rather than getting upset by it

This isn't even a read-receipts issue. This is separate. Read-receipts could not exist and the person in this context could just have stopped replying out of nowhere and it would have created the same result. Being left on read hurts like hell until you get desensitized to it. But yes that is all in the context of the initial phase of a relationship where there is little commitment or trust and you are just starting to message each other. Obviously doing that to someone you have already established a relationship with is toxic and wrong. I don't think anyone disagrees on that. But it's a much rarer and separate issue. For a guy you're going to get ghosted and left on read by like 85%+ of the girls you start texting so you have to become desensitized to it.

I've left people on read and not responded. Most of the time it's because there was clearly no chemistry and I wasn't interested in the person and they probably felt the same way. I don't see why you'd bother reading a message and then not just replying pretty quick. The excuse of "sometimes I'm busy" which I've heard as a criticism of read receipts is irrelevant because you just wait until you're not busy to open the message to begin with. IMO that actually encourages you to be slightly more organic in your conversations rather than spending ages constructing messages. Texting is supposed to be organic and off the cuff most of the time If a person freaks out about you leaving them on read for whatever reason then that's their issue. With girls it might even help you although that's a tad manipulative. I just don't see how it's that big of an issue

Emulating his traits is like selling your soul to the devil. Yea maybe you're gonna attract more girls, but at what cost? It's like redpill. Yea it works, but now you're also a far more toxic human as a whole which hurts your satisfaction in the long run even if it gets you more sex. You can get better with girls by doing really basic shit, you don't need to follow loud dudes online preaching the world to you. You see pretty normal dudes doing really well with girls and almost none of them are following Tate or redpill. They just have basic social skills and aren't weird. That's pretty much all you need to have successful relationships with girls. Leo gives a good and balanced perspective on it, which is why I quite like his advice. You'll get further by learning to be a chill, fun, interesting, confident and authentic dude than you will by learning to present a falsely hyper-masculine asshole persona to the world.

Trust me, they are not thinking asexually. Even if they act asexually. Again, it's possible. You just have to pick guys who are capable of it and they're going to need to be guys who are secure and satisfied in their sexuality.

I don't think having them or not having them would actually alter anyone's texting that much. It's frustrating because getting left on read is frustrating. It's much nicer to just get blanked with absolutely no response than it is to get left on read. After it happens to you a lot you stop caring. Or if you have enough abundance you stop caring. On WhatsApp you can use your phone's notifications to read messages without actually marking them as read, and you can also hold down on the convo (on iPhone) to temporarily view it without marking it as read. On Snapchat you can swipe and hold into the convo to read it without marking it as read. Which I know a lot of people do. So there are ways around read receipts if you really need that. Ultimately when it comes to a girl though, whether there are read receipts or not isn't going to change whether she's attracted to you or not. It simply determines how frustrating it is to your lizard brain when she rejects you by leaving you on read.

It’s not universal. I’m just saying that on average guys who are starved of sex are gonna struggle more to maintain non-sexual friendships with girls.

This is basically admitting you don't know that many women in real life, and that most of your ideas about women in the modern world are from the internet The problem is that often the very guys who this would apply to are so desperate for sex and female love that they struggle to see women as friends in a non-sexual way. Being able to hold a friendship with a woman as a guy often first requires that your own sexual needs are met. It ends up being a bit of a catch 22.

Climate change movements don't need attention, everyone knows about climate change. What we need is more people on board with it. Stuff like this just makes people not want to associate with movements like that because humans are hard-wired to avoid crazy/unpredictable humans who act out. Yea, but pulling shit like this is going to make those people even less likely to change their mind because now they can point and say "look how crazy the people in your movement are! we are right for not supporting it!" People want to support movements that are strong, marketed well, and make them feel like they are a part of something important. They are hard-wired to avoid crazy. What they did gives off very "I didn't get my way so now I'm acting out" vibes which the exact people they are trying to inspire change in (mostly older conservatives) absolutely hate. Obviously this isn't ideal, but it's how it is and most likely always will be. So any movement for change has to be more skilful in producing change than just childish outbursts like this. It's about marketing. Stuff like this influences humans in very subtle ways. It isn't really conscious. Just like how coke don't want their ads showing on controversial YouTube content. Consciously that seems dumb but sub-consciously your mind makes associations that hurt the organisation.

The thing is for many guys he does provide counterbalance. Most people need to go through a stage of selfishness and taking as much as they can get before they can transcend past that and move into the realm of responsibility and maturity. The one argument in favour of him I support is that if you are a weak, shy, quiet, meek guy, most of what he teaches you will drag you in the other direction, which is healthy character development. In SD terms he helps guys with seriously under-developed Red (which is common nowadays) develop it. But beyond that most of the stuff he is teaching is really pretty immature and grifty. And he clearly has some Betty very toxic viewpoints as well

I’m happy for you Again it’s just the wording that irked me. “Depression isn’t real because it went away” Like I’m not even sure what you mean. Obviously depression is real. If you had it for ages it’s real in some sense. Just because something helped it doesn’t mean it suddenly isn’t real and doesn’t exist. That’s very bizarre logic

It was more the strong vs weak man comparison I was talking about rather than masculinity. Telling women that they don’t need to be scared of strong men and they do need to be scared of weak men is just a bit vague and useless because you’re not really clear about what you mean by strong and weak. But you worded it like it was just plainly obvious information. “I don’t know how many times this needs to be said” and that was what irked me a bit

That’s a lot like saying the sun isn’t real because it vanished at night

Yea because strong masculine men never do anything threatening towards women. /s

Which of course, you are

It actually does the opposite. It makes people hate your group and world view more, even if you are supporting valid causes.