Something Funny

I've been on a second date with this girl, and it went really well in general. The talking felt natural and smooth, moments of silence weren't uncomfortable, she initiated a lot of discussions. But I still am not sure if she is into me romantically or if she sees me as a friend. And I don't know how to properly break this barier of physical touch. Do I just take a risk and grab her hand? Do I ask her about it? Important note is that she is from my work place, so I am afraid of being too bold with her.

@NewKidOnTheBlockdifferent people have different passions and interests in life.

@Emerald thank you

@Leo Gura +1 for the release

@Leo Gura unrelated but, do I understand correctly that if a girl agrees to go with you on a first date, then you are attractive enough for her looks wise, and it's just up to your game at that point?

I think he seriously overestimates how fast the progress will be with his claims about the future, But I think some surgeries can help you look a lot better if you happen to be the right person. Like if your teeth are all yellow and crooked, getting them straight and pearly white will make you look a lot better. I think I would look, maybe not a lot, but noticeably better if I removed my acne scars. I know for sure that I definitely look better now that I've had lasik surgery and don't need to wear glasses.

I actually wanted to avoid watching the full interview because I didn't want it to impact my mental health negatively, but then I've changed my mind. I have to say, it takes real mental effort to not get depressed when hearing all this.

No hate on him. But I just saw this video and wanted to share it. Do you think he is right? I feel like he is right in a sense that a lot of what he is saying about height, weight, looks, seems to come from his own direct experience of how he has been treated, even though he doesn't explicitly admit that. I don't think you get such negative views randomly and then randomly over-compensate by injecting steroids and becoming huge like a cow. He is clearly traumatized by his own life experiences. This was actual reality for him. All that is to say that you can choose to be an optimist and think positively. But the way attraction, looks, and dating work is pretty brutal and merciless in reality. And this is worsened by the social media brain rot and our low consciousness stage orange culture.

Uhh, my heart is going to break. She is so nice but I am afraid that she is not attracted to me romantically. How could she be...

I didn't say that it does. Crabs in the bucket. Suffering of existing people doesn't justify bringing more people in to take their burden.

@Emerald I will focus on the counter arguments, because like I've already said, everything else is noise and doesn't matter. I agree that global antinatalism to a point where everyone sits down and decided to go extinct is no realistic. And that trying to enforce it would also be disastrous. And also that people who feel morally superior because they are antinatalists and judge others for having kids are dumb. We don't have to argue about this. I am interested in knowing if the arguments I've mentioned for antinatalism are true or not. Agreed. And also doing something selfishly, doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to do. Robbing those potential people doesn't matter because they don't exist, they won't care if they would have enjoyed it or not. What matters is the opinion of people who do exist and who were brought here against their consent. And since on one side we have a lot of "potential people" who might have enjoyed life but whose opinion doesn't matter and a actual person who is suffering, and whose opinion matters because they exist, I could argue that we should prioritize playing it safe and not giving birth to anyone. I don't assume, they quite literally didn't consent. Unless we get into spirituality. If we stick to materialism, they didn't consent. None of them. Some of them happen to enjoy it here, some don't. What I am arguing is that you don't have a right to make that bet.

What you are missing here is that yes, in the short term people will suffer from lower birth rates. But this is a direct result of us being dependent on the infinite economic growth and not being able to redistribute wealth properly. It just highlights the bigger issue that we will need to overcome one way or another. It is super dumb that we are a 1000 times more productive per person then we used to be 200 years ago, but we still need to have positive birth rates to support ourselves and sustain the economy. It's literally a retarded. I don't count this as an issue with antinatalism.

@Emerald It doesn't matter how many people adopt it. I don't care about that. You are basically evaluating a philosophy by its popularity. What matters is if it's true. Is it true that having kids is unethical? I don't believe it is, but not because "it's a fringe ideology that will be ignored by people of low development". Yeah, and if they abolished slavery in feudal societies, they would also collapse, plunging into chaos. Abolishing slavery = more suffering. This shows the issue with our current economical system, not antinatalism.

@zurew ok, then we mostly agree on this, I think

@zazen get your epistemology right, then we can talk.