mr_engineer

And, don't take away people's right to have opinions just because they don't have your definition of results. I have my definition of results. They're just not that materialistic.

I'm not presenting myself as an authority on anything. And, I have 'spoken to women'. I know what they want. I'm just not there yet. Redpill is very easy to debunk. The theory itself is BS. Talk to women, you'll find out.

Don't make this personal.

Which woman told you that you are disposable?! Cuz this is not the kind of rhetoric women have, as far as I can tell. Not directly, at least. I have 'spoken to women in the flesh' and they have shown me the opposite truth. Try being vulnerable in a circle where it's actually appropriate. Yes, they exist. There you'll see the real deal!

IDing people on social-media defeats the purpose of protecting them from getting cancelled, actually. Because they are the same authorities imposing the rules that make cancellation toxic! And, of course, this is not going to have freedom of speech be a thing on social-media. Cuz cancel-culture actually works for them. If it didn't, they would've done something about it. But, it does. It does help the authority's position when Karen comes to them with a complaint. It gives them more work!! The real solution is for Karens to take responsibility for solving the problems they blame others for. To see not just the one racist person, but racism as a whole. To detach themselves from this issue/cause itself and to focus on actual solutions. This is the message that Karens need to hear, mainly. And, if you want to do your Karen-thing, don't talk in terms of statements, such as 'That's racist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.' and instead to talk in terms of questions, in which you're actually exploring the other person's perspective. You would have to disidentify from your idealistic morality, though, to do that.

A point about the critique of libertarianism - the reasons the anti-freedom people are saying that freedom is bad, is because they look at other anti-freedom people abusing freedom! When you abuse your freedom, you are anti-freedom. You cannot truly be pro-freedom until the day you are ready for all of its ramifications. Until that day, don't claim to understand libertarianism, cuz you don't. The first step to seeing this, is to see that criminals are also human beings. With opinions. And those opinions matter and they shape a lot of our society. A lot of our policing and governing. And that criminals are not pro-freedom! They want their own freedom and not other people's freedom, cuz they're low in consciousness. Whereas the actual libertarians want freedom for everyone and then, let the chips fall where they may. Cuz they truly believe that in the final battle, the good side will win. Whereas, the anti-freedom people believe that the bad side will win. That's the difference.

In theory, you are right. But, in practice, the people doing the cancelling aren't doing it as an expression of their own freedom. Because that would be hypocritical! What they're actively pushing for is a suppression of freedom of others. The height of selfishness is to say 'Freedom is bad, it's dumb, freedumb, blah blah blah' when you're for cancel-culture because you want to cancel Donald Trump, but when you're the target of cancellation because you propagated cancel-culture, to cry about your own freedom to cancel others. You lose the right to play the freedom card yourself when you're for cancel-culture. You are fundamentally anti-freedom. And then, when you play the freedom-card when it serves you, it is despicable. It shows an utter lack of principles, that you're not willing to respect other people's freedom, only other people should respect your own! You are the butt of the criticism of those who criticize libertarianism, when you play your freedom-card in this context. The point of playing the freedom-card is to free yourself and to help others escape from enslavement. It's not to defend hypocrisy. The way I see the people for cancel-culture, is that they are traitors to humanity. Snitches, essentially. Useful idiots who think they're morally self-righteous and have the right to take justice into their own hands. The Karen-meme fits that bill very neatly.

Do you people have any idea what's going on in right-wing media cuz of this censorship?! They're calling this a 'communist takeover'. That played out during and after COVID. And if this keeps going, it won't be long before some of them will declare revolution. If you guys care so much about 'right-wing extremism and violence', own your responsibility in creating that. You can't just keep living in your little bubble of la-la land and expect that it will never be broken if you don't look outside of it. Having free-speech is so important to solve the problem of echo-chambers. You guys can call them 'safe-spaces' if you want, but that's what they really are. Echo-chambers.

Banning dissenting opinions is one of the weakest, most pathetic, most cowardly b*tch-moves I've ever seen. It's the move of someone who can't have a civil debate, so we storm out of the room. And we don't admit to the way we've abused the public. In fact, this is the only way they get to stay in their little bubble of la-la land, where everything's perfect. The lockdowns are perfect, the jab-enforcements are perfect, the sanctions are perfect, the wars are perfect. The moment they let in public opinion, their voice (rightfully so) gets drowned out! There is a section of people that is particularly furious about the social-media censorship. Censorship of people losing their jobs/businesses cuz of the lockdowns, losing their lives cuz of the jab, Ukrainian soldiers complaining about the bad American gear, the drowning out of the big protests in Europe against climate-change moves, etc. And if Elon didn't make the free-speech move, even if only in name, something bad would've happened.

About this whole 'hate-speech' thing - we like to believe that our side isn't engaging in hate-speech. That 'it's only the other side that does this, we never do it'. By this point, it's very obvious to me that the mainstream hates the straight, cis, white guy. Will Leftist Twitter ban the haters of this group? No! We like to be 'against hate-speech', but we will apply that selectively. The worst problem with the Left right now, is that they're making 'freedom' a bad word. And compliance and blind obedience and submission to authority, a good thing. That's 'socialism' in a nutshell, essentially. Use the government to do everything. And 'free speech' is a very bad thing! How will we get a word in if you get to speak?! So, what we have to do, is silence you. (Because we're full of shit. And when the truth has its day, our bullshit gets drowned out. Bad for us.) This prevents a civil, level-headed discourse relative to social-issues. And it furthers the separation between the Left and the Right. Favoring the elites, of course. Cuz their job hinges on you being divided. If the world becomes peaceful and free, government isn't needed anymore!! Authority isn't needed anymore.

Or, they could deliberately push hate-speech to make free speech sound like a bad thing. To censor people further so that in future agendas, more NPCs will oppose free speech. And they can silence legitimate dissent that way. Twitter was already pretty bad with the censorship.

I only know about my own experience, to be honest. Boobs are a thing for me, ass isn't. When I looked into why this was the case, turned out that it's cuz my mom has this body-type. If my mom fully self-actualized her femininity, then this would be her strength in the looks-department. We also tend to want women who are improved versions of what our moms are. For example, if your mom was fat and she was insecure about that, you will want a woman who is slim! If your mom wasn't insecure about it, you won't mind a fat woman. The regrets your mom has relative to her lack of self-actualization will heavily reflect your preferences in women. And, the morality of which woman is 'good for you', comes from your mom. Not your dad, your mom. Her morality heavily influences your choices. (The morality of which career is good for you comes from your dad, but that's another story)

@Yarco The question said 'a specific person'. You can attract someone who will give you what you want! But, when you're asking for a specific person, you're operating from the illusion that they're real. When they're not. When you admit that they are an illusion, this gives the universe a lot more options for creating the illusion that'll give you what you want. And manifesting that for you!

No. Because 'other people' are an illusion. You can attract whatever gets you towards enlightenment, towards realizing the Absolute Truth.

@LordFall A huge part of your personality is in your creative-capacities. Human beings are fundamentally creators. So, when you talk about dating, it's all about what value can you bring into the other person's life. This is largely reflected in your work. Cuz work is all about creating and selling value. What kind of mind do you have?! Is it a judgemental mind, i.e. the mind of a narrative-creator, or the mind of a believer? What needs do you have from other people? What do you look to other people for? That is its own rabbit-hole. And this is the meat of the work when it comes to compatibility. When I say 'religion', I mean, your actual belief-system relative to God. If you don't agree on that front, you won't 'get' each other.

@LordFall It's not the frivolous shit like 'tastes and hobbies'. What's infinitely more important is your personality, which is very much defined by your survival-strategy/your work. Your priorities in life, your values, even your religion and politics. Dating is no joke, it involves an integration of pretty much all aspects of your life. Redpill does kinda explain the status-quo right now, where blonde busty slim girls are high-value simply because of what they look like. Because we live in a shallow world. As our level of consciousness rises, that's changing! And, by the way, that is flat-out wrong. The personalities of those women really matter too! It's not just how they look. If one of the women with the body-type you described wears clothes that fit her, she'll be a lot more attractive than someone with the same body-type, but who wears loose, baggy clothes. The whole thing about body-type is really overblown. The reality is that different individual men prioritize different aspects of the female body, depending on what their mom looked like. You can extend this to women with all body-types. For example, fat, Hispanic women. Same thing applies to them too!

@LordFall You are right about the transactional aspect. Here's the thing, though - that's not what most adults are doing on dating-apps. They aren't actually making mature decisions! Including redpillers. They have certain personal preferences that they have rationalized into a theory. And, this transaction is highly specific to individuals. Commodities, by definition, are replicable. And replaceable. But, the reality of people, is that every person wants unique things and every person has something unique to offer. So, the whole issue becomes about compatibility. And, generalized theories painting everyone with one brush-stroke aren't very effective for that.

Wait. Dude. Don't pay! Treat a friendship like a friendship. If you cross the line but they aren't, you're being a simp now! If it bugs you to lead, don't do it. There are no stakes in a friendship, you can do whatever you want. That's the point of doing it this way! These are toxic people that you should cut out. And work on yourself on your own time. Find better friends who treat you respectfully like a friend. Toxic people should not deserve your friendship, much less your romantic partnership. Meet more people if you have to, honestly. This thread is about the utility of friends, so that's what I talked about. But, this does not negate working on your game and developing your masculinity. Edit : Don't use the friendship-thing as a coping-mechanism for the lack of a romantic-relationship. To me, it sounds like you're trying to turn a friendship into a romantic-relationship because you're not admitting to the reality of what you want. Maybe stop hanging out with these 'friends' and work on yourself on your own time. work on your game.

Yes. They do have a lot of value. You get to practice offering them what you'd like to offer to a woman in relationship. And, you get to practice the relationship-dynamics with them (especially the kind you're mentioning) that you'd like to have with a woman. The way I managed my relationships with women, was that I had a few of these friendships first, that I made use of as mentioned above. Then, I really started thinking about romantic-relationships and what exactly I want from women sexually. I'm in that phase right now. Then, I'll actually start dating! The transition in which you let go of your friends and try to replace them with a romantic-partner, can be painful. Cuz you're going to have to implement all of that stuff that you learn about relating to women in general, in the context of game. It'll feel like a big risk to you. But, it will be very rewarding!

@Consept We can speculate all we want about who cavewomen were attracted to based on who they ended up being with. But, the fact of the matter is - we don't know, cuz they were never asked what they're into.

What I'm concerned with isn't what they're attracted to per se, but who they choose to be with and why. Fine, redpill may have the ability to rationalize what they're attracted to, in general. But, I don't see having a one-size-fits-all standard for 'masculinity' as beneficial. Especially when women's choices are a lot more subjective and the trends in those generally come from patriarchal conditioning. Ultimately, I imagine that this is what redpill aims to theorize about, right?! About women's choices.

@Consept All I'm saying is that biology isn't the absolute truth. Most of this is bro-science. And, I wouldn't take these theories too seriously. Yes, there are trends in that men are attracted to big boobs, big ass, a certain type of figure. Trends. Not absolutely, there are variations and the reality is that you're attracted to the woman who has the body-type of your mother, but culturally, we have defined certain beauty-standards. And redpill is essentially a rationalization of these trends in scientific terms. You change the data, the theory changes. Tomorrow, if there's a new trend of men being into short-haired women, I'm 100% sure there will be some counter-theory to redpill justifying that. It's mostly mental-masturbation and I don't take it seriously. The important part is the part about hypergamy. That's highly controversial. And it raises questions about women's fundamental conscience relative to loyalty and female animal nature. The 'bluepillers' believe that you get a good job, stable income and you get a woman and you get to raise a family. But then, when their women cheat on them or shit goes wrong, they become 'redpilled', where they look for justifications in 'female nature'. Do keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff about sex itself that redpill doesn't account for. For example, there is a section of men who are into cuckoldry. Redpill will look down on them and say 'that's dysfunctional'. Really?! Are you sure?! It's pretty narrow. What you really need, are sources of information coming from conscious women who can keep their personal biases in check, telling men what women want. They tell an entirely different story, trust me. Edit : All this while, we have been assuming that the heteronormativity of this ideology isn't a problem. Which it actually is.

Most women who are genuinely feminine have a relatively low bar for genetics. Yes, you can build your body and stuff, and that matters, but that isn't as much genetics as your own work. For unconscious women, for women who are unconscious of their femininity, yes. I really do think that it is completely down to their social conditioning. Can't be otherwise. And there is no autonomy on that front. Cuz consciousness is a pre-requisite for autonomy. The reality is that most women don't use their brains in the way they choose men. It's totally feeling-based. And their feelings towards someone will be based on their mental-associations, which come from conditioning. What I'm essentially saying is that women who are unconscious of their feminine power are lost in the patriarchy and aren't living in reality about men, which is why they concoct all kinds of stories and rationalizations for why they choose the men they choose. None of which are true. And this, ironically, includes feminists.

What you're saying is true for men. Men's attraction towards women is purely physical. Because, the masculine epistemology is facts-first. Aka, masculine individuals see the world in terms of 'facts'. But, feminine epistemology is feelings-first! This is another mistake that redpill makes in understanding female attraction. What if, this is what women are actually attracted to?! Someone who can meet emotional-needs such as safety and closeness and intimacy?! And, what if it just looks and feels very different to them than it would to a man? And, one final point about this - the reason 'hypergamy' plays out the way it does, is because women associate 'safety' and 'protection' with resources, or power in a male-dominated world. Because women have been conditioned into a masculine, facts-first epistemology in a male-dominated world. The day women start waking up to their own feminine power, which is more energetic and vibrational than physical, they will question the patriarchal conditioning that represses their femininity. And, because religion is a big part of this, questioning religion will improve their relationship to their sexuality and this will make them wake up to their emotional-needs. This will radically change their mating-choices! This is how I see this norm shifting. And, the fact that this system is coming down and the bullshittery of feminism is being exposed, also helps.

Women would look at who they are, what their own emotional-needs are and then, look for men who can meet those specific emotional-needs. This is the root-solution to the problem of hypergamy as we see today, actually. You can liken hypergamy to a 'rat-race' of sorts, where no matter how 'high-status' your man is, it doesn't fill the hole in your soul. That's why you have to monkey-branch. The actual solution is to do inner-work, to come to terms with what you actually need and to change your life-priorities radically. It's just not the norm cuz it's hard. And 'hard' is bad in a capitalistic, consumeristic society, so it's not the norm, it's not the 'trend'. As times get harder, this is what women will turn to.