Basman

We are better at reporting misery today than before, so it is not completely clear if we are actually more miserable now than before. Go back far enough and depression wasn't even a concept that existed like it those today. Another notion is that we are more materially secure so we have more time to fret over how we feel. Less war and starvation. Another factor is that we've eliminated a lot of naturally occurring socialization for the sake of convenience and productivity. For example, Car-centric urban design atomizes communities as you step in and out of your car when going from A to B instead of traveling the road by horse for instance. Car centered urban design is self-reinforcing as the layout changes to adapt to the use of cars (bigger roads, parking lots, more distance between amenities, etc.) which further contributes to the atomization. Or another example, we don't have to barter over goods anymore and trading has been depersonalized. You just buy from X faceless company and the sale is completely scripted ("hi. That'll be 69.99. Goodbye."). Nowadays, you don't even have to leave your house to live your life. You can work from home and you have all the entertainment you could ever want via the internet.

The argument is that women are too picky comparatively and therefor have less option effectively. It equates optionality with availability but those two are completely different things. Having higher standards doesn't mean your availability is actually lower. The argument doesn't recognize either how much more leverage you have with greater availability as well. A conventionally attractive women could ask random strangers for sex and most likely be successful at it while a conventionally attractive man would most likely not be remotely as successful in getting laid. I don't think women appreciate the leverage they quiet have but don't seem to use proactively because they desire a passive experience, and conversely don't seem to appreciate how sex starved men tend to be. Commenting on male availability as a women can easily become a "let them eat cake" situation.

No. People are not fungible like that. It's an overly reductive way of thinking. And this kind of theorizing is just unconstructive and at worst damaging to guys who are struggling. It is almost trolling.

Because all women never actually love the person they are with. All this theorizing just comes off as contrivance and cowardice. Reducing human beings to just an economy as if you never even have to try if your just handsome enough. Some people have certain advantages for sure but but that is not a good reason to not even try. It is not the case at all that mating has been monopolized by a minority of chads or that it is going to. That is ridiculous. A lot of guys tend to see mating only through the male perspective and assume that women are as obsessed with looks as they are. It's a lot of projection, as overused that word is.

Most religious people are religious because they where raised such. Their community/society maintains a bubble of religiosity. Religion is largely cultural. If you are secular, there is very little reason to subscribe to a particular religion. It is kind of like selling your soul, but more like you ability to think and act independently. Make up your own mind about stuff. Insect meat?

The main difference then and now is just is that relationships are no longer a sufficient condition for survival like they used to be since women can get jobs now, which means there are going to be less relationships overall. And an age where marriage was a condition for basic survival wasn't about fairness, choice or even love necessarily either. A market theory applies well to online dating but that is also because men heavily outnumber available women and aren't just looking for validation. Reducing mating dynamics to capital also ignores how interpersonal relationships are and how dynamic choice can be that can't be simplistically be reduced to economics. There are more men interested in mating than there are available attractive women. That is the crux of the issue. Statistics don't have to apply to you individually however. This whole quote is crying about things not being easy but they never really have been. Most guys just don't seriously prioritize it in my experience. If you are approaching women in real life you are already doing more than most guys.

The autistic health nuts are not going to be happy with you... That aside, I do eat one snack per week as a rule. You shouldn't feel bad about a little indulgence that makes you happy.

Source: I made it up.

If you don't give the AI specific instructions not to, it will default to glazing you unless you have a politically incorrect opinion.

I'd say this is the most important aspect. You just have to seek out the funny for it's own sake. Comedy is something you do, it doesn't necessarily happen just because your authentic. Also, a lot of humor is in paying out people. Being mean and stereotypes is a goldmine for humor. Make fun of dumb inane women and guys who can't get laid (thots and incels respectively), immigrants and those little african pygmies with the bloated bellies (povcunts).

I agree it looks like a sarcastic joke you'd share with your mates. Not the honey the bees are looking for.

You definitely could be stricter I think. Like, what is this thread about? "I have an enlarged ass and these jawas are groping me but I'm okay with it." No serious inquiry or discussion here, just really waffling about one self. This is an example of a low quality post in my opinion and possibly trolling. I think you could (as in the mods) do more soft warning and time outs, where a user can't post for X amount of time. If a user makes a low-quality post, the user should be put in time-out for 12-48 hours where they can't make any more posts. A good example of a soft warning was the previous post you made in this thread: It acknowledges that there might be tomfoolery about, which might not be tolerated. I think more "soft warnings" in this style could potentially help moderate problematic posting without needing to be overly "letigative". Just like reminders to be civil, etc. If you feel the need to call out a specific user though I think at least a time-out is warranted.

I found this great video by Vlad Vexler (great channel as well, especially his political analysis's) talking about emotional intelligence but from the understanding of it being able to perceive how other's experience reality. He makes distinctions between psychological, aesthetic and intellectual emotional intelligence. He also underscores emotional intelligence being in part genetic (in my words) as an ability that you may or may not intuitively posses and able to cultivate. The bigger takeaway from this video for me is the idea that you might not be able to see things that other's are seeing which then doesn't mean that there is nothing there. A good example is not seeing any aesthetic value in an abstract paining versus someone who genuinely does. If you can't see an abstract painting having any aesthetic value whatsoever then that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't any value there but perhaps you just lack the aesthetic emotional intelligence to recognize the experience that the artist is trying to convey. "You just don't get it". I find it important that we learn to at least appreciate that people can experience realities that are completely different from your own, something which we lack in today's culture in my opinion. For me it's not even a question of haves or have-nots in terms of specific kinds of intelligence but just understanding that A) there are different kinds of intelligence, and B) you might lack a certain kind of intelligence but that doesn't mean that there then isn't any truth or value inherent to a specific thing, like a painting. You might just not "get it". Another great example are economically driven politicians who don't get that unemployed parents still generate value for society even though they don't contribute to direct profits. Or an older parent that doesn't get it when their child wants to become an artist. It's a problem if you become arrogant and dismissive when you don't "get" something because of your lack of a specific kind of intelligence. It makes you a worse person in my opinion.

One of the qualities of this forum is there is a relative diversity in thought. For example, you could admit to being a pedophile on this forum and have a meaningful discussion without getting instantly banned as long as you don't condone abuse. A super progressive and woke forum like Resetera will ban you for way less. Just for not agreeing or talking about the wrong topic. Racial preference is probably not that uncommon. Just ask yourself which races you find the most attractive.

It's not necessarily helpful that AI is overly "nice" to you and your ideas. Ideally, AI should challenge and expand your thinking. Not coddle you and your beliefs.

Fun fact: the diaphragm is asymmetrical with the right diaphragm being situated higher than the left with a stronger connection to the spine due to the left lung being smaller in order to fit the heart and the liver being underneath the right diaphragm. If you shift your weight to one side, you'll breath more with the lung of that side and because the right lung is bigger with a stronger diaphragm we have an unconscious bias to shift towards the right. It is apparently normal to have a slight scoliosis towards the right due to the influence of the right diaphragm. https://pritrainer.com/lateral-pelvic-tilt-cause-fix/

Go on to Twitter and just look at how inanely mean spirited everyone is and tell me they are not crazy. To be fair, this forum could be worse.

I just assume that everyone online is an insane person. Especially people on this forum. Perfectly contextualizing everything that happens online. I'm the exception of course.

You have to justify wanting to regulate the far-right first. The best justification I can come up with is that the far-right spread malignant ideologies and misinformation that undermine democracy and stable society. Checks and balances that block unfit candidates from entering office is one way to regulate the far-right, like for example Trump shouldn't be able to enter office on the basis that he doesn't take advice or reads reports as a president. The information space needs to regulated for misinformation more and there needs to be more progressive/academic information sources that can compete with the conservative information sources (conservative sources dominate social media currently). But it is a bit of misdiagnosis to focus on ideology directly, which is alluded to in the original post. A lack of trust in institutions, a lack of education and a general depoliticized populace is the problem. Identity politics is more so the symptom. There needs to be more politically actionable proposals presented. One advantage Trump had over the Democrats during the election was the perception that he was going to solve people's economic problems through specific measures like tariffs. Regardless of truth, people felt like those where actionable proposals that would lead to better outcomes. The problem with identity politics is that it is essentially just moralizing. It is basically just espousing one's identity (it is in the name even). Moralizations aren't actionable and don't convince people who don't already share your values or aren't open minded to sharing your values, so you actually accomplish very little politically when you base your argument on what is ultimately open-ended value statements ("abortion is murder", "capitalism is evil", "the police are racist oppressors", "your being transphobic and transphobia is bad"). You don't necessarily need to share ideology to vote for sensible policy. Just present people with a convincing actionable proposal that presents an enticing vision, like for example effectivizing/decreasing military spending via universal social benefits or stabilizing the economy by taxing top earners and businesses.

Well yeah, women are talent scouts. The asymmetry is that there are more guys looking to mate with attractive women than there are available women. The major difference between now and then is that women are no longer dependent on getting married in order to survive. Less women are going enter relationships or stick with them like they used to given it is no longer a necessity. Probably a skill issue, but that is a good thing. The advantage that men have over women is that men can do more to improve themselves. An ugly women has way less options. Plenty of ugly dudes get hot chicks. I find that this theorizing about how useless and powerless you as guys are is the male equivalent of how neurotic women fantasize about how everyone hates them. Go on a feminist subreddit and it is all complaining about how everyone is out to get them.

How does that work exactly? You can't horde relationships in a bank account like you can do with money. There's no way half of the human population is exclusively dating men who are rich and tall, which is probably only about 1-3% of the male population, or at least rare. Women just tend to date older, which is not new. The older you get, the more the relationship discrepancy between men and women equalizes (to about 30-40% being single) (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/).

There's a certain irony to wanting to ban Only Fans effectively when the platform gives sex workers greater control over the means of production. But I guess Sweden doesn't want sex work to be a thing at all. The more prudent question is if sexual services is a form of violence against women or just in general?

I couldn't find any corroborating sources in English but it is true that there is proposed legislation that buying porn in Sweden to be legally equated to hiring an escort, which is illegal in Sweden. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/debatten-raser-i-sverige-efter-regering-overvejer-goere-koeb-paa-onlyfans-forbudt Here's the actual proposed bill (in Swedish): https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/ff14c4cee77548e3bf970bae5cfb84e0/skarpt-syn-pa-sexuella-krankningar-bedragerier-mot-aldre-och-brott-med-kon-som-hatbrottsmotiv-prop.-202425124.pdf

Imagination is really the king of masturbation. Whatever material you are masturbating to is always overlaid by personal imagination in my experience. Brazzers, erotica or hentai are all to a certain degree equivalent in that regard. There's also the argument to be made that the things you fantasize the most about are emotional experiences that you crave. Like rape fantasies are about desiring control/feeling desired for example.