numbersinarow

It's beyond any level of parody how much the internet is controlled by either bots or humans that are controlled on a great level e.g. brainwashing. It's more likely that artificial intelligence is more advanced or that humans are being experimented on or manipulated by a supernatural entity, than that the are being paid off. Out of all of these, them being paid off is by far the least likely in my mind. If this is not satire, then this is taken for granted, but there is nothing outside to >interact< with, only locked-in self-interested systems. Even if you're above average looking (as opposed to let's say below average looking at which point we know because of hypergamy that your chances are non-existent unless you're in the winner category), you still don't have anything to offer to outside friend groups. All you will find "outside" is a meaningless, indifferent, asexual universe. But there hasn't been an example in your life where you managed to create something through this, and there won't be any point in a disadvantaged male's life where he will be able to create a relationship/intimacy through his beliefs. You're applying this supernatural ability exclusively to this issue, which we know is real because of severe hypergamy, complete monopolization of opportunities (for example by college) etc. This is nonsensical because if men are going to just accept that their life is one without women, then this is far more likely to radicalize them or for example help extremist islamist organizations to recruit them rather than just have them sit there and take it. I don't know how someone can say this because there's multiple problems with it. Why would they not TRULY avoid one man if he was a threat? Why provoke someone who is apparently an aggressive brute by doing something that disrespects them? Why assume he is a threat if you actually believed that outside of 95% male d3g3n bars there were opportunities to talk to women, as in why would he be a threat unless you felt subconscious guilt for your choices in men as a woman, and thought that others doing the same damaged society to the point where just walking down the street poses threats? You don't want to admit you're living in a world where a male has committed the original sin in the eyes of women.

https://9gag.com/gag/aA0A529 Is it acceptable that the man in the video has had 1% benefit in any kind of an interaction with any female? This is not about talking about the message of the video, however, showing him having a gf does not prove that Japan is better if that was his intention, because in fact it's utterly humiliating that a woman has to deal with someone who is below average looking, it's a sign of a decaying society. It's the opposite of what he's trying to prove. We know that the context of couples existing has arisen from others having no escape and no opportunities at all. A completely locked system where pre-determined winner category individuals take everything and loser category individuals (let's say a socially isolated below average looking man) are perfectly normally expected to have not kissed a girl at age 30, since there is no action or interaction that they can take outside of committing a felony, in order to get laid. Let's say I know about someone killing themselves and also I have a girlfriend. My hypothetical relationship couldn't exist without the context in which one of the possible factors is a person (AKA me) failing, which can mean having no opportunities at all and being looked at with looks of religious disdain by women for walking down the street, or for example, dying. Otherwise the success means nothing since it wouldn't be contrasted to anything. A couple in public is interacting with a pure dominance hierarchy, it's not about competition, it's, like I have said in the paragraph above, about someone else not having any opportunities and being "intrinsically not a winner." That person can also even further dig a hole for themselves by being ideologically possessed and believing owen cook or andrew tate or whoever, about how you can have any position except complete pessimism when it comes to success with women. Let alone the fact that people think someone who is 5'4, has a disabled voice etc. has the same chances as a male model, think about the fact that social circles and systems are completely self-interested and not there for YOU, but for themselves, and that you couldn't have anything to possibly offer to them, as proven by the fact that they are currently choosing the worst people imaginable instead of countless others. Ultimately, I don't think men can be lied to for much longer that their lowest point even compares to what men who get laid are. The question will no longer be "How can I Improve?" but "How could the men that women choose over me possibly go lower?" You can ignore societal issues and infantalize women while telling men their slightest flaw means they're the devil, but this will push the issue into a position where it's only solutions will be one side which finds the state of things unacceptable, going against some other side.

How much do you value this? Would you rather save an 80 "IQ" [Hypothetically speaking if IQ was real or accurate.] person who is a close 5 year friend, or a 200 "IQ" person who is a complete stranger? I'd save the stranger.

Hmm... so you're in a situation where you're dealing with 2 "abstractions." One is what you call feminine energy and it is mediated through your male body, the other is the experience of female energy in women expressing itself but not not avoiding an a priori idea of casual sex. I would say it's a completely different energy if society allegedly moulds it into it's opposite. Because, and I've actually already implied this, you have an experience of 2 completely different things, not the core which you imagined is behind them. And I can't accept that societal influence as we see it could defeat mass scale sexual nature and free will.

Agreed, women hate selfish delusional narcissists, not a single one has ever been successful with women...

There you go. "YOU need to risk jail by cold approaching instead of women asking to be your gf" or "You need go to to uni to get a gf" are completely bad faith statements, since anyone with common sense knows the first is not logically sustainable and the second is telling you to submit to someone else's monopolization of... well, apparently, any kind of an opportunity to talk to girls.

Assuming that she was in fact both scared and attracted to him [Don't assume this willy-nilly.] then it's difficult to see how it's more reasonable to say that his natural game/body language in the brief time he interacted with her was what had her decide to talk to him, as opposed to looks. What's the threshold where you just have to admit that she's not "testing you" or "being cautious" but genuinely is not attracted to you? If she is never scared of another guy but shows some fear around you, is that a point where she just is not attracted, or not?

You're from a different planet, since looks of religious disdain for walking down the street (from women) and a look of absolute terror from a girl who flirted with you, are a normal occurance. The predominant emotion is projected on the man, then they feel their own original emotion coming from him... which, of course, is hate.

The Jihadists are exclusively superior to people who take drugs partying on the edge of a concentration camp. They're not superior to anyone else. Yes it's their "fault" for wanting to kill non-muslims since they chose to subscribe to a religion that recommends that.

If you have an objective metric to decide that one party here is more moral, I'd love to hear it. Partying on the edge of a concentration camp and getting this outcome is not unpredictable.

You can have a self-consistent worldview where it's just a coincidence that they have an advantage, but at the same time not wanting to admit that they in fact do, shows that the person believes that giving credence to biology would refute the idea that trans women = women AKA it creates a powerful counter-argument out of something which can't even be reasonably denied.

I wouldn't say that much but what is clear is that your statement applies to the people feigning outrage over israel's pursuit. None of their criticisms would ever be applied to the actions of the United States. it is true, they aren't doing it out of hatred for jews at all it's simply because they want to perpetuate a pre-rational double standard that paints america as infallible. There is a sort of no-win game for you to play. If you defend israel bombing children then you are aligning with the manufactured consent, and the obviousness of this is extreme in the case of people who jumped on the first immoral invasion theory bandwagon when putin invaded ukraine. If you condemn israel for killing children then you are right however make sure you're highlighting the fact that 1. they are doing this with the help of the west and 2. the US military themselves is helping them in ethnic cleansing. Otherwise you're helping propagandists.