Emerald

Thank you! I don't have specific examples of men in mind. But a good litmus test is how okay he is with just being himself without too much fixation upon being Masculine. And just allowing whatever happens to be there to be there. And men who feel secure in themselves even in being kind, warm, tender, etc.

Sexual needs are also intricately woven into this dynamic. But the fundamental toxicity of these groups doesn't foundationally come from unmet sexual needs... it comes foundationally from shame. And then that shame translates into more difficulties finding a sexual partner which aggravates and amplifies the whole shame dynamic. There's also a dynamic where people are socializing less, which leads to more of a capacity to project onto the opposite sex. So, that must also be accounted for as an external factor. But if you go into any Manosphere space... they aren't all gravitating there because they lack sex. (In fact, some men who hold this shame are having quite a lot of sex.) They are all gravitating there because they are all dealing with the same shame dynamic. Edit: Also an important thing to keep in mind is that if it were just about lacking sex, then pickup would fix the dynamic. But it doesn't fix it because being unsuccessful with women is a symptom and not a root cause. And most men still externalize their sense of validity onto women even if they get good with getting sex. This is why pick-up communities can be just as toxic as any other manosphere space as it is usually men who feel shame gravitating together.

I'll answer your questions one by one... The issue is the ideal itself. Since no person can match an ideal, it sets the stage for shame. But healthy male (and female) role models are important as long as they are not idealized. When there is an ideal for reality to match up to people will always feel shame because no one is ideal. But the more extreme that ideal is, the more difficult it is to match up to. So, a good baby step in the right direction is to hold a more ordinary ideal image that's within striking range. And that ideal would have to be a more integrated ideal that includes things that are pro-social like warmth and emotional intelligence. So, there are healthier and unhealthier ideals. But overall, any ideal that's held onto tightly will produce shame. There is no problem with having sex-oriented goals like getting laid. And male sexuality isn't the problem. It's only when you cross-multiply sexuality with shame that problems arise and those problems tend to take on the forms I mentioned in the post above with men. So, when guys are in this shame dynamic, things like sex, dating, relationships with women, etc. all get sucked into that internal shame dynamic and creates a feeling of need for female validation that wouldn't be there anywhere near as strongly if the shame wasn't there. There is a normal level of seeking validation from others that we all have, so it wouldn't go away in its entirety. But this shame dynamic turns sex with women into a strategy to validate one's existential worth by proving to themselves they're worthy of female validation. And from there it creates a ton of unhealthy sexual dynamics that are a reflection of shame. And it causes sex to be more of an obsession because it feel like a pathway to get rid of the shame and feel existentially valid (even though sex cannot actually do this). One thing that a lot men don't tend to realize is that women are attracted to regular guys. And they don't need to fit the Masculine ideal to have women take interest in them. And that attraction comes mostly from human to human connection in a social setting where men and women are just being ordinary people together. When a man is dealing with shame (especially around a perceived failure to fit the Masculine ideal), he will have issues having casual nonchalant ordinary conversations with women because the stakes feel too high because he will view her as an arbiter of how well he fits the Masculine ideal and therefore as an arbiter of his worth. When a man is dealing with this shame dynamic, he becomes like an open wound and women he's attracted to are like a big squirt bottle of lemon juice. The lemon juice wouldn't bother a man who's not dealing with shame too much and feels more secure in himself as he would have fewer open wounds. But a man who is deeply afflicted by shame in this way won't be able to relax in this dynamic because the stakes feel too high. And he will often let off signals that can scare women off. So, it's not as to say that he will become more attractive by dropping shame as it's not about adding attractiveness to himself. It's that it will take away the subtle cues that are repelling women. It's more about subtracting the repel signals that he puts out for fear of the lemon juice hitting the shame wound. He would just be able to be himself more and be more confident in himself... and sometimes this that or the other woman would be interested in him because most women are attracted to men.

You're misdiagnosing why someone becomes an incel in the first place. People don't become incels because they are bad with women. People become incels because they feel ashamed of themselves. And becoming and incel and having trouble meeting women are both symptoms of the deeper root of shame. If an incel realizes he can find a girlfriend, it will fix the symptom-level problem, but it won't fix the deeper problem which is shame. If an incel gets a girlfriend, he will just have shame and a girlfriend. And perhaps he may graduate into more of a Red Pill perspective. But even though Red Pill is a bit more empowered than Incels, they both have an equivalent amount of shame because the root is the same.

The real issue here is that the reason why pick-up communities are toxic is that 'wanting to get better with women' is often just the presenting symptom of a deeper root issue with feelings of shame. So, pick-up communities and communities of men (like Red Pill, Incels, MGTOW, etc.) or even more conscious male communities that deliberately try to get away from how these other manosphere communities are, tend to be rife with feelings of shame surrounding pressures to match up to a particular Masculine ideal. These communities are actually communities where the #1 shared bonding factor is NOT getting good with women or being more Masculine or anything like that. Instead, the #1 shared bonding factor is collectively agitating and soothing shame. It's like those scenes in the movie Midsommar where everyone in the community are crying and screaming together and collectively sharing the pain. But men's groups aren't aware of that yet because collectively sharing pain isn't seen as Masculine, so it must be made unconscious. And the people that criticize them tend to vilify them and not see the human factor there... and thus don't notice that collective shame is at the root of all the problematic behavior in the groups. So, that awareness of shame isn't there yet. And so, what happens is that men get together to try to match up to the Masculine ideal... or to lament feelings of being unable to match up the Masculine ideal. And these feelings of shame are often seen as women's responsibility and women's fault. This is what leads to a lot of misogyny proliferating in these groups. And even if the guys in these groups are relatively conscious that misogynistic bit will be there because the main thing they feel shame about is their Feminine side. So, if you want to start a conscious men's group... start a shame support group for men. And if you want to start a conscious men's group that's oriented to dating/relationships... then throw away any and all notions of needing to match up to Masculine ideals (as this is where the shame comes from and where most of men's issues with meeting women comes from too). And instead focus on teaching social skills and emotional intelligence in conjunction with basic skills with meeting and dating and developing relationships with women. You would also want to focus on how to differentiate "problems with dating/approaching/meeting women" and "problems with shame" as the latter is often confused with the former.

To some degree that's true. But I notice that a guy might be thinking a woman thinking he's creepy if she's just not interested and says no. And I can get why it would feel that way. But most of the time it's just a lack of interest and even annoyance at her flow being interrupted. So, most women have been subject to genuine creepiness and aren't going to look at a guy who just isn't that good at small social cues as creepy unless he is going over other boundaries. They'll probably first just assume he's awkward or shy. That said, if it's cold approach then it may come off as creepy because of time and place being an inappropriate factor in conjunction with small awkwardnesses. To talk to a random woman in public (when it isn't a bar or club), it requires good social skills to still come off as normal.

The title sounds a bit suicidal. It might be a good idea to retitle it as "Hey guys. I'm leaving the forum" so as not to worry people.

When I was a teenager, I used to LOVE conspiracy theories. It was right around the time that the documentary "Zeitgeist" came out. And me and all my close friends watched it. And we would all just smoke weed and nerd out on this or that or the other conspiracy. So we'd be like "What if bugs aren't actually real and are just spy cameras from the government?" or "What if the world is ACTUALLY flat?" And we had so much fun and bonded over these conspiracy theories because it gave us an illusion of heightened empowerment over the corruption in the world and it brought us closer together as a group because we felt like we were solving mysteries together and that we were some of the few who even thought to question things. And it led into all of this other discussions of whether aliens are real and whether they've been here or not. And then we'd go, "Just wait until they dig up an ancient computer in Egypt." And we'd get downright giddy at these ideas. The problem is that all conspiracy theories eventually end up in bigoted territory... and ultimately give a false sense of "fighting the power" whilst real power goes unchecked. But the thing that makes conspiracy theories so attractive to people is that they're used as a social bonding strategy. There's so much intimacy and wonderment to be had with friends that you share belief in a conspiracy theory with. It's like being kids together and using your imagination to ping pong ideas off of one another to solve some glorious mystery. So, until we create better outlets for social bonding through shared imagination... conspiracy theories are here to stay.

Here are some creepy behaviors that I've experienced from guys... Giving "friendly" hugs that are really an obvious excuse for copping a feel (there is one guy in particular from high school that I'm thinking of who used to be like "where's my hug"? And whenever he'd hug me or my female friends, he'd caress the sides of our waists by grasping his fingers around our sides in a tickling motion. I was in a very huggy friend-group, so we'd tended to hug a lot (guys and girls). But this particular guy was always trying to get really sexual with it. Saying "I would (date/fuck) you if you weren't so ____" I had one guy tell me me that he "would fuck me if it wasn't for the fact that I had such fucked up teeth". I also had another guy who said a similar thing... but it was "if your face wasn't so flat". Making inappropriate comments This has happened quite often. But one instance that comes to mind is when I was in college and busking in the pedestrian area near my school and this random middle aged man came and sat next to me while I was playing the guitar. And he just motioned his hands in front of his chest and said "You have really big boobs." I told him to stop and go away and with a pained look in his face he said, "I guess I'm just a small doses person then." Making threatening comments I was also busking one night and this man (maybe in his 50s) saw me there playing my guitar and he was making advances which I turned down. Then, he got really threatening and said "You better start getting used to running from me." Stating his requirements/likes about what he wants about a woman to a woman who hasn't expressed interest This sometimes is creepy and sometimes is just a red flag. I know it's happened to me before but I don't have a clear memory in my mind about it. But I usually see some version of it online where a guy is saying he wants a "submissive" woman. And as a woman who generally likes to have some elements of a more traditional man/woman pairing where the man is leading a bit more, it just gives off this icky immature vibe. Following/stalking One time, I was walking back to my apartment from college and there was a guy that was on one of the last roads I had to turn down to get home. And he was clearly on something as he wasn't making much sense. He kept saying to me over and over "I write grants." I think he was trying to impress me by bragging about his job. But he was like a zombie and kept on following me and repeating over and over "I write grants" like a zombie repeats over and over "Brains!" Putting too much emotional weight into the conversation One time in my early 20s, I was out at this cigar bar that I still occasionally like to go to from time to time. And I always go up to the top floor because they have a chess set there, and I like to try to find people to play chess with me. So, I went there one time and I went up to the top floor and there was a bigger guy up there. And he and I started playing chess and at first it was. a pretty normal conversation. But he slowly revealed more and more his self-esteem issues and a kind of bitterness towards women for rejecting him. And I started having to walk on eggshells because I was afraid of hurting his feelings. He was like an open wound that I had to be very gentle with. It was kind of like a dynamic I had when I was in elementary school where no one wanted to be my friend, so when someone did, I would cling onto them too hard. I felt bad for him and felt empathy towards him, but it did put me off as he couldn't just talk to me like a regular person. Feigning concern as a means to get laid There have been a handful of times this has happened. When I was busking, I had a bunch of guys come up to me and ask me "Are you okay?" only to offer me money or a place to stay in exchange for sex. Another version of this was when this one guy that knew me and my then-boyfriend... and he was friends with my then-boyfriend. And I broke up with my bf, and he found me on campus and said "If you need a shoulder to cry on or someone to talk to, here's my number." And this guys was very obviously be opportunistic as he wasn't a very emotionally supportive person. Not taking no for an answer One time in college, I was going to walk back to my apartment from a party and it was just right down the street. This is right after I had broken up with my then-boyfriend and lots of guys I was acquainted with had caught wind of it and were trying to swoop in. There was this one guy who I had a lot of friends in common with, but that I hadn't personally met until that night. And it's not like we even talked or anything that night, I was literally just introduced. And I was going to go back to my apartment and this guy insisted on walking me home. And I kept telling him "No. I prefer to walk back alone." And he kept pushing and pushing and pushing and refused to let me walk back alone. So, I buckled and he walked back with me. And on the short walk there, he kept pressuring me and pressuring me and pressuring me to kiss him. And I kept refusing, and he kept badgering me. And then, he wanted to give me his number. And I said no a bunch of times. But I eventually put his number into my phone to get him to leave me alone. Comparing me to prettier girls to get me interested in him There was this one guy who used to ride my bus who used to talk a lot about this other girl to try to make me jealous. One time he said something like, "I used to like you but now I like her. So, I guess you're old news." But to me, he and I never had anything going on, and I was never interested in him. So, I found it kind of funny/creepy that he thought he could get to me like that. There was another instance when I was busking where this older (creepy looking) guy in his 50s (I was 20) came up next to me while I was busking. And he was saying "Wow. You're just some hippie chick. I like that." and he kept repeating that over and over. Then, this beautiful woman (maybe my age or a little older) who was wearing a short skirt and had her hair and make-up done came out of the nearby bar. And this guy then starts comparing me to her like "Wow! She's really hot and you're just some hippie chick." and it was clear he was trying to win me over by getting me to feel a need to compare myself to the woman. There are other examples of creepy behavior I've experienced over the years. But these are the ones that come to mind off-hand.

When it comes to why men/women might be forgoing relationships more and more, I think it 80% of it comes from the weakening of communities and that people aren't getting out and socializing as much. People just plug into social media all day and see the worst expressions (or caricatured expressions) of the opposite sex, and they get into rabbit holes where they avoid connection when they otherwise would have sought connection and pair bonding.

This seems to imply that you view a man who attracts women based on lust to be in a higher/better position with women compared to men who attract women based on love. Almost like... if a man is hot he can have a woman lust after him... but if a man is ugly, he can't get a woman's lust so he has to settle for getting a woman to love him. Setting aside that attractions don't really easily sort themselves neatly into the category of lust and love and that this is a false dichotomy... This implies that you view a woman's lust as harder to get than her love or that a woman's love is a consolation prize that you get when you can't get her lust. But honestly, lust is the easier of the two to get. And a man doesn't need to be conventionally attractive to get a woman's lust. Also, there seems to be some misunderstandings about male social status baked into this point of view... Ultimately, the men who are the most mature, well-adjusted, and functional tend to have the highest status in society. And mainstream society tends to view this in relation to the community that surrounds that man... including having a wife and children that he loves. There are also other factors like having charisma and a good job and looks are somewhere in there too. Usually, a guy who is good at picking up women and triggering interest at a bar is either young and experimenting (under 25) or he's older and learning pick up and he's a bit of a late bloomer. Neither one of those scream male status. My whole point in this is that you could benefit by getting a more accurate understanding of what actually makes a man highly valuable in the eyes of women and society at large. And his ability to have women lusting after him is not a great metric for it. A better metric is how capable he is of maintaining a longterm love relationship or how interconnected he is with his community.

The main thing is to get more comfortable socializing with people in general. I feel like this will go a lot further towards finding a compatible relationship than learning game. And IMO, pickup feels pretty gimmicky and can be a real mixed bag when it comes to developing social skills. On one hand, it can provide different strategies for picking up on signs of interest and how to create interest. On the other hand, most guys that I've met who do pickup would benefit significantly more just by learning how to be social in general. And pickup can sometimes promote/exacerbate pretty antisocial vibes, behaviors, and mindsets. And women tend to pick up on that and may intuitively or consciously steer clear of men who give off these signals. Like if I have men approach me in a public setting, I know that he's just crunching numbers and that he's probably doing pickup. And I'm sure most women recognize this at this point, given the popularity of pickup. And I/we are going to associate pick-up with a lot of anti-woman manosphere stuff... even if the guy is just trying to find a girlfriend. So, pickup will work eventually since it's a numbers game. But to be honest, I think that seeking to master community building and socialization in general (with all people) will go much further towards finding a relationship than cold approach and other pickup strategies.

What a nation can do is to put a tax penalty on moving a business from one country to another. Also, if that business's market is mostly situated in the country of origin... they that country of origin could impose high import taxes on ex-patriating businesses that disincentivizes those businesses from moving countries. If they were being really strict, they could even restrict imports from ex-patriating businesses. There are probably other policies they could enact that disincentivize people moving their businesses elsewhere. They would just have to apply consequences that impact the flow of money enough to offset the benefits of moving to a place with a lower tax burden. I don't have a lot of knowledge on how this impacts trade, but there's also global organizations like NATO and the UN that have policies that participating nations have to abide by. And perhaps there could even be policies in organizations like this where countries in the organization don't allow businesses from other member nations to leave their country of origin for a lower tax burden in another member nation.

There would, of course, need to be policies in place to disincentivize that. They will go with whichever option cost them less... so create policies that make staying in the country make more sense on a costs vs benefits analysis.

Okay, here's one that kind of falls into left-leaning policy around immigration that I think is harmful but is currently a necessary evil in lieu of a more merit-based path to citizenship. It allows a path to citizenship for immigrants who are married to a U.S. citizen. And this is important in that it allows people who love each other to come together. But this law (in lieu of better immigration policies) creates all sort of difficulties for those who want to immigrate to the U.S. and it isn't based off of something that's easy to control. I know one woman who (back when she was 21, long before we met) paid to get into a fake marriage with this 50+ year old shady guy in order to get her green card. And he would call her up and give ultimatums to give him money right away or he's go to immigration. He really threw his power around. So, it just puts people who want to immigrate in these very precarious positions that leave them at the mercy of shady people. Or it leaves people in a position where they can't find a partner to marry. I know a couple real couples that got married very quickly to keep their partner in the country. One of them is still together after 20+ years. The other of them had kids together and were together for nearly a decade an then divorced. But I also know of people who weren't able to find a partner weren't able to get their green card. Needless to say, a problematic policy but I'm also glad it's there because of the dearth of better policies.

I did bring up authoritarian leftist policies in my original post in this thread around the abolition of private land ownership in places like China and censorship in North Korea. Those were obviously detrimental left-wing policies. And regarding high taxation, of course there can be problems with that. Is there a specific existing tax system that runs off of a left-leaning philosophy on taxes that is detrimental in your opinion? Like Canada or any of the European countries with higher taxes? My personal view is that taxes should be bracketed and progressive where the wealthiest people pay the highest percentage of the tax burden because they earn the highest percentage of the wealth. Our current system has highest percentage of the tax burden on the middle class and upper middle class... while the wealthiest people who have most of the wealth pay a lower percentage. What I mean by this is (I forget the exact numbers offhand, but this just helps me convey the idea better)... let's say that the middle class is earning 40% of the wealth and they're paying 70% of the taxes... while the top .01% of wealthy people are earning 40% of the wealth but paying 20% of the taxes. That tends to be how it works out now. And there can be many ways to re-allocate the tax burden to fund the public good that don't involve raising taxes on the middle class. One such example is raising the Social Security cap. Someone who makes in the $168,601 per year pays the same amount in Social Security tax as someone who makes $100 quintillion bazillion jillion per year. There's always tons of scare tactics around Social Security drying up, but they could just raise that cap a bit and there would be plenty of Social Security funding. So, smart leftist policy would be one that looks at re-allocating the tax burden so that the wealthiest people pay their fair share.

That's silly. Just bring up a law and we can talk about it. It doesn't have to be complicated. It just has to begin with an actual law. It's as simple as "What are your thoughts on the TPP?" or "How to do you feel about the Dreamers immigration law?" or "How do you feel about legal marijuana in x, y, and z states?"

That makes sense. But it does open up some questions about why it is that it doesn't quite work the same way for the right side of the political aisle and why it's possible to have a mixed bag of beneficial and detrimental right wing policies... but doesn't necessarily work that way for the left wing. If it's the case, why are detrimental right wing policies possible to codify... but detrimental left wing policies are not possible to codify.

If it's being done by a governing body, I will accept it as being within the realm of policy.

When people talk about policies as it pertains to politics, they usually mean codified laws as distinct from political philosophical positions. For example, a leftist might hold the political philosophical position that "trans women are women." But that wouldn't be reflected in policy. Instead an adjacent policy to that philosophical position might be some laws around public funding for gender affirming care or what the legal protocols are for people seeking access to HRT. So, policy and philosophical positions are fundamentally different. And I was interested in this thread because I thought it would be a thread about policy. So, leftists tend to have similar political philosophies, which can be critiqued on their merits. But I'd be interested in talking about the merits of actual policies that are on the books that aren't nebulous philosophical idea but are brass tacks protocols, rules, and laws. For example, when Jordan Peterson was first getting popular he came out against Bill C16 (I think). So, he had particular issues with that policy. That's the type of critique I was hoping would happen with this thread.

Sure, it's a lot of unworkable lefty philosophical positions. But I wasn't making any claims that it was/wasn't a lot. My point was to say, I can point to positive lefty positions that have been codified into law... but I'd like to know of some lefty positions that have been codified into law that were harmful and backfired as that what this thread is actually about. That's what I'm interested in knowing. But you see, there are lots of right wing positions on the books too. And we can point to ones that are beneficial and ones that are detrimental. I can sort them quite easily. I could pretty easily find some right-wing policies on the books and talk about them on their merits and find a mixed bag. When I went to think of harmful lefty laws, I could think of the positive ones. But I couldn't think of many negative lefty laws on the books. I chalked it up to the US government (which is what I'm most familiar with) having mostly center-right laws... so you only see the legal excesses of the right and not the legal excesses of the left. But I would still like for people to bring up actual left-wing policies that have been harmful. I wouldn't be satisfied with the conclusion that there are no harmful left-leaning laws on the books (except in authoritarian left countries). There must be some on the books. But I do find it interesting how next to no one's actually bringing up actual policies. I think it's just harder to come up with real example of harmful left-wing policies on the books... and so people have to go to soft philosophical positions to point out issues.

Because a policy is a law. And I want to have a discussion about harmful left wing laws. If the thread was about the harm of leftwing philosophical positions, I would find it uninteresting since that it's more familiar territory to me. I already know what people don't like about leftwing philosophical positions and I'm not interested in the same discussions that I've had a thousand times before. Also, I'm tired of arguing about gender fluidity. Am I doomed to be arguing about gender fluidity until I'm 80? I can clarify my position if you want. I just don't think it's as big of a deal as you imagine it to be. I've been a full time high school teacher... and a substitute teacher. And I've never seen it discussed in the curriculum. And I've worked with tons of kids. And kids are pretty much the same as they've always been. And I have an elementary school kid and a middle school aged kid. And they've never gotten any education on the topic from school. My older one was telling me about all the different genders and sexualities when she was like 9 years old. (She's almost 13 now.) She got really into the flags for a month or two. Then, she moved onto another phase. But she never heard any of this from teachers or as part of the school curriculum. She just heard it from friends and the internet... which is far more influential to her perspective than whatever 5 minute discussion about gender fluidity might happen in some high school sex ed class. So, I'm not really worried about it. Things will unfold however they'll unfold. And kids will figure themselves out as they always have. Long story short... as a parent and former teacher, I don't view it as a threat.

In what way does it suit me to be technical? I'm not interested in being intellectually dishonest or twist myself in pretzels to win an argument in favor of myself or leftism or whatever. I'm not goofing around with semantics to be like "Aha! Gotcha!". I really do just want to have a discussion about policy (which is law) because that's a discussion that I can actually learn from. If I wanted to talk about problems with lefty philosophy, I'd have just gone to the left-wing mega thread. NAFTA is a discussion that we can have. Lots of US manufacturing jobs were outsourced which really gutted the middle class in the Rust Belt.

I'd be interested in learning more about this. What my assumption is, is that drug addiction rates would stay the same but be more visible. But if these statistics around addiction show an actual cause and effect relationship between the decriminalization of drugs and heightened rates of addiction, then I will reconsider my position. My concern would be that the statistics are more reflective of heightened visibility rather than showing a cause/effect relationship between decriminalization and addiction.

Okay. Are there specific laws on the books around free trade and globalism that you view as particularly harmful?