MysterionMuffles

or make it happen faster

It's funny how quickly this thread became about MMX2010 as well. Again, it's a reptitious cycle he's unwilling to confront in himself. The fact that he just continues to keep responding is testament to how much he wants to avoid the Test of Valor. He's free to keep doing so, of course. But he's only gonna get more of the same because it's an automatic and unconscious action. You can't prove anything to anyone when you've helped invoke some feelings of distrust and disgust in you. Notice I say help invoke, not provoke alone. We are all responsible for how we feel, but we are all also responsible for how we present ourselves to others. MMX2010 does not appreciate or acknowledge that responsibility and would much rather continue acting unconsciously. I can't even say it's his choice since it seems like something that is deterministically proned to happen. The misdirection, the attention drawing, non-sequitors etc etc etc. It's just his unconscious modus operandi he's unwilling to confront, and the degree to which he avoids the Test of Valor for this compulsion only speaks volumes of how painful and vast the change might be in him if he took up the challenge. I can't remember the original topic or the person he quoted, but MMX2010 shared a quote by someone that said something ala "don't wish she was easier, wish you were better." When I read that, I jived with it and thought, yes, despite of the lifestyle he lives that I particularly do not like, he's got some wisdom to share from time to time. Hence, I unblocked him for a while...much to my detrement. I think he's forgetting that that principle also applies to other people, not just prospects for sex and dating. He's ascribing difficulty in all of us for taking his communication style and arguments personally, just WISHING we could all just change how we perceive him, thus making things easier to him. In turn, he's not making any attempts to improve his behaviour. He can't control how we respond to him, but he can (can he?) control how he comes across to minimize or completely mitigate such behaviour. Likewise, perhaps we can all "develop thicker skin" when reading his posts, but after numerous threads getting derailed by him, I think it's safe to say that the fault of responsibility lies on him to do as I listed above. And I'm saying this as just a suggestion, not an attempt to manage him and change his mind. I don't have control over that because I don't quite think he has much control over it himself...

I'll just repeat what I wrote in my Friends With Benefits thread on how to handle negative criticism. If there's anybody on this board who has gotten a ton of downvotes, enough to fall below the community threshold, I would suggest that they: Log out from the boards (so they don't feel compelled to post anything new) Search up their own names and look at their reputation history Try to read their posts with the most downvotes from the perspective of an outsider Ask themselves if they would enjoy being treated the way they've treated others in those threads Remove their attachment to being right in their arguments, maybe they are right, but that's not important What's important is observing one's own behaviour and learning how to correct it so they don't run repeat it One last big thing is also looking for any patterns. Have several people given you the same feedback repeatedly? If so, ask yourself why you refuse to accept it and work on improving. If not, which criticisms provoke the most anxiety? Work on that! I've only gotten a couple of downvotes before, but before I could ever go on a witch hunt asking who it was, I've looked my posts over. I saw what I did wrong, editted out the abusive language, apologized for it and never made the same mistake again. One such example was a thread about happier women being more attractive, and I said something condescending about how unattractive unhappy women are. Although I think it's true, the way I phrased was snarky and horrible (This is the PG rated version). I recognized that what I said was unempathetic to such said women, and to some degree outright dismissive. I won't repeat it here, thus negating the lesson I learned from delving into it with myself. Anybody with even the slightest ounce of self awareness would give themseleves the courtesy of a self RTR conversation when they have been downvoted--instead of rushing into defending their point or their right to speak the way they want. "This is a philosophy message board, criticism and censorship is NOT philosophy," they cry. But such people who do make this claim often do not look inside of themselves for answers. Why? Because they avoid the questions a self RTR would produce. It's painful to admit fault. It's painful to admit that there needs to be a change in their behaviour. They would much rather keep trying to prove the other party wrong as opposed to figuring out how they can better convey their points, because to them, I would imagine, it's not about educating others or learning more about other people's contrary viewpoints. No, it's about top-down dominance. If they were all about wanting to improve other people's point of view, they can do well without the false accusations, ad hominem attacks, and in MMX2010's usual case, the strawnmanning via rephrasing what others say via colour coded quoting. Or worse, the misdirection of the original topic. Obviously, I am not MMX, however, if I was, I would try to at least acknowledge that "hey! A lot of the threads that I engage in become more about my communication style instead of the original topic." And then wonder how and why that happens. It's self knowledge 101. If you are repeatedly given negative feedback about the same thing, or similar things, it's an invitation to what I call a Test of Valor. Your behaviour is provoking others to challenge you about that behaviour, and in a way, you bring it upon yourself, which isn't a bad thing. Unless you ignore the test and not explore what's going on for you, and instead speak, act, and think from a place of reaction. Many callers of this show are put under it when Stefan pushes back on their inconsistent narratives (when it comes to a personal topic where a caller must accept ownership for their actions), or inconsistent arguments (when it comes to the abstract philosophical arguments and a caller must agree to a more rational mode of debating). A good example of a Test of Valor is the recent Subjective is Objective conversation, where the caller was called out on attempting to redefine terms and refusing to acknowledge that he was doing it at all. Or even that caller after him who talked about his girlfriend not fitting his standards anymore. He accepted the Test of Valor and learned to take ownership for his actions that caused the problem he called in about. Likewise with anybody on here on the boards who gets a bad rep, whether justly or unjustly, I invite you to a Test of Valor: Can you take a step back from an interaction, online or otherwise, and explore how you feel about it? Can you uncover why you may resort to certain behaviours or phrases, and work to improve yourself if those behaviours and phrases aren't serving your interactions?

Then there's also the question of what kinds of relatioships PUA programs promote. Do they want you to attract a quality mate, one night stands, flings, or mistresses? I know that Kezia Noble's goal as well as the authors of How to Succeed With Women's goal is to land long term relationships. Kezia in particular turns down men who want to join her programs for the sake of getting mistresses or to help women cheat on their partners. I think that's quite...shall I say...noble? Though if a man's original intention is to either cheat on their wives or girlfriends, she will try to get them to see the value of using her techniques on the current partners of these men instead of helping them cheat. If they are committed to cheating, THEN she'll turn them down. It's interesting that you point out that some PUA tactics violate the NAP, you've inspired me to start a whole new thread that's close to that line of thinking. I'm still working out the thoughts that can substantiate a claim of mine...keep your eyes peeled for that! And for the record, I welcome your disagreements, sharing your experiences, as well as input on this thread. Your concision and ability to stay on topic is proof that MMX2010's downvotes are due to behaviour, not contrary opinions. Any person with any decent level of self-knowledge would know that they should simply stop engaging and re-read their own posts in the eyes of an outside perspective. They would try and see why it can be deemed as manipulative, disruptive, and/or abusive and reflect on how they can better present their case (and if they even really have one) instead of simply having pissing contests. I mean, I've certainly learned a thing or five from getting feedback from people on how I make arguments. I can't remember the topic, nor the person who pointed it out to me, but they pointed out that I have a tendancy to ask leading questions. I'm sorry if I've done that here as it is still something I'm working on, but that's the key thing. I'm actually WORKING on it. I've actually taken a step back to evaluate how I communicate with people on the boards and the chatroom, (and obviously in my physical world), and work to correct these communication flaws. I still make similar mistakes from time to time, but at least I'm aware of them. At least I am also aware of how I come across to other people and understand what they have reacted the way they have. But that doesn't mean I'm going on full person pleaser mode, though. Another thing I've learned from practising self-knowledge is also learning the difference between me behaving in a way that provokes offense, or me simply being me and someone else just taking things personally. I'm not always spot on, but I have a pretty good grasp on how to differentiate the two when it matters. So, if there's anybody on this board who has gotten a ton of downvotes, enough to fall below the community threshold, I would suggest that they: Log out from the boards (so they don't feel compelled to post anything new) Search up their own names and look at their reputation history Try to read their posts with the most downvotes from the perspective of an outsider Ask themselves if they would enjoy being treated the way they've treated others in those threads Remove their attachment to being right in their arguments, maybe they are right, but that's not important What's important is observing one's own behaviour and learning how to correct it so they don't run repeat it One last big thing is also looking for any patterns. Have several people given you the same feedback repeatedly? If so, ask yourself why you refuse to accept it and work on improving. If not, which criticisms provoke the most anxiety? Work on that! Just my food for thought. Bon appétit!

Sweet I look forward to it! Glad you're liking it. Btw Wilson Fisk eh? God damn!

Proof pudding is delicious

I go into defining it here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/?p=401429 but MMX2010 failed to acknowledge that I even made these points, possibly because it exposes his lifestyle for what it is. But thanks for sharing your experiences! Let me know if what I describe there coincides or conflicts with what you've said and experienced. To me it just sounds like you had your fun, but want something more fulfilling now. No harm no foul, especially since you did do the sensible thing of setting boundaries and ground rules that had to be honoured til the bitter end.

I've been watching theory videos and I found this one Youtuber's insights to be quite philosophically intriguing... spoilers of course, but even if you haven't played the game, I think you can get value from this: It's basically about how abusive it would be to actually have a rewind power to fish out information in a conversation, and reuse it as if you just knew all the right things to say. I thought it was a nifty idea and didn't even think of the lack of moral responsibility Max avoided till I watched this video.

LOL yes...we are accused of ascribing our subjective feelings to the objective experience of other men. But then we are quoted and strawmanned to death as to what we really meant to say. PRICELESS!!! Remember what I said earlier about the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to justify being happy with a friends with benefits relationship? The proof is in the pudding. And man is it delicious.

No one said anything about immorality here. It's more of a matter of being emotionally unhealthy because your thoughts are not being conrguent if you have to feign interest in people you don't like, and feign disinterest in people you do like.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/80357-14-signs-someone-is-a-grown-ass-man-because-dating-him-is-so-completely-different I think this article's legit and aligned with promoting healthy relationships. Your thoughts?

Oh my God, wow...I was going through old posts of my blog and found my review on this movie. I wanted to immediately share it on the boards here, but wondered if I already had. So I searched for "Removed short film" and found this thread again. I forgot it was a lot of thanks to you, NonPatrician! http://yourwritetolive.com/2014/08/06/short-film-on-child-abuse-removed/ Here's my short review of it.

Sorry, Joel. The title in the thread says unfunny jokes...THIS IS GOLDEN! XD

Eh you can always torrent it, stream it, or pay a measily $7 a month for Netflix. lol cool, tell me more if you can. I mean that speech he gave during the court hearing, sealed my philosophical interest in it. Damn!

Has anybody watched this show yet? I don't normally watch any superhero shows, but this is very dark, gritty, and realistic in terms of moral ambiguity. They delve into the childhoods of Matt Murdock AND Wilson Fisk to give you an understanding of where they're coming from. I gotta say...both of their histories are astonishing. They've even done a good job making you empathize with Wilson Fisk. The way they wrote him made him the most human and relatable villain, and sometimes you actually find yourself rooting for him. Well at least I did, but it was more out of sympathy because it plays on the whole "bad guys are just sad guys" dichotomy in fiction. The actor btw, he does have sight, but for the show he's actually blind folded during these action scenes. He had to do some rigurous training with an actual blind person to learn how to navigate his surroundings without sight. So that's an impressive feat. This isn't just about a guy going around at night in a costume beating up bad guys. It's an immersive character study. Every character and plotline is just as important as the Daredevil's himself. I highly reccommend this to anyone who has Netflix and is looking for anything fresh, new, and original to watch.

You might as well be saying (1) "I lie so I can tell the truth," or (2) "I want to buy this CD so badly that I'm just gonna leave it to collect dust at the record store forever," or let's just strip the statement down to what it actually means (∞) "I feign disinterest in women because they're used to being disinterested in by their fathers and/or brothers, and I exploit that insecurity in them in order to garner their attention." The blue statement is me being brash and excessive, while the red one is me being cheeky and to the point. However, the green one on the other hand is a statement that outs PUA for what it is: learning the many ways to exploit a woman's daddy issues. Green is for right on the money! I rest my case.

Yeah good point, Eh Steve, it's not distracting unless kids are genuinely interested in the subject. The girl who was posting this picture around assumes that her classmates care about class. Maybe they do? I dunno. Maybe they are actually engaging, but that's highly unlikely. And if a subject was THAT good, but a girl in class was dressed scantily, I'm pretty sure anyone smart enough to be interested in an academic subject wouldn't be so easily swayed. Their frontal cortext can outweigh their reptilian brain.

What do you guys think of this?

Right I guess it's important to feel your genuine experience at any given moment. What I was talking about more was holding on to anger and it's long term effects. Is it really healthy to continuously hold on to anger for past abuse or can you let go of it, while at the same time committing to not replicate it for your own children in the future? That's the line of thinking I'm at. I'm done getting morally outraged at child abuse that I only let myself think about it or get angry if I witness any in public. Then I step in, not so vindictive, but empathetic towards the parent and child in a certain instance.

This is a great argument made by a friend of mine as to why he doesn't vote. It's a fresh perspective to me that I believe would be useful to make before we ever get into the moral aspect of voting.

Kevin, you really don't need to read any PUA literature to affirm your preconceptions for it. For the most part, you're right about it. I know this because as mentioned in an earlier post, I have delved into PUA literature and videos, even used some of the "techniques," as taught. I would say for the exception of How to Succeed With Women, most of the PUA stuff is about presenting yourself as anything but what you are. Using specific pseudo psychological cues to hook a woman in such as pretending to be into palm reading just to get an excuse to touch her hands. Or like offering to perform a magic trick as an excuse to strike up a conversation. For instance, "choose a number between 1-5," let her pick, guess rightly or wrongly, but then switch the subject once you've got their attention. If you guessed right, you can hold off from explaining the law of averages until she asks. If you guessed wrong, you do your best to keep the subject away from your failure to use the law of averages in your favour, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, if she's into you, she's into you, so move in for the "kill." How to Succeed With Women is a book that has helped me the most because it does focus on self work and maintaining a positive attitude. It's been a while since I read it, but from what I remember, one of its pitfalls was saying that you shouldn't talk about religion, politics, or anything else important because women, and people in general, just want to have fun and don't care about important topics. I disagree with that since the women I've been attracting since I've delved into self knowledge have been more than happy to give me their opinions on social issues whether we agreed or not, and they've been very engaging conversations. Anyways, that book, I don't think, can constitute as PUA because its focus is more on how to maintain long term relationships as opposed to the focus on how to bed a woman ASAP. Take it from me as someone who has grown past the PUA stuff--from consuming the material and implementing it successfully/unsuccessfully--you're not missing out on much.

Hmm I guess it would be difficult to have sex with someone you end up losing respect for after taking the red pill. Good for you though, for committing to self work for that minimum 6 months. Not many people know how to take time for themselves before jumping into the next relationship, so they end up getting into another relationship for loneliness avoidance as opposed to happiness fulfillment. And thanks for the kind words! I mean if I met this woman before I've done self work, yeah I'd totally go for her. I am really turned on the most by her ambition for her work, but turned off by the fact that her committment to it is coming at a conscious cost of her physical and emotional health. Now that I've connected with myself more emotionally through self knowledge, I no longer have the need to pry a woman's heart open. My last relationship was based on that "challenge" of opening a closed off woman's heart, but that's quite exhausting. Doesn't make sense to be with someone like that for me now. I prefer someone who is actively pursuing emotional connectivity with herself and others.

Episode 3 came out yesterday. The plot thickens!

Seems like a movie that explores Mecosystem concepts

Well...I am writing a novel that's in the perspective a teenage girl, but that's besides the point lol. Do you have any thoughts on the actual topic, though, WasatchMan?