Wuzzums

Thank you. I googled her name and found out who you were talking about. I have met and known several people with Cluster B personality disorders, and gotta say the moment I saw her my fight or flight mechanism kicked in. I wouldn't put much thought behind anything she does and say, viewcount is the target, not principles.

Don't know about the videos in question so I'm not gonna comment on that. What I am going to say is that both MRA and feminism say they have the same goal: equal rights for men and women. The difference is that MRA puts that into practice whereas feminism puts forth the "women are superior to men" agenda into practice. Lots of people call themselves "feminist" mainly out of ignorance. Kind of like how people look at the "To serve and protect" bumper stickers on squad cars and assume that's what the police is doing. I know Warren Farrell and Erin Pizzey referred to themselves as feminists earlier on before they saw what was really going on. Never pay attention to what people say, but to what people do.

I often say that I look forward to that moment in time when all we need is a single pill to be set for the whole day. People usually reply: "What?? If I could I would eat all the time! Eating is the best part of the day!". Which makes me feel sorry for them.

If Stef's not using it, can I have the beard? I always wanted one.

Yes. Dairy products are consumed mainly by the western world, I know Asian countries find consuming milk particularly disgusting. Being able to digest milk well into adulthood offers an evolutionary advantage because extra food source and all that. So I would argue that those populations that consumed milk would have gradually adapted to have milk as a safe and natural food source. I.e. those populations literally evolved to be able to digest milk. And the lady with the tight shirt is among said populations.

A few clarifications: Milk does not produce diarrhea unless you're lactose intolerant. And if you're lactose intolerant, why on Earth would you consume milk in the first place? "Somatic cells" doesn't mean anything, it's almost a redundancy, it's not a specific term. Then it redefines somatic as "white blood cell", which is equivalent to pus. This is factually incorrect, pus = white blood cells + bacteria, it's what forms at the site of infection. Milk does not contain pus, it contains WBC, and so does human milk. I guess we should stop feeding pus to babies too? Synthetic growth hormone is used only on US cattle as far as I'm aware. IGF-1 is a common hormone found in a lot of mammals, amongst which are humans and apparently cows also. It's 100% natural and necessary. Hormones cannot illicit an immune response from the body because the molecular structure is way too simple to be recognized by leukocytes (note: immune response = self defense mechanism against a foreign substance/body). So yeah, "Our antibodies cannot understand these hormones" is a correct statement, but they can neither "understand" human hormones. Protein eaters do have an increased risk of cancer, colon cancer more specifically. It used to be called "rich man's disease" because people of means could afford more meat, and more meat consumption leads to less fiber consumption, and less fiber consumption is what actually increases the risk for colon cancer. If a plant diet is added on top, the risk of cancer drops to that of the rest of the population. Proteins per se have no negative effect on the body. "Calcium intake has nothing to do with bone density". Yes it does. That man is a moron. So what is left is the ethical aspect of it, which I'm for.

I would argue that regardless of definition, the US is either a fascistic state already or the closest thing to it. Here's a fun game, try to check off all the traits you see in the US from all these lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

It's a process. I do not have any measurable evidence as to the composition of consciousness, neither do I have any measurable evidence as to the composition of logic. However all I do know is that they are both products of the brain. I cannot really define consciousness but your theory that there's a consciousness that encompasses human consciousness has some implications. It implies that consciousness can be created by more consciousness, which results that our own consciousness is created by an amalgamation of other consciousnesses, and so on ad infinitum. Turtles all the way down. Doesn't really lead to a deeper understanding as to what consciousness is. Artificial intelligence science has gotten to the point where it can create intelligent programs which have no consciousness. This puts forth the question why consciousness exists in the first place if it's not required to create intelligence. There's this metaphor that I thought useful. The brain is like an orchestra that creates its own conductor (i.e. the consciousness). The conductor cannot function without the orchestra, but the orchestra still functions like an orchestra whether there's a conductor or not. So in this sense, I don't think there can be no higher plane of consciousness than our own, you cannot have an orchestra made only of conductors.

So pick-up is just a skill, and the reason of learning a skill is not getting the product of that skill... it's the being able to do the skill itself... hmm. If this is the case then I can only assume you also believe musicians play instruments just for the sake of learning a skill, they couldn't care less about making music or listening to it for that matter. Once they achieved mastery they can just sit back and never play that instrument for the rest of their lives, because they can no longer learn that skill seeing how that skill is learned now. Talking is also a social skill. I'm assuming all this talking you did wasn't to convey any message or idea of some sort. How foolish of me to assume your entire post was not just made for the sake of talking. I apologize. P.S. What if my black friend just happens to really like watermelons and fried chicken and I wanna do something nice for him? I mean, who doesn't like watermelons and fried chicken? Why does his skin color have to dictate the way I act towards him, specifically when it's against his preferences?

I second this. Hateful people will pick on anyone that's in reach and imagine that someone is the cause of all their misfortune. Race is just easier to spot. Hair color can be changed or hidden, so can eye color, you have to start a conversation with someone to find out their religious or political affiliation, sports teams are easier cause everybody likes to wear identifying marks, and so on. It's tribal mentality: "I have a tribe, my tribe is good, that person is different than me, that person is not of my tribe, that person is not good". Racism is just color coded hatred.

Ah yes, the "you can either agree with me or have a closed mind" stratagem. Well done.

I don't think it's about goodbyes, more about you having an impression you owe people to say goodbye. It makes sense to say goodbye to the host, not so much with the other guests. By the language you used I assume none of the people you greet are friends, otherwise you would have referred to them as such. And to friends it doesn't matter whether you say goodbye or not. So basically what's going on is you hating the fact you're made to do something you don't want to do, that's why when you don't do it you think you're in the wrong. You refer to it as "sneaking" and "counter productive". It's not, it's just you asserting you wants in the moment. Because you say it's something you did ever since childhood, I can only assume you were chastised as a kid whenever you expressed a need. Never be ashamed to do what you choose to do.

That is so true. Some people stare at computers and see endless opportunities, some people stare at computers and see a 2000$ facebook machine.

I'm still looking for the Onion News Network logo but still can't find it. Anyone else had any luck?

"(...) like any scientific position" Yeah, nice framing.

Assuming it does work, as in you will gain more confidence if you filter out self deprecating thoughts or something to this effect. How can you go about achieving this? Filtering out bad thoughts implies having those bad thoughts in the first place. Not saying it's impossible. I was into NLP a long time ago and there was this theory, or technique more like it, that said that if you consciously repeat some thought pattern it will eventually become a subconscious process. Sort of like a conditioned reflex regarding thoughts. I'm kinda skeptical of this because the implications are enormous. If it's true then no self knowledge is ever required to change oneself, just practice.

All is not lost. If she is as great of a catch as you say she is then you can use her as an asset. I may not think that a male can be "just friends" with a female he's attracted to but such a thing is possible if the female is committed to another relationship. It's a catch-22 type scenario, if she is a great catch (looks, self knowledge and everything else) and she is in a stable relationship then you cannot possibly have a romantic relationship with her because if you did then it means she's not in a stable relationship, which means she doesn't have much self knowledge, which means she's not a great catch, which means you can't really form a stable romantic relationship with her. She is an asset because women know women, and similar people tend to cluster. So if she's into self knowledge and other great things, her friends must be too. You can ask her to introduce you to one of these friends. Win win.

Contrary to the first post, I'm gonna propose the theory that you're still having crushes because of your low self-esteem. You're not sure of who you are, or what your worth is, so you're living in a narrative where your past doesn't exist or at the very least trying to hide it. You said it yourself you're a novelist, so could it be that you're picturing a future of an idealized version of yourself together with an idealized version of some female, but neither of those having any past? You said you're afraid of your past because it might be a turnoff for women. I think this is a bit superficial, why do you want to attract women that do not like something that is you? Why would a woman that refuses to date you because of the color of your eyes be desirable in the first place? It's no different with your past. You do not want to be with someone that holds you at fault for something you had no say in, nor can't possibly change. I am very sorry that you had to go through the childhood you had. Self-esteem development is linked with a strong bond between child and parent. Changing homes so frequently can have a toll on how you perceive yourself. You have to let yourself seen and have others around you see you in order to develop a strong sense of self. Each time your caregiver changed it meant you had to start opening up to a stranger all over again, and because some parents have no idea what they're doing they probably had their own ideas on who you were or supposed to be. You mentioned receiving harsh punishment from one of the foster mothers, this implies you weren't acting the way she wanted you to act. Strike one against the self. This is why I think you're now feeling ashamed, perhaps, to talk about your past with women. Like it's something you're responsible for, maybe. Now I'll go back to my first point. If you can't connect to your own past then you're probably not connecting those women with their past. You're attracted to them because they're sort of blank slates, you're just adding your desired traits on top: stable, warm, intelligent. Who wouldn't be attracted to a Mary Sue we conjured up in real life? I'm also 24 and the last crush I had was in highschool. I remember having these crazy thoughts. Like if she rejected me in some way, no matter how trifle, then I was fully at fault. I was paranoid I messed up the whole interaction somehow and maybe if I said something different, or used a different tone of voice, then I could have gotten what I wanted. It wasn't about what her preferences were in the moment, or that she was busy, or maybe just sleeping. No, I was always 100% responsible. What I was doing was playing in my head both parts of the interaction, and when it didn't measure up to reality I had no idea what to do. When I stopped creating stories for her and just looked at her own story unfold was when she became an actual person in my mind. It was also when my crush for her just faded away. Never had a crush since.

Thanks for the post, it was a good read. Regarding how one could get back at sociopaths. What about shame and envy? Not so certain about the first one, but envy they have to feel. At least some of them. If they have a need to feel superior to other people and show it, then they will seek validation in the form of climbing the social hierarchy. So if someone is on top of a psychopath's current social status then it's a constant reminder that they're inferior, that their need for superiority is not met and envy must arise. This reminds me of the business card scene in the movie American Psycho. Or the scene in which he starts panicking not because he was covering a murder he did, but because he noticed the person he murdered had a slightly bigger apartment than him.

I like how it heavily implies that mothering and being a mother are the same things. Job description and job title are not the same things.

Yes, they even point out the mother's role and how she should have left the table also.

Same way a free society will deal with any other criminal: MORTAL COMBAT! Just kidding. It would deal by pointing a finger at the culprit and then it's up to each individual person, including you, whether to choose to associate with that person or not. How many people would date a person guilty of revenge porn? And how many people will make revenge porn knowing that?

Original title "Festen". It's the 60th anniversary of the head of a family and a big celebration is prepared, all extended family invited including friends and business associates. During the dinner toast, one of the sons decides to make a speech and unveils some terrible family truths. The rest of the film is a clash between social conformity and the son's constant struggle to make his voice heard. All kinds of methods of manipulation are thrown at him in order to make him shut up, from denial, to attack, to being called crazy, and so on. The movie is filmed intentionally on a low quality camera with a 4:3 ratio so as to achieve a home movie feel. Full movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_EG8RvyzA

UPB makes the distinction between preferences and UPB, the phrasing of the categorical imperative doesn't. Being a sadist is in accord with the CI thus it is moral law, and I cannot be moral if I'm not a sadist. Being a sadist in UPB is merely a preference. UPB as I understand it does not say what people should do, it only evaluates if an action is in accord with UPB, whereas the CI clearly states what people should do. I repeat myself, Kant is not clear at all on what he means by lying and deceiving. He seems to equate the two, this is demonstrably wrong. I can lie without deceiving, for example: lie = I'm not using words right now. deceit = vote for me and I'll give you a bunch of free stuff. Deceit implies lying, but lying doesn't require deceit. A lie is still a lie even if nobody believes it, deceit requires that somebody believes the lie as truth. At least that's how I differentiate the two. So a word in which lying is the norm would just be like a perpetual opposite day.

I have heard a psychiatrist say that infantilization is as damaging as physical or emotional abuse. Its consequences in adulthood are as worse and harder to manage.