MMX2010

It's my fault, but we're discussing two different things. The only way I would support a kill-switch feature is if every customer could voluntarily implement it in exchange for favorable car insurance and cell-phone rates. A driver who voluntarily renders all cell phones non functional in his moving vehicle is automatically safer than one who doesn't. So any driver who does this ought to receive money for doing so. I don't support anything large-scale and government-controlled.

I am glad that you're doing better after having left, and I applaud your bravery for leaving in the first place.

Roissy, one of the three Manosphere writers I admire most, argues that it's neither. Instead, it's a "shit test" designed to see whether the man receiving it is alpha or beta. Consider a woman complaining that her butt is too big and that she wishes her butt looked like that girl's. A beta man attempts to assure her that she's pretty, or talks down the other woman she's negatively comparing herself to. Wheras an alpha male either "Agrees and Amplifies" (by saying, "Oh hell yeah. Are you a beach ball? Do you walk or roll?), or "Dismisses and Provokes" (by saying, "Try to be more subtle next time you're looking for compliments.") Roissy released this article today, which contains a salient point that I will highlight out-of-context. Full article link: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-difference-between-promiscuous-men-and-promiscuous-women/ Relevant paragraph: "If you heed not lies and accept the truth of biological and psychological sex differences, you won’t be surprised to learn that men, the sex with a trillion sperms to please their lovers, are hardwired to spread the seminal wealth without incurring psychotraumatic blowback. Men are geared from the get-go for poosy variety (though not all men will fulfill their directive and not all are geared in fifth) and therefore have the cortical capacity to easily tolerate the comings and goings of numerous lovers without having a breakdown or fretting constantly about how well new lovers match up to old lovers. Men occasionally reminisce about a teenage fling, but they don’t endlessly bemoan that one “alpha female” who got away like women are prone to do with their long-gone alpha male lovers." Edited to add: The paragraph above is meant to indicate why I, like PGP, don't believe that alpha/beat females exist.

I've heard, second-hand, (so it may not be reliable), that 75% of driving trips take under 20 minutes to complete. So a passenger in a 20 minute driving trip can go without cell service during that trip. Or he can broadcast on facebook: "Will be in a car for twenty minutes, so no phone or internet for me until then." We can debate whether we want the government to be in charge of such things (I don't.), or we can debate whether celling-while-driving is really that threatening (I think it is.), or we can debate both at once. But overall, I don't see the value in allowing cell phones to work while anyone is driving.

That's really bad. Police behave so much better when they're being recorded.

Didn't realize it was that bad. Can police disrupt the video-recording features as well?

I'm not sure if this is true, but the only proposed cell phone idea I've ever adamantly supported was adding software that disables the phone if you're travelling more than 20 MPH. Such a device would prevent people from using their cell phones while driving, but the police opposed such a device.

Okay. From my perspective, you were asking for alternative ways of dealing with bullies like your co-worker. Before I comment, I hope you're not at all feeling guilty, sad, or any form of self-attack for handling him like you did. He doesn't deserve any of your sympathy, and he wins if you experience self-doubt from interacting with him. It's possible to make a guy like that back down by turning his insults around. So when he asks you to shut up, even though you haven't said anything, just loudly and with happiness say, "(insert bully's name here), I know you fantasize about me hitting on you and dominating you, but I swear I didn't say anything just then. *point to someone else* John, you didn't hear me hit on him, right?" If you do this with ultimate happiness, and win over the laughter / approval of the rest of the group, he'll back down extremely quickly. But if you do this with any trace of frustration, bully guy will know that he's "gotten to you" and will continue to antagonize. Naturally, you don't have to learn to adopt this personality if you don't want to. I'm just presenting it as an option.

Major, major disclaimer: I haven't yet applied these ideas to my own life, so I concede that I have no credibility. However, have you read articles from either Rollo (from the rationalmale.com) or Roissy (at chateau heartiste) with regard to either "inner game", "amused mastery", or "cocky and funny"?

Wow. I think you should immediately PM MMD and arrange a call-in show with Stefan. What you're doing is both highly valuable and even more dangerous. So I don't think you should so this unless you're fully aware of both the value - (which means you must be highly skilled, lest you perform poorly) - and danger of your task.

"Those who are happy, despite never helping the victims of child abuse, are stealing their happiness from the victims of child abuse."

Are you experiencing something similar in your life, right now, ParaSait?

I feel the exact opposite of you. I didn't know how crazy the pro-Israel crowd was until Stef released his video and invited people to respond.

To me, "purging" means that you forcibly eject the anger and bitterness from your life. I think this is impossible. In my life, the things which makes me most bitter and angry are those which remind me of my abusive father. So whenever I see (or read) something that sides with him, I instantly feel bitter and angry. Yes, this is unpleasant - but it's much healthier than not feeling this way. The anger and bitterness lasts however long it's supposed to late, and then I find myself happy - provided nothing triggers my anger and bitterness. On balance, I'm only angry and bitter like 10% of my day. (Which means that anyone who says my anger/bitterness will "eat me up inside" didn't know what they were talking about...) ------------------------ Overall, I think the common rhetoric means, "Look, you can either forcibly reject your feelings of anger/ bitterness OR you can forcibly reject me - your abusive parent! And, as your abusive parent, I think you should reject your anger/bitterness!"

My fault. Your question was, "How do you respond to the commonly preached notion that forgiveness is for the victim so that they can 'let it go', release the anger and bitterness that 'eats you up on the inside'?" First, I remember well Stefan's exhortation to hold on you my anger and bitterness, because they're trying to protect me from further harm. Secondly, earlier in my FDR "career", I would've tried to convince people who preach that common notion not to believe that way anymore. But now I find that common notion so entrenched that I just avoid everyone who believes it. (Think about it: those people would rather let the adult victims of childhood die miserable deaths than change their mind about anger and bitterness eating people up inside.)

I know you didn't ask me, but I find Stefan's admonitions that you're not supposed to let go of your anger and bitterness. Earlier in my FDR "career", I would've tried to reason such people out of this position. But now I just view them as dangerous individuals who are best avoided at all costs. (Seriously, those people would rather let the adult victims of child abuse die miserable deaths than change their minds about forgiveness.)

I think the best water-in-the-face argument aimed against White Knights comes from Rollo here: http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/14/appreciation/ The most appealing paragraphs: (1) "I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you wont. You can’t be because women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate her reality. Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminne-centric reality. Men making the personal sacrifices necessary to honor, respect and love her are commonplace. You’re supposed to do those things. You sacrificed your ambitions and potential to provide her with a better life? You were supposed to. You resisted temptation and didn’t cheat on your wife with the hot secretary who was DTF and ready to go? You were supposed to. Your responsibilities to maintaining a marriage, a home, your family, etc. are common – they’re expected. They are only appreciated in their absence." (2) "For instance in The Mature Man thread; assume for a moment that a 40 y.o. Man with the options to pursue younger women “does the right thing” and seeks out a relationship with a woman his own age. Would he be appreciated for essentially giving an aged woman a new lease on life? Or would he be viewed as doing what is to be expected of him? Would a man who marries a single mother and helps with the parental investment of another man’s child be appreciated more for having done so? Would it even factor into a woman’s estimation of his character, or would he simply doing what’s expected of a man? The question of appreciation is a real quandary for the White Knight."

Stef has used this example a lot: (1) If someone gets caught stealing your bike, and offers to pay you $1,000,000, you'd gladly accept. But, by gladly accepting, you emotionally feel that your bike was worth far less than $1,000,000. And so you're profiting from the "theft" of your bike, which is now converted to a purchase of it. (2) If someone gets caught stealing your bike, and offers to pay you $1, you'd get angry. And your anger means that you feel your bike is worth more than $1. (3) Therefore, there must be a specific amount of money, X-dollars, wherein you feel neither overjoyed nor angered to receive after someone is caught stealing your bike. That specific emotional reaction indicates that restitution has been provided and that you'll automatically feel forgiveness because restitution has been provided. I haven't heard the podcast you're referring to. But I'm guessing Stef is arguing that there is no amount of money you could receive from someone who murders your lover to make you feel that restitution has been made.

You don't have to apologize for the directly-copying the headline you were given. Isn't it weird, though, how the headline is misleading, presenting the situation as if 100% of transgender people aren't allowed to board airplanes when that simply isn't true?

I'm sorry if this comes across as unrelated to your topic. But I think it's related. You can disagree, if you'd like. While reading the youtube comments to The Truth About Robin Williams, I noticed how the obviously-trolly posts got dozens of replies, whereas the obviously-NON-trolly / sincere-questions comments were never answered. I subsequently thought up the "FDR job position" named "valuable youtube comment trawler". Qualifications: (1) A deep knowledge of multiple podcasts. (2) A commitment to answering the sincere questions from youtube comments. (3) A much stronger commitment to neither engage trolls nor allow their presence to sap your enthusiasm. Process: (1) Don't begin your "job" until MMD has posted a [YouTube] Insert-Podcast-Here thread. (2) If you notice a sincere question, answer it in the Youtube comments; then post a summary in that [YouTube] Insert-Podcast-Here thread. Something like, "The user HappyGoLucky asked question-X, which I answered by referring her to Podcast #Y." (3) If you notice that all sincere question have been answered, do nothing. (4) If it's been one whole week since the podcast was introduced on YouTube, move on to a more recent thread. Now, I've been on FDR long enough to know about and agree with the, "Hey, since you proposed the idea, you should do the work yourself...." mantra. Thus, I accept that I have zero credibility in suggesting that you should follow my proposal. But if you'd like to implement my proposal for just two users ONLY to see whether you feel happier doing this than engaging trolls, that might be very helpful for you.

Whenever speculating about government actions, I always presume the most thoughtless reasons possible. So a large conspiracy, wherein the government deliberately produced a rule to discriminate against transgender people, is far too intelligent, thoughtful, and coordinated. Thus, I assert that the government needed a simple rule, and therefore it produced a simple rule.

Okay. Now I feel like a blithering idiot. One million apologies. I don't think the government is defining "what it means to be transgender". It's just setting rules with regard to "are you going to be allowed to board a plane if your government ID reads opposite of your biological sex".

I don't think it's in my best interest to answer that question before you acknowledge that your headline, "Transgender people are completely banned from boarding airplanes", was utterly incorrect. (Mind you, I'm not accusing you of deliberately misleading us. Just pointing out that your headline is incorrect.)

No, that's not true. Transgender people who have either: (a) already undergone gender re-assignment surgery, or (b) provided sufficient evidence that they will undergo gender re-assignment surgery within a year are allowed to board planes when their government ID lists the opposite of their biological sex. Whereas, transgender people who have yet to undergo this procedure cannot board a plane when their appearance doesn't match their biological sex. Because different types of transgender people are being treated differently, you can't say (nor imply) that all transgender people are being "discriminated against".

That's not accurate, either. If they were banned from entering a plane because of how they looked, they'd never be able to enter a plane, because "how they look" is permanent. So I would say they're being banned from entering the plane because of how they're dressed - specifically, they're dressed in a way that runs contrary to their biological sex. Being dressed in a certain way is a choice. Entering a plane is a privilege, not a right. And this topic is wrongfully presented as "No transgender people are ever allowed to enter planes!" - which is factually untrue.