MMX2010

Thought this was definitely funny, and probably true. ================== Where the Muslims are not happy: They're not happy in Gaza. They're not happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Indonesia. So, where are they happy? They're happy in Australia. They're happy in England. They're happy in France. They're happy in Italy. They're happy in Germany. They're happy in Sweden. They're happy in the USA. They're happy in Norway. They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame for their unhappiness? Not Islam...not their leadership...not themselves... They blame the countries in which they are HAPPY! And they want to change the countries in which they're happy, to be like the countries they came from, where they were unhappy. Try to find logic in that.

You're welcome. Lately, I've been focused on Black-or-White / Gamma thought processes, so I recognize them immediately. Gamma creates the false dichotomy of "Should I choose A or B?", while anti-Gamma says, "Both, dude! BOTH!" For example: why did you set up the goal, "I wanted to value her for her mind BUT NOT her eggs?" What goal besides, "I want a man to value me for my mind AND my eggs?" do you think she has? I blame your decisions entirely on Stefan, by the way. His rhetoric against beautiful women, coupled with his unwillingness to consider that he himself simultaneously triggers a woman's hypergamous desires AND is philosophically-rigorous, makes him closed-minded against the possibility that hypergamic-triggering plays a large role in spreading philosophy. You'd better be careful with that rhetoric, too. After all, if "I've got daddy issues." is bad in women, then "I've got mommy issues." is bad in men, right? So what percent of men on this forum have mommy issues? Over 90%, right? (Just ask them for their ACE scores, and a brief summary of their parents' relationships.) Now, I understand that Stefan has always had huge goals for himself, which means he wants a wife who requires minimal emotional management. But since every other man's goals are not that high, then he has both the time and skill-level with which to manage women's silliness. Do you think women are so stupid that you have to "reveal" your weaknesses to them? Or do they just pick up on those weaknesses as a natural consequence of hanging out with you? Revealing your weaknesses is infinitely weaker than expecting her to discover those weaknesses herself.

Am not going to post pictures or links, but ISIS in Syria executed four gay men by throwing them off a roof, and posted some pictures under the hashtag LoveWins - (the same one Americans used to celebrate the Supreme Court gay marriage decision).

I know the drive to talk to her was magnetic, but there are certain things that you shouldn't do, one of which is tell her about your childhood struggles, your self-esteem struggles, and your current relationship struggles. It puts her into the Mother-role, whether you see it or not. And it prevents her from wanting to have sex with you. (All of this is why Stefan's "Go to Therapy" advice is harmful to the men who follow it while in a relationship with a woman - which damages the relationship.)

You don't get to decide whether she was in the Mother-role or not; she does. And every time you use "therapy-based language" - such as self-esteem, childhood struggles, and dating-struggles - when conversing with a woman, you're putting her in the Mother-role.

She was at least thirty-five, not interested in marriage or children, a 5 or below in physical attractiveness - (with my guess being a 3) - and didn't sleep with you. Am I right? If I am wrong, it's probably because you took the conversation to "therapeutic language", where the therapy language is focused on yourself and your struggles. This is a huge no-no, as it puts the man into the Child-role, with her being in the Mother-role.

Personal attacks have no business on this forum, Patrick. I'm allowed to give my opinion about the state of men in this culture, and you're allowed to counter-argue against that opinion. But resorting to sarcastic insult has no place here.

Females hate the men of this culture because we're neither strong enough nor willing enough to provide them with guidance. Hence, they support the fantasy of strong, guiding men in a distant culture. What greater proof that females cannot stand strong and become virtuous without the guidance of virtuous men do you need?

Here's what I know about Real Women. They change their minds a lot. As in, "I thought, when we first met, that you were just this sexually-charged dumb guy with a great body, but as I got to know you, I realize that you're smart, caring, and highly sympathetic towards women's wants and needs. So I thought you were going to be just a fling, but now I realize how much I love you." Or, as in, "I thought I could make a marriage with you based solely on your empathy and concern-for-our-children, but sexual chemistry is important, too. And I'm no longer attracted to you." Strawman, dude. I equate FDR-member's desire to poison-the-well against people who haven't gone to therapy as analogous to a frustrated mother trying to punish a three year old. And I also equate a MGTOW's conclusion to avoid all women as similarly analogous. Are those the only two possibilities? If there are more than those two, what does it say about you that you only grabbed the worst two you could think of? Strong words. Lots of bluster. No demographic research. No scientific evidence. In a word, "Not An Argument". You don't know what PUA is. If you knew PUA, you'd know that the PUA would be able to quickly size up 22 year-old Isabella, and know that an Aloof-Alpha-Challenge opener wouldn't work on her. Instead, an open-ended question which allows her to talk about herself would be ideal, followed by well-timed alpha-interruptions of agreement. PUA isn't a simple collection of "brute force" maneuvers, applied mindlessly to every chick that appears. It's a collection of multiple openers, multiple conversations threads, and multiple escalations options, tailored to each specific woman. But, by all means, have your strawmen. Lots of bluster. Lots of slander. Lots and lots of anger. No scientific evidence. No personal experience from which to draw. In other words, "Not An Argument". Funny? That describes what I do, as well.

Do you think we're surrounded by Ubermenschen? Utterly awesome, highly philosophically rigorous, ultra-sexy men who simultaneously trigger a woman's hypergamic needs and her fantasies for shelter and child-rearing? No? Well then how do you know whether women's usage of the State is designed to make up for a lack of what men could provide, but don't? Aesthetically, I don't pursue 30-something career women.

So, on the one hand, Stefan says things like, "Women are biologically pre-disposed to surrender to the strongest ape in the room." And you also believe that women "believe in" the State, because the State gives them resources. And you see women mimic-repeat pro-State talking points all the time. But, on the other hand, when I suggest, "A philosophically strong man who is also sexy can get the same result through mimicry.", you're like, "No, man. I'm worried about her mimicry, because it is mimicry."

True. But also false. If the men who were most interested in philosophy were the most sexually desirable, then the women would at least try to mimic philosophical understanding in order to attract us. Some of these women would, (either quickly or eventually) become genuinely philosophically-rigorous through the constant mimicry. All you've discovered is that very few women will independently become philosophically rigorous and virtuous without the daily personal interaction with philosophically rigorous and virtuous men. Hence, the "Don't engage with any woman who isn't philosophically rigorous! Shame and ostracize!" argument is extremely impedimentary to philosophy.

Stefan's master's thesis goes on and on and on about the war between Plato (mysticism - which ought to (but, tragically, isn't) be translated as "I've a strong emotional reaction dictating that X is true, therefore X must be true.") and Aristotle (direct observable evidence). One of Aristotle's most important concepts is the golden mean, the ability to find the perfect position between two extremes, such as "Cowardly - Just Right - Reckless", "Too Emotional - Just Right - Too Logical", "Not Nearly Enough Sexual Experience - Just Right - Too Much Sexual Experience". So all you're describing is the Golden Mean. Some people talk in abstracts to avoid challenging their perspectives by having personal relationships with those they disagree with. Others talk in abstracts, while constantly seeking personal relationships with those they disagree with. I mentioned in another thread that some people in FDR have an increasingly smaller social circle the longer they spend listening to podcasts, while others get an increasingly larger social circle. If philosophy is meant to improve the world, then how can those with an ever-increasing social-circle say they're accomplishing this mission? (They're not, of course - but their every argument reduces to, "If I just get angry enough at everyone who is philosophically mistaken, and withdraw my presence from their life after making it clear that it's because they're philosophically mistaken, then they'll either die a painful philosophically-stupid death OR they'll become philosophically-stronger." Not ONLY is this argument of questionable effectiveness - (because it reminds me of a mother abandoning her children, except without the child's utter need for their mother) - but it begs the question, "Why not just have relationships with philosophically-ignorant people and, over time, turn them into philosophically intelligent ones?") The contradiction is hilariously indicated through this example. (1) You know I like younger women. So, if I date a 22 year old woman, for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, but she doesn't become philosophically intelligent, then I wasted my time. And Stefan says, "Punch yourself in the dick!!!" (2) If I date a 22 year old woman for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, but she becomes very philosophically intelligent with regard to peaceful parenting and not-at-all interested in anarchism, then I wasted my time. And Stefan says, "You're having children with someone who believes violence is a solution for non-violent disputes! Punch yourself in the dick!!!" (3) If I date a 22 year old woman for three years, and introduce her to philosophy, and she becomes masterfully philosophically aware in every field imaginable, what does Stefan say? "Thank you MMX2010, for spreading philosophy to one more woman, one who is capable of teaching philosophy to her children." Or does he say, "Punch yourself in the dick!"? (4) If I'm great friends with a 22 year old woman for three years, never making a romantic move on her while introducing her to philosophy, does any outcome become "more pure" - just because I never made a romantic move on her? (5) If I wait for a woman to become philosophically aware on her own, is that path "significantly more likely to work" than deliberately introducing women to philosophy? (6) And most hilarious of all, doesn't Stefan Molyneux think of himself as among the best in the world at empathizing with someone's childhood and guiding them to the self-knowledge required to become philosophically strong? And didn't you, and me, and Kevin Beal, and Lians, and J-William, and all of the long-time FDR listeners train under him? So if Stefan-himself doesn't trust his long-time listeners to introduce empathy-based philosophical conversations about childhood to the women who need to have these conversations, then who does he really trust?

At least I know the difference between well-researched conclusions (PUA manuals) and not-at-all researched bluster (Stefan's negative reactions to PUA, and FDR members negative reactions to PUA - both of which stem from avoiding deep research into PUA). And at least I'm smart enough to get the opinions of many different people, rather than just a limited number of people, all of whom have the same biases. Case in point, has any heterosexual woman voiced agreement with Stefan's criticism of the McDonald's chick? No, of course not. In fact, every woman I've communicated with voiced very strong disagreement with Stefan's line of thinking. They noticed that he interrupted me four times while I was making the point, and then, concluded his argument was arrogant, elitest, presumptuous, and just plain wrong. So if anyone needs to go back to Stefan's master's thesis, it's him, it's you, and it's the people who blindly dismiss PUA without researching it.

One of the most important things we implicitly covered is Black/White thinking. You asked, "Are you looking to use PUA as a way to experiment or as a way to find a woman to settle down with?" (Both!) Similar questions would've included, "Are you looking to use PUA as a way to stroke your ego or to bring happiness to women?" (Both.) "Are you looking to use PUA to create a persona by which women can like you or to allow your genuine personality to be seen?" (Both.) "Are you looking to use PUA to attract a low-IQ or high-IQ woman?" (Both.) "Are you looking to use PUA to form a lust-filled shallow connection or a deep empathetic one?" (Both!) Many people subscribe to BlackWhite thinking, which Vox Day calls Gamma thinking. And Gamma thinking is poisonous because it creates so many fears that you have to go into your head and plan a response to each one. Or you just stockpile so many fears and objections that you refuse to change your situation. Worse, people with Gamma thinking tend to spread it on other people, for instance, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego." (If you know it's fallacious, can't you control yourself enough to not say it?) Those accusations cause certain people to "defend themselves", and invites other Gammas to dogpile. Once you free yourself from Gamma thinking, you realize how many opportunities exist, and you become liberated and less judgmental - therefore, happier.

I agree with you, but Pick-Up Artistry taught me how to Agree and Amplify, just to see what happens. Marlowe is a member of the original FDR NYC Meet-Up group, and I've narrowed it down to one of four individuals. I won't say which one I think he is, but based on my experience, if I walked up to him, or the other three FDR NYC individuals, or MMD, or Nate Diehl, or Rainbow Jamz, and said, "That's great. Thanks. I hope you get a ten times better, no thirty times better, therapist." they wouldn't take it as genuine concern for their welfare. They would get angry, or downvote, or amygdala freeze - because their original line, "I hope you find a good therapist." wasn't stated out of genuine concern. It was said to belittle, berate, and poison the well. A chick, on the other hand, who was saying, "I hope you find a good therapist." in a joking way, would find the Agree & Amplify response hilarious.

Okay. I think I get it now. When you listen to the call-in show, focus on: (1) the concept of poisoning the well, (2) Stefan's initial, and secondary, and tertiary reaction to my story about the McDonald's chick, and (3) Stefan's initial reaction to, and then reverse reaction towards, the second chick - described as High IQ. Those are his strongest reactions to PUA tactics, so they'll be the focus of the next phase of our discussion.

Asserts (multiple times) that I'm behaving in a dysfunctional manner. Insists that he's not trying to one-up me. *shrugs*

Which misbehavior were you even talking about? In your original post, you said, "The MMX that is talking for the first 2/3 of your call is not someone I find interesting in the least. He's irritating, arrogant, short sighted, and immoral. I want to have nothing to do with anyone like that." The word "irritating, arrogant, short-sighted, and immoral" aren't Misbehaviors; they're personality traits. As far as what misbehavior Stefan brought to my attention, this conversation would go much more smoothly if you explained exactly which misbehavior you mean, rather than assuming I know what you mean. I'm ignoring his suggestion to seek therapy for multiple reasons, none of which you know (because you haven't asked), none of which he knows (because he hasn't asked). Saying my behavior is dysfunctional, without knowing is reasons is...what? Helpful and empathetic? (No.) Already have, multiple times. Have rejected it, multiple times. For many reasons. You'd know some of them, if you had bothered asking. But you preferred leaping to conclusions about me, and then announcing to the world that you'll no longer interact with me, rather than simply asking....and listening.

I'll wait for you to comment further, but this part struck me. There's a psychological phenomenon known as "splitting", wherein you become emotionally attached to your good qualities and good deeds, defining them as so-essentially-really-you while simultaneously becoming emotionally detached from your bad qualities and bad deeds, defining them as so-essentially-NOT-really-you. Your comment above attempts to "split" me, and I refuse to be split. The person you witnessed in the first two-thirds of the call is just as much a part of me as the person you witnessed in the last third. Both parts are necessary. Both parts are who I really am. Both parts do good deeds and bad deeds. Both parts have successes and failures. TheLastPsychiatrist has a wonderful article entitled "Amy Schumer Offers You A Look Insider Of Your Soul", which is three excellent things at once: (1) an extraordinary description of where "splitting" originates, how it persists, its negative consequences, and its ultimate cure, (2) an extraordinary argument against therapy and introspection, and (3) a side-splitting insight into some aspects of male/female interactions. You should check it out.

Right. You're trying to have it both ways at the same time. On the one hand you say, "I'm saying that it's my personal reaction to that specific circumstance" - (meaning you're just explaining your own personal preference, just like Sigma Tau is explaining his own personal preference). But on the other hand you finish the sentence with, "but I would also argue that these warning signs are the kind of things that people would look for if they're after a virtuous partners. If you're not concerned with this then you probably not after someone terribly virtuous" - (meaning that you're NOT just explaining your own personal preference, you're in fact arguing that your personal preference makes you morally upright, personally superior, deserving of all happiness that everyone who disagrees with you is doomed to not possess). Those contradictions cannot be simultaneously held without bringing misery upon yourself and everyone else who listens to you. Because you either ARE morally superior - (in which case, you're weakening your moral superiority by disguising it with tolerance for those who disagree with you) - or you're NOT morally superior - (in which case, you're self-aggrandizing by using moralistic language to describe something that merely makes you different, not BETTER). Of course he said that. He also said that his knowledge of Pick-Up Artistry is limited, because he never studied it in depth. So he has the problem of, "Okay, I didn't really study this stuff at all, and I may have only picked and chose what I wanted to focus on, rather than studying it seriously BUT here's my very strong opinion, given with utterly supreme confidence anyway...." problem. Furthermore, he behaves like he wants to "reduce" PUA to "a bunch of stuff that he doesn't like", rescue the aspects of PUA that he does like and cal it by a happier name. In my call-in show, (1) he called the high-IQ woman "rude" for using the line, "You look like you're begging for something but I don't know what it is. (2) I pushed back, "If I wanted to view it as rude, I could have. And I could've said, 'I find what you said extremely rude and sad.' - but I chose to find it funny instead by saying, 'Why did you go and say that? If you didn't say anything, I would've believed that you didn't see my hand. But when you say stuff like that, I've gotta turn my hand over!" (3) He said, (something like), "Well, what you're describing there sounds like playfulness." While I accept that I didn't perform as well as I wanted to in the call-in show, that exchange above shed a lot of light on the problem with anti-PUAs. You want to comment on something you haven't deeply studied. You want to assert that you know more about it than those who have studied it. And you want to re-frame the parts of PUA that you like into "not really PUA".

Okay, I'll look into it, but it'll take a while.

Strange. I never make fallacious statements that make an entire group of people look bad.

Which post number in this thread, J. D.? Also, could you answer my questions in the FDR2993 - Incomprehensible Bravery thread?

Nope, David. I don't care whether you remain engaged or not. If you make your anti-PUA argument without using words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", I will respond to that. If not, I'll just write you off as having failed the challenge. Meaning, the reason that you didn't try to formulate your anti-PUA argument WITHOUT using those words, is because you can't formulate your anti-PUA argument without using those words. Personal attacks like, "He's moving from passive-aggressive to aggressive in order to keep me engaged.", and "In short, honor among thieves doesn't make anyone less of a thief." have no place on this forum. I know you'll convince some people that you're acting with "integrity" and "philosophy" here, but you should take those words much more seriously by NOT using them, and focusing more on Making Your Arguments.