Matt D

I don't think 'holding on' to anger is an accurate description of what's really going on when people describe themselves as having a lot of "pent-up" anger or rage. As many have already pointed out, anger is designed to prompt us to change something about our environment. Usually the stimulant is a human (either ourselves or someone around us). Let's say someone is doing something we find annoying like whistling loudly. We can either choose to tell that person how we feel and request that they stop, or we can choose to not do anything about the feeling. For a lot of people they don't even see this initial decision as a choice because of the fog and family members in their heads. So what next? Option 1 - We tell the other person how we feel and request they change their behavior Either the person will say "Thanks for telling me" and stop, or they will continue to do it anyway. If they continue their behavior or try to blame you for "making a big deal out of nothing" you can tell them that now you feel even worse. This is known here as a real-time relationships. If the person continues their behavior and you're in a situation which is voluntary you can just leave. If the situation is less voluntary, like at work for instance, you can weigh the pro and cons of talking to your boss about it, but it might prompt you to start looking for a better work environment. Option 2 - You choose not to speak up about how you feel Let's say you don't do anything about the person whistling loudly. Maybe you will get used to the noise and it won't bother you very much. But chances are you will eventually start to feel more and more annoyed, maybe coming to the point of anger. What's important here is that you're not angry because the person is whistling since you haven't informed the person it annoys you. In case, you're most likely angry at yourself BECAUSE you haven't told the person it annoys you. Therefore, taking your anger out on the other person would be unjust to the situation. -- When you are around people who you feel comfortable being your authentic self with, you don't have to know why you're angry. You can just say, "I felt angry when you did X" Then your friend can choose to help you explore the feeling since he values your experience and will benefit from it being positive. We often jump to the conclusion that anger is about other people. In the case of your parents, Jamz, you say you know that they will never change. So my guess would be the anger is around something you are doing (or not doing).

Brian, I propose you donate $5 to FDR every time you break NVC by communicating a judgment of others. I mean, if you want anyone to take you seriously you've got to at least try to practice what you're advocating that others do.

I've heard someone started writing "The Story of Your Enslavement" on dollar bills. Does anyone know if that story is true?

Hi Robert, I wasn't around back then, but regardless, apologies are usually a good place to start. Welcome back.

Much later in the call (once Stef had disposed of his supposed logical fallacy) Brian admitted that NVC was not a good name for this method of communication, and that Rosenberg has said as much himself. Of course, he did not lead off with this fact but only presented it once his argument had been dismantled. Now, Brian is again bringing up the same denial of the antecedent fallacy on the board. And does he preface his argument by saying, "I know Non-Violent Communication is not a good name for Rosenberg's method of minimizing conflict but I would like to make the case that it is a subset of all possible non-violent communication."? No. Instead he accuses Stef and Mike of insulting him (which is a judgment if I've ever heard one) even after Mike tried to gently point out inconsistencies and ways in which Brian could improve his communication. If this is representative of studying NVC, I'm inclined to stay as far away from it as possible.

You bet. Keep it up, I enjoy reading your writing.

I guess this is where we differ. You don't think you can win the handful of women who live up to standards of virtue; I think I can, and will. Yes it will be a challenge because of the corrupt world we've inherited and because women largely hold power in sexual relationship. But I like challenges. Ask yourself: When the beauty of your woman fades, what will you be left with?

I imagine that call going something like this:

Can you explain in a little more detail what you're looking for?

I know what it might mean to say "equal partnership" in a relationship, i.e. decisions will be arrived at by talking things out together, but the author demonstrates quite clearly a lack of understanding for this definition of 'equality'.

I have a couple new videos published. Please subscribe to my channel, Unraise, if you are enjoying the content. I welcome your feedback. Thnx! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvLXA_ejAuA

You're the first person I've ever heard talk about R/K "sexual" strategies instead of reproductive. Not that this makes you wrong, just that it's extremely new to me and contradictory in my mind. I'll explain why. Firstly, if it weren't for contraception you wouldn't be able to make this divide between sex for pleasure and sex for babies. No this doesn't prove anything, but I think it's important to point out that our modern society has taken away most of the consequences that would normally come from the inherently risky 'adult' business of sexual intercourse. Clearly, this is a requirement for the R sexual world we live in. Also, contraception is not 100% as you know. What happens if you roll snake eyes? It would really suck to be that potential fetus who didn't ask for his father and mother to fool around. Secondly, then entire point of the K strategy is to favor long-term gain over short-term gain. I think you're mating advice is the attempt to have your cake and eat it too. Nothing in this world is free. If you want to have sex with lots of women, take on mistresses, and behave in a way I would describe as reckless, you will inevitably face the consequences of your actions later on. This is what Patrick was trying to point out based on his own experience. This isn't to say people who engage in casual sex when they're young can't change their ways once they've learned their lesson, but you have to learn the lesson at some point in order to change. If you accept that men should change their biological drive for R "reproductive" strategies the sake of their children then to be consistent you must also demand that women overcome their biological drive to have sex with the alpha male in order to look out for her future children. I have never once heard you say that women should overcome their sexual drive. You explicitly tell men to give the women what she wants sexually. Perhaps you think there is no choice because women have all the power. That's true but men are the one's giving them that power by white knighting. There's very little different between what PUAs are doing and the 'nice guy' who tries to appease the women. Neither of you are willing to tell the woman no because of this double standard between men and women. --- If a woman is dressed in a sexy or overly revealing way, she's telling men something very explicit: "I have power in my sexuality and I'm not afraid to use it because I don't have much else to offer." So you're absolutely right; I don't trust these women. And for good reason. Nobody said we're quitting the game (at least I don't think I've seen any MGTOWs on this thread). We just refuse to play by the PUA rules.

Ostracism and APA - I support that idea.

Voting is for statists. Just kidding... pls don't downvote me!

Well done, FDR. Surprisingly, the STEM study mentioned here has also caught the attention of a mainstream leftist news source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-m-williams/women-scientists-academic_1_b_7181676.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I have photoshopping skillz. I'd gladly work with you, Zaccheus but unfortunately I am focusing on writing a book at the moment. If in a month you still need help shoot me a message.

Hey Nic, I'm so sorry to hear about your situation with your parents. No child would choose to be born to a family that disowns responsibility in the way you described. I know the ball-shaking terror that comes with peering objectively into the cesspool of foo corruption. I commend your courage to talk about it over the internet. I'll be blunt, I really don't think talking with your parents about statism is going to be a productive for you as a way of pointing out why your relationship is broken. I say this having fallen into the same trap with my father around religion when I was trying to bring my full honest self to my family. The trap is to intellectualize as a way to avoid your experience in the moment. Did you talk about anything specific to them or to your childhood? Furthermore, did you at anytime tell them how you felt by something they said during the conversation? I can imagine you must have felt really cold and empty, if not angry, when your dad said he thought you'd end up alone. That jibe is not passive aggressive; that's just immature and sadistic. Doesn't matter if your therapy is paid for by the state. They'd just spend it on war or locking people up if not on you. Is it true that if you wanted to be independent you could do it. I know you said you weren't passionate about college, so potentially you could find a job and move out if necessary? Obviously I hope it won't be necessary but since you're of appropriate age it's something to think on.

It should really be illegal to yell "COLLAPSE!" at a crowded libertarian conference.

MMX, a while back I mentioned R vs K reproductive strategy which you indicated you understood. According to PUA, would you say that men, particularly those who want to have children, should not pursue the R reproductive strategy (spray and pray)?

I think most of the advice on what to look for in a man is positive but there is not a mention on what kind of woman this dreamy man will want to be with. Look at the passivity of the language: "No matter how he comes into your life, or how long it takes you to find him..." We know how he comes into your life. It's because you're hot. That's why he's there and women know it. "He cares enough about your partnership to wine and dine you." Translation: He will dig deep into his wallet for you. Men have so much experience telling the truth because they have to repeat what women say in a straightforward way.

Well I'll be damned, Jim Gordon isn't just a character in comic books.

I will admit I've felt the temptation to start a religion around secular ethical principles. I came to the conclusion that it won't work. Scientists don't worship science, they submit their investigations to the scientific method. Similarly, a philosopher doesn't worship rationality, he submits his thinking to reason and evidence. Atheists generally don't like it when religious people spew relative vomit like, "your non-belief is a belief just like my belief" If you're talking about a community where other people live their lives according to rational principles, you're in one! But if you want to start your own that sounds great. I'm just not sure I understand why you'd call it a religion other than to garner attention and controversy.

Come on, you can't tell me you don't feel a sense of domination when you penetrate a woman. I didn't say domination was an insult, just that real confidence doesn't come from domination. I wouldn't characterize having sex with a woman by giving her what she "secretly-wants-but-doesn't-realize-she-wants-because-she-hasn't-read-the-masterful-roosh" as 'leadership'. When Kevin says your approach isn't entirely honest you're offended because you say it's just biology, but then you want to turn your ability to sleep with women into something virtuous! You can't have it both ways: either what you're doing has nothing to do with ethics in which case you can't claim to be leading them towards enlightenment for their own good or it does involve ethics (Aesthetically Preferable Actions) in which case feigning interest in the beginning is manipulative. Obviously if you're willing to send me a free book you do consider me to some degree. Besides the fact that you seem to confuse virtue and biology I at least respect that you're putting what you preach into practice. Sure, send me a copy.

I've made a video on this fascinating topic. Because typing is lame! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s39gfKnKtnc Now I know why I felt anticipation before. MMX, if you are going to imply I am somehow in the same camp as feminists I really don't want to engage in debate, which is clearly just a show for you and not an exploration of truth. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised since that's also your approach to dating. Even if you were right, you don't even stop to consider all the people you are turning off to PUA. Or maybe you have considered this, which would indicate you don't really believe it because you're still doing the same thing.