A Madman Person Guy

Why this negativity about "machines taking the jobs" all around? You sound like 19th century Frenchmen to me. It's not like we need more people in the world, and most anyone with something between their ears who's worked a hands-on job for any longer time (yours truly) would rather be doing the theoretical stuff (or, to quote my uncle; "You'll know you're on the right track when you work from behind a desk and come home to play in the garage, rather than the other way around"). If anything can drop the nativity and increase the performance of and living standards for people, then it's technological and industrial improvement. I don't see the issue as being that we need to control the advancement of the tech, because no matter how much you try you're not going to be able to suppress it and maintain a growing, free capitalist system while at the same time maintaining economical and environmental efficiency (and if you doubt this, just look at China). The issue - the problem - is as always the bloody people, and getting into their heads that they need to take heed to things, no matter how "uncomfortable" in their worldview, because they happen to be simple mechanistic facts.

I'm neither for it, nor against it, although for the sake of my own amusement I'll point out that it's usually me doing the friendzoning. When you don't connect with anyone either way, friendships and relationships are not just interchangeable but both also without value, and the only thing that matters is the sex or the exchanges taking place. What I was really referring to was that I'm trying to take the "normal" view of relationships here, rather than my own approach, and suggesting that a) that I recognize that my own model of behavior is destructive and cruel and that for intellectual purposes it is thus not the one which should be modeled here and b) that I'm having some trouble with this. Mainly, I have to say, because I can't really comprehend how someone would want to be able to completely trust another person, nor how this would ever be achievable in practical terms through anything but blackmail.

Well, too high profit margins does open the door to exploitation and greed, on behalf of either the workers or the company executives. If people just hoard money rather than put it to work, it becomes essentially pointless in the apparatus of the society. You can't rely on public donation and involvement or the altruism of CEOs for the "necessary charities" of society that create the "societal wealth" he's talking about, and forcing a company to put it into its charter to spend its money and time on more public-spirited endeavors might be a good thing... ...to which I'd respond that it's better to leave the door open for greed, hoarding and financial ruthlessness, but still have efficiency and the potential for growth, than rule out those former at the cost of running an effective business and risking stagnation and moral misappropriation. And besides, who decides what charity is "necessary"? Who decides what "social wealth" is desirable? After a long time of observing the man on the street or in the office chair, I for one have no interest in helping the majority of people out there, even those in dire straits. Rather the opposite, in fact. Good will can not supplant, can not fully oppose and should not be allowed to oppose ruthlessness and efficiency in business practice. Good will and altruism shouldn't even be part of the equation, and neither should misanthropy. The only issue should be the cost benefit equation, after the goals are set. Everything that tries to interfere with that or steer the business around is just another stone in the river, a disruption of the path of least resistance and another waste of time and money.

I wouldn't put it quite that simply, but that's certainly the gist of it. While I would debate the implications of the meaning of "forced", the proposal of using polls as an alternative to calculated market strategies can only be detrimental in the long run to the business of any company that adopts the model. The advantage of a capitalist system is the likewise "forced" operation of making all interested partners behave as rational actors from an economic standpoint (or at least as close to rational actors as you might expect from human beings...). Throwing this out the window is, if not destroying the capitalist model and turning it into another system entirely, then at least squandering the advantages of it. Any system, political or economic, governed by opinion is implicitly doomed to not only fall victim to unworkable business models and idiotic mistakes, due to its human elements' subjectivity, susceptibility to the Moralistic Fallacy and inability to think statistically, but is also likely to experience an inefficiency which corellates directly to the number of opinions and motives of the individuals influencing the system itself.

Personally, I enjoy being the one doing the friendzoning. Flirting subtly but mercilessly or just being all-around potent, stand-up, self-confident and unavoidable, then feigning ignorance or backpedaling just as they've gotten something into their head, and then carefully phrasing the reason why you'd "never act on that impulse" or "couldn't see us together like that" to suggest that you're putting her down much more kindly than might be expected. It's a more studied and more soul-crushing thing to do than doing the Bateman comeback to girls in the gym or the pub, which makes it more delicious. And yes, before you ask, it's cost me the friendship of a couple of girls, although I'll also note that more than that have chosen not to distance themselves, presumably on account of being suckers. In either case, wrecking egos like that is tasty, and I'd recommend it to anyone. Oh, and regarding "admiration", MMX... I think that asking for admiration, either in the way the term is usually used or as you construe it, of a woman as a man in this age and time is aiming way, way too high. The most you can hope for is respect. And you'll never get respect from a woman if you ask for anything, in my experience. Nor can you demand it, because that would be just as bad. The former reveals weakness or whininess which is instantly unattractive, and the latter is brutish and domineering. Everything you really want from a woman, she has to think she's giving of her own initiative, if you both want her to still feel good and not to have any strings attached. But the best option is not to ask, demand or wait for a reward for your work, but to be self-sufficient. If you have "emotional needs", satisfy them on your own, just like you fill your own bank account, decorate your own house and cook your own meals. This will allow you to interact with her on your own terms, to be more attractive in yourself but to also be less tied down, among a host of other advantages. You should not make yourself emotionally dependent on anyone, particularly a woman. Let the interaction be a reward, but not a requisite, and that'll keep it from becoming an obligation and a chore. It's better for her, because it allows her to be "charitable", and better for you, because it keeps your power where it belongs; with yourself. Sure, no man is an island. But if it benefits, we can strive at least to be barely connected peninsulas.

Of course I have to, that's the flippin' point. And I didn't say it would only be for sex; I'm hardly as preoccupied with that as most guys I see around me. And I'm too suspicious of attractive or well-adjusted people to get a fair trade out of the physical versus the social aspect of a relationship in any case. But having a second person around confers other benefits as well; no matter how dim or frumpy they might be, they can still operate a telephone or take out a loan, or they might know some people. Whatever. That's an individualist view in the extreme, by current social standards. Can't say I disapprove, but if that last point is true, then I have to judge my approach to this whole matter as the proper and correct one in pretty much all regards, and I wouldn't want that. I can sympathize with your dislike of attractive people. The problems that I see immediately from your point of view should be that an aversion to a well-off partner is just silly, seeing as you don't want to have to support them, particularly if you're a woman who's thinking of ever having kids, and because you don't want to foster some kind of creepy clingy codependency, and that whenever you look for a man who's more interested in you as a person than in sex than what is usual in men, you're also running the risk of either getting someone who you have absolutely no pull on and who you'll have difficulty in establishing a truly intimate relationship with, or hooking some genuinely cold fish. Hmm... There is a fun little conflict there. Now, this is just anecdotal, but although not every idiot I've seen has been obsessed with sex, but anyone mostly disinterested with sex I've seen has at least appeared more than moderately intelligent, both in person and in the media...

Nope. Quite the opposite. Which I find inexplicably amusing. Given the quirks of human psychology, I am for the most part astonished that there even exist people who haven't inured themselves to their own flaws in this regard, and are good enough to apologize for their failures, who have become parents in the first place. And now I've got to go and dig out the ol' Johnny Cash...

You expect a digital system, even one with parts of self-evolving programming thrown in, to understand ethics as we see them? Line up; I've got some land I'm sure you'd like to buy... Our modern interpretation of ethics and morals, what with our contemporary disrespect and/or ignorance for the philosophers, is almost entirely based in rote social patterns and sentimentalism. Neither of which you can expect to affect a machine, possibly operating in a virtual environment without any real-life I/O or even a simulation or interpretation of physical existence. And here's the next problem; even given access to a body, an interface to interact with the rest of the world, and the freedom to use it, the "pure" logic of a machine wouldn't draw the same conclusions as a human would. The best we could hope for would be a machine which correctly determined that such concepts as reciprocal altruism and normal conformity would be "good" because they serve a purpose in interaction and cooperation with other reasonably similar or similarly motivated entities. But at the same time, and operating the same program, if e.g. given a body capable of eating organic material and converting it into power, possibly by means of some kind of glucose- or protein-dissolving electricity-generating bacteria or mitochondrial derivative in an internal bag, the same machine would likely have no compunction about eating dead babies. Why not? They're dead anyway, and bite-sized and full of brown adipose tissue. Or, if performing some sufficiently critical function, it might even decide to snack on live people if starved, reasoning its own purpose to be that much more important than their survival. And I know it's not the best example, but it's what came to mind. The image of a metallic monstrosity chowing down on dead babies and hobos does seem strangely exciting.

Democracy is tantamount to socialism is tantamount to communism. They're all based in and reliant on the exact same select and/or vague values of "equality" for their validation and practicability, only to a differently high degree. Taken as an abstraction outside of culture and environment and with individuals as mere components, modeled as rational actors in a political and economical influence-game taking place in informational media, it would appear (well, to me at least) that the level of naïve comprehension of and/or denial of human nature and moralistic appeal will rise of its own accord, causing democracy to gradually turn into socialism, and then into hard-leftism, social constructionism or communism. This process appears to be compounded by the development of Information Technology, and seems to have no brakes other than "culture" or "sociopolitical inertia". The general intelligence and education level of the populace appears to have a sort of "Uncanny Valley" effect on it as well, with a certain threshold that gets crossed and causes negative development rather than positive, with another line that must be crossed once again in order for intelligence to act as a counterforce rather than a contributor. This is my theory. The US fits my model, with its current developments and trends, and several other ideas I have as well, such as the dropping voting participation, which I like to call the "Lizard Effect" (which is ingeniously countered by seats as representation rather than people...). So does Australia, Japan, Russia... and Sweden unfortunately falls very close to the bottom of the curve, with a horrendous left-trending force-index. The result of which I'd say in light of historical evidence is likely to be attempts at social engineering, extreme redistribution, the raising of the status and power of the almost totally inefficient "administrator class", crackpot activism and economic failure. The first political step toward a better future should be the upheaval of democracy.

The comprehension of hypocrisy and irony both place similar standards of self-scrutiny and multi-step logic on the individual. These can only be sidelined by sheer stupidity or truly mindblowing levels of cognitive dissonance and selectivity. I don't even hear that. What I hear is; "Regurgitated ideas of unearned entitlement, myyep myyep myyeeeeeep!".

Precisely. You don't debate whether if the sky is green or not. So she's right after all, though not for the reason she imagined. Because modern feminism is nonsense.

Yes, because tone is entirely translatable to the medium of text, and is absolutely germaine when it comes to discussing matters that come down to principial views. And indeed, his tone was clearly aggressive and unreasonable, not at all pondering and perfectly passable in a formal debate environment. It's true that it might be appropriate to investigate why he would go and disputate with some facebook warrior such as this, since the sane response to any such person or indeed any feminist is to give them the hand and walk away without a word, but couldn't we also ask you to give at least a little benefit of doubt?

A man? That's what's been happening to most men I see around me, at least over here, and from the looks of it it's been happening the last forty years or so. A man, who either isn't satisfied with his hand or cold showers, or who can't stand to be alone or possibly have takeout three days a week, or who feels that he needs to have kids for whatever reason, or any of the former in combination. Loads of people can't fall asleep well without the TV or radio on in the background; it's the same thing. You put up with some inconvenience or bullcrap for the sake of some perks and/or peace of mind. You know you're getting used, and you use in turn. It's no less of a relationship for that, just not an emotional one (though I would rather call it "intellectual"). Hence many of the rationalizations you see, the attitudes displayed by many older men, expressions like "Women; can't live with them, can't live without them", and the easy contempt many men can throw around while discussing their families and how the boorish provider male who can't express himself and thinks he's underappreciated by his family seems to be something of a cultural trope... Do take my callousness for what it is though; it's a colored opinion, stemming from my own personal experience. I wouldn't name my father as a typical example, but I'd say he got slapped with this phenomenon in a way as well, so I witnessed a form of it there. It recurred among the parents of my classmates too. But far more relevant in this case is that it's very much a personal experience for myself. I'm an anti-humanist in a stuck-up social activism-leaning, politically correct and moralist nation and culture. I quite understand how one can come to terms with never speaking one's mind outright, to keep those ghosts from making a racket and start shaking the paintings off the walls. It extends to my family too; I've given up on trying to explain my views or my personal perspective, mostly because if I really went into it with full honesty, my reasons for thinking the way I do would have to come up, and it'd destroy whatever sense of goodwill is left there. And while it'd be nice and satisfying to put down that illusion like the sad old mongrel it is, family members still do favors or act as security for you sometimes, as well as provide inheritance in time, so I'm not going to pull the plug on it just yet. I like sex. I don't like some harpy trying to claw my eyes out because she can't tolerate that I'm in the right when it hurts her self-interested goals, and even less that I hurt her pride because I get how the equation goes and can thus see through her. I'm willing to pretend to care about her emotions, and that I can't see that she's pretending to care about mine, for the right payment; if she pretends, she isn't worth better. And, crucially, I don't have any compunctions or pretensions at higher morality that I can't detail, unlike most of these people who can only say "I love you", but not explain why or even show it properly in action. This makes me evil and sociopathic, true. But the crucial thing is, I don't try and lie to myself about it or excuse it, and try and make sure that if anyone else is fooled it's their own damn fault, as a contrast to the people out there who do evil things and act like utter idiots for the sake of their morality or wishful thinking. Some of us can stand loneliness, so long as it isn't too bleak. In the absence of a society that's actually intellectually honest and open enough to tolerate us, the best strategy is then usually to fake it, smile, and grab what you can until things change, even if it's only because they've become so bad that people are getting shot in the street. So long as you're self-admitting in your despicableness, you're still one step above those who aren't.

I'm wondering whether if you aren't overestimating the ratio of women with self-knowledge who are also actually honest and self-controlled enough to discuss issues like these plainly and simply. Ever listened to some of Paul Elam's talks on his experiences of the psychiatry and counselling business? Women today aren't oriented toward self-knowledge; they're being guided toward self-actualization, or in other words, to go for it and do and say as they please because it's a demonstration of freedom of expression and "We've had it so bad for so long; now it's time to smash the patriarchy!", with the obvious undertone that it's plenty okay to exercise your emotions without restraint and that it's fine to try to manipulate any man you come across, since he's got it so good already and can afford it. At least, that's the definite sense of things I'm getting from women of my generation. Self-knowledge? A personal experience is when I made a former classmate of mine cry not long ago, when I got into a spat with one of her friends who told some very nasty lies about me after we'd slept together once, and I refused to turn the whole thing into a relationship. She immediately took her friend's side, even though she knows me well and ought to have at least doubted the information somewhat, and when I explained how I couldn't believe how gullible she was and why, and she got defensive, I got fed up. She apparently couldn't even stomach the thought that maybe she was letting herself be manipulated by her base emotions. And I'd rate her as no more stupid than the woman on the street; the opposite, in fact. Honestly, I wouldn't say this is a problem of logic or reason to start with, but of argumentation, if all you want to do is keep up a relationship without getting ridden. If most of what you want is just sex and company, and you're willing to settle for a plebeian, remember; most women are sentimentalists, and as such they are even more subject to manipulation than men are. It's just that most of us men don't know the proper way to talk. Take a couple of courses on modern rhetoric, and learn how to jump back and forth, remember particular points in the argument verbatum, and selectively interpret or ignore inconveniences. Keep a male tone and demeanor, of course, since nothing's more likely to provoke a negative reaction out of a woman than seeing male vulnerability, but use the same tactics. Sink to her level and make her feel bad, and she'll feel that she's making unreasonable demands of you, which will make it true to her. You need a bit of savvy to be able to pull this off to start with though, so it's not the strategy for the scatterbrained. If you really want to make a relationship last and consist of genuine emotional attachment though, I'm not the guy to advise you. I'd tell you to tone down your expectations, and look for as much plain speech when it comes to the economics as is possible, and then to just refuse to engage in any sort of bickering over the petty little things. Such as "feelings" of being a bit overlooked or stifled or hurt because someone else wasn't able to read your mind. A successful relationship is likely dependent on two people who are "in tune" or just intelligent enough to realize when the other one didn't intend to be insensitive or unreasonable, and to be able to straighten things out without too many words or pushed buttons.

Doesn't it seem very conspicuous that the occurrence of men with "gender dysphoria" is that much higher than women (statistics disagree, but in general it seems to be a rate of 3 or 4 of the former to 1 of the latter)? I mean, looking at the DSM and definitions, I have to be a bit suspicious as to whether if we've actually gotten that much better at identifying "transpeople" to warrant the rising number of people who opt for gender reassignment. But maybe I'm just a bit too susp-... Oh, wait. Then there's the fact that the greatest issue and reason for suicide among these surgically "corrected" men appears to be that they feel they're not accepted as true women among other women. Then there's the gay men who act stereotypically female, seemingly just because that's how they've been "typecast", there's "metrosexuality", there's mandatory "sensitivity courses", there's the portrayal of women as inherently just more smart or socially savvy in TV series, commercials and movies, there's literature like "Women's Ways of Knowing", there's the blatant feminist bent of most of the media corps in Europe at least, there's an abundance of quotation marks on my part for all these sissifying concepts that entail making yourself act more feminine... and the overweening message from society at large that seems to say; "It's better to be a woman, or at least morally superior". I mean, I wouldn't be so insensitive and disgusting as to suggest that most of these "transwomen" are in fact simply the result of young, insecure and weak men who either haven't had any decent male role models to go by or any typically male behavior images set in their minds, or who haven't been pushed down into the soles of their shoes enough and been taught to man up, or both. And that thus they've come to seek out a different gender role that does not place such a burden on them or which seems like an easier path to some kind of desirability and innate social reward. Or that if questioned, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them would rather fall under the definition of gay men who were simply disturbed and latched on to some concept for validation, be it the social concept of the "superior" femininity or a female idol or what have you. Oh wait. I am that insensitive and crass. So that's exactly what I'm suggesting.