utopian

For god's sake mike why?!?! I lose an IQ point every time I scroll into the madness of the comments section on youtube And for all you saying to call in, I am fixing on it, I am just busy, and for several reasons I kinda gotta plan for it.

Hello. I take it you are here because you have some interest in philosophy. What interests you about coming to this forum?

So you may have noticed Stef has been putting out videos specifically targeting youtube comments. I have felt, and also noticed some of you commenting, that Stef has not been on the forums much. I felt purturbed, as I thought he might be spending some time around here, and I might get the chance to chat with him a bit. Furthermore, who in their right mind would knowingly delve into the cesspool of filth known as youtube comments? After all that time about talking about not wanting to waste time and life after his cancerous near death experiences, Stef is purposefully going to wade in this collective stupidity? But ya know then I get to thinking... one of those philosophers, Plato I think it was, said "philosophy is in the minds of the people" and that is where he had to go to do philosophy, in the markets out amongst the people. All of us here at free domain radio are most likely pretty much on the same page as Stef, and Stef talking to us may be more of a practice of preaching to the choir. Where better to introduce philosophy, but the modern marketplace of youtube? Where could he convert more people to his kind of thinking, here on the boards of free domain radio, or outside of this realm? Stef's intro to his youtube comment videos is quite trolling in itself, though I find it funny. It is a good way I think to get more attention, to get people listening to him about stuff, and maybe some people will sit there listening to him, and eventually get caught up in this whole philosophy thing, starting them down a path of aligning with more philosophical thinking. What do you guys think? Good idea or bad idea for Stef to be doing this?

So I listened to both of these, and I agree with them, for the most part. I agree with a lot of the things Stef is saying. The thing is, everything he is talking about is mostly ideals. Stef himself said he will probably never live to see these things fulfilled, though he may be right about all of it. And he will not see it come to pass, because most people are still cavemen. Most people do not have the intellect to be philosophical. Most will never rise above the media rhetoric, the feminist brainwashing, the primitive paleocortex thinking. Most people will never be more than ghosts, and more than that, a lot of people DO NOT WANT to be anything more than a ghost. Its like the idea of waking people up from the matrix, who wants to realize the truth and deal with all that bullshit? Better to be asleep, and be a ghost. Now as far as I am concerned, I am angry at the fact that most people will never be virtuous and truthful myself. But I can't go through life waiting for it to happen. That will leave me living an unfulfilled life. Would you tell me also, not to pay my taxes because it supports the state? Would you tell me also, not to buy oil because it supports the oligarchy? I agree with the ideal man, but I must live practically.

But see, what you are trying to tell me is that being a provider will get women to care about me, which is completely untrue. Even Stef talks about how he would pay for women in his "Real time relationships", providing for them, and there would be no reciprocation. I have seen this dynamic myself, and there are no lack of "nice guys" out there who will testify to this as well, that being a provider DOES NOT get you cared about. Do you even see the trap in this logic of thinking? You are trying to convince me that buying drinks and dinner and whatever is gonna get me anywhere with girls. Its the number one thing that will get me used by women, gold diggers, and especially women who just wanna bang me and divorce me later for the alimony and such. It's a trap. I have not listened to your podcast links yet, I will when I have time, but surely you can see the case is clearly made here that providing does not get you cared for.

I am glad you wasted a lot of time posting MMX cause I am not reading any of it lol. Serves a troll right. OK, I can accept that. But the former of these are mechanics of the paleocortex, the caveman/cavewoman. They are not quite the mechanics of thought of women I run into around where I live. Especially not the mechanics of feminism, which is so prevalent and expects a woman to be her own provider. But besides that, there are PLENTY of women who just want flings, especially around here. Shit, the other day I was salsa dancing and this chick's sister came up to me to ask me if I would ask her sister to dance, because she only saw how much fun people were having with me and she wanted in. I was making out with her later that night. Was that a mechanic of being a provider for her kids? Cause I certainly felt like it was very flingy. And I was fine with it really. Women do not always want kids and these days and often provide for themselves, despite what they might be hardwired for. And so I attempted to lay out what makes sense to me in my first post, to see if my expectations were reasonable in modern situations. Because while these mechanics may be true, they are not necessarily true of all women considering their emotions and logical thinking. How is that an equal, or even logical trade? Ok, women are cavewomen just as much as I am caveman, got it. 50 shades of grey makes sense because the guy does not care about her, smacks her around, but is a really good provider. Does that make any philosophical sense? What about care for care, sex for sex, value for value? Because if values are being exchanged on unequal terms like in the quoted example, I could be a good provider and not care about a girl, and she would care about me. Does that sound philosophical to you? That doesnt even sound like it actually happens, what happens these days is the woman bangs the caveman for kids, and then uses the power of the state to enslave him to her and the kids whether she cares about him or not.

mistake, thought i was typing in a game lol

Yea MMX I have felt like youve been trolling but now its not just me who recognizes it. All youre doing is replacing the term "umad" with "rage" and trying to paint me as that. Forgetting the fact that now you have avoided answering my question for a second time. I would appreciate if you would not troll my thread any more as I am looking for a serious answer.

Claim to use logic for feminism, claim logic is oppressive. Not enough facepalm.

Your question seems broad to the point of confusion for me, so I will answer as best I can and you can tell me if I understood. Emotionality is defining for me in a relationship because it is part of my desire to live life in its fullest capacity. It is one of the reasons I often think most of the human race should be destroyed, because if the idea that a woman should care about me is so unreasonable, then it seems like there is no humanity in humans left worth saving. Furthermore, I am quite learned in the ways of banking, and if there is no humanity worth saving, I am gonna go be an evil banker. Lets leave feminism out for the moment, I am trying to get back to my OP. I must admit, I have adhered to my own sociopathy in order to survive most of my life. I have been so cold, that years after when I started getting into philosophy, I took a look back at my life, and wondered what kind of monster I had become. But that is just my problem, the question of why can't I be human? Why do I have to be a sociopath to survive these days? Is humanity still so unevolved, that it cannot yet rise above the idea of survival of the fittest? Where IS the humanity worth saving? My issue with women is, the humanity I long for does not appear in them, despite the act that women are supposedly the most sacred thing on earth. In the furthest reaches of humanity I can imagine, is the idea that I can share my feelings with a woman, and have her care about me. For a woman like that, I can't think of anything I would not do. Otherwise, women can get played. That is acceptable to me. I can accept every person has "selfish" needs. But it need not be "selfish" if both parties come to an understanding that we can act like civilized adults and fulfill each others selfish needs. I do believe that is known as a relationship. The alternative is the delusional apoptosisy that would get one's genes permanently removed from the pool. MMX that post is so lacking in logic and reason I cant justify responding to it. But guys, while I do appreciate the input here, I would like to get back to my original question, which is, what can a woman reasonably expect from a relationship? For example, a woman could expect 100% her way and slavery from the man, but that would of course be unreasonable. I want to know, what you guys think, a woman could reasonably expect in a relationship with a man.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should forget anything that Monica did. But it's been nearly two decades. There has to be some forgiveness at some point. Otherwise, what does it say about people who hang on to such constant shaming for so long? Who does it hurt, after all that time? Eventually, after shaming and hating on someone or anyone for so long, you may not notice, that is the kind of person you become. I never noticed myself what a nasty person it was I became, until I started getting off the virtual world, and more into the real world, and seeing the new person I was reflected in others. And I do think the best that can be made of this situation, is to bring to light the culture of unempathy that does pervade the internet. It is a real issue that people slander each other online, humiliate them to the point of suicide even. Innocent people who do not deserve it, as much as guilty people. What about yourself? Can you say you are the one who can cast the first stone?

I am not saying I am not emotionally invested in women. That's part of my humanity as a straight male to have a longing for them. Neither am I saying I do not have investments in them. I have invested in several. My problem is, they were never worth the investment, and I can't see any who are. At least, for the cost to benefit ratio they tend to offer. Nor am I "announcing" anything. This thread started out as my understanding of what makes sense, and a quest for answers. You have provided certain answers, which I am grudgingly willing to accept, but if that is really the case, than I am discussing with you, you and you only, that your answer justifies a response from men. I cant comprehend how foolish it would be to behave in any other way. In what universe does it make sense to invest significantly in people that do not care about you? Is that what you yourself truly do? That makes as much sense to me as a battered wife choosing to stay with her abusive husband. That it is easy to bring oneself up in America these days is arguable, but beside the point right now. The point is, sure, all women are saying why bother, and this is the only pool of people I have to choose from. Now, I want to enjoy my life in every way possible, which includes having sex. A relationship where a woman cares about me? Sure! That would be great. But you yourself are saying it's not gonna happen. So... why bother seriously investing, when there ARE NO quality women to hide? Because you know what the alternative is? The alternative is to invest faithfully, with the idea that maybe you will get a return on your investment. Even when no such proof exists. I can't wait for you to see the condensed post I am planning here, on the history of money. Bankers LOVE people who invest faithfully. They are the most foolish horses, being ridden by the bankers, faithfully chasing after the carrot on the stick that the banker is holding. The only thing more astounding to me than the evil capacity of bankers to do this, is the endless foolishness of people to actually chase the carrot. You are suggesting to me that I chase women's carrots, which is really what is unreasonable here.

bleh double post

So I was watching this TED talk by Monica Lewinsky, and I must say, as strange as it is, it has provoked a respect for her from me. It's really very interesting what she chooses to speak about, and really, there probably is not anyone else better suited to talk about it, or champion its cause. For those of you who need a TLDR, Monica is talking about being the first person to be at the center of a world wide cyber bullying phenomena. She talks about the effects of shaming being magnified over the internet, and the general effects of cyber bullying online today. It's really quite an interesting speech, and I feel it must have taken some bravery for Monica to come out to speak about these things even after all these years. She comments as well about modern events like people who get humiliated online and kill themselves, and humiliating events like people hacking into the Icloud server and stealing nude pics of Jennifer Lawrence and other people. She calls for a new conversation on the necessity of empathy for people online. Now this subject has an interesting resonance for me. I was humiliated as a kid in many ways by my parents. I was humiliated by classmates in certain ways. And you know what I did to cope with it? First, I learned not to care about people.I developed a capacity for unempathy. It seems to have been a survival mechanism; you try to shame me, and its ok, because you don't matter. I still feel and operate this way today. It is one of the problems I am here to explore about myself, because I am near 30, I dont have any friends, I have never had a real relationship, and I feel very OK with it. I realize now that this is very unusual however. But second, I learned to retaliate against people who continually tried to shame me, by being ruthlessly vicious with humiliating other people. I get to know people only with the sole intention of hurting them very badly if they ever try to hurt me. I usually succeed, and succeed very well. I would tell people how their parents don't care about them. I would tell people how messed up they are because of their failed relationships. I would tell people no one gives a fuck about them and that they should go kill themselves. I would tell people things that were even worse to them specifically. I developed a skill to break people with words, and break people I did. I broke my mom and my dad, sent them running and crying. I was filled with a sadistic glee about it. I would do this to anyone who tried to humiliate me in real life. But where I really used to break people, where I could magnify my effects and develop this skill exponentially, was online. Everyone does it; I just practiced it and do it much better than anyone else. Its exactly the thing Monica is speaking against. Thats why I like her speech, because she has put into words what I have already known but couldnt say. Now, this "skill" of mine comes with obvious side effects. I don't know how to turn it off. I cant make friends. I cant have a real relationship. I don't think I will ever really recover. I am too old to spend much time on it, and if I did spend as much time unlearning this as I have spent learning it, by the time I was done I will probably be in my 60s. The real issue here, I think, is that what Monica sees, and what I see, is being institutionally developed, all across the internet. People are trolling each other online on a day to day basis, developing this skill I have developed, and they arent realizing they are putting themselves in my position. Its a worldwide cultural revolution of unempathy, and there seems to be no end in sight. That's the real problem. And I don't think there is anyone in the world "equipped" to handle this problem, except philosophers.

I feel like you are arguing my point, and it's confusing me to the point where you're making me think I am missing something. So let me see if I get this straight. You are telling me that it is unreasonable for me to expect to find a woman who cares about my feelings, who is not religiously manipulated, or the proverbial unicorn. More unicorns probably exist in other lands, so if I want to find one I have to spend my days working to move somewhere looking for unicorns. I agree with this. And because this is the case, I feel justified not really investing in women and just wanting to sleep with them. If they are truly so low quality people that they cannot overcome their own hypocrisy and care about me, I would not want a relationship with them anyway. Furthermore if this is how all of womankind is, and plenty of men as well for the record, I see no reason to care about any of them. I also feel justified staying and playing, as I shouldnt have to travel the globe in search of unicorns. I don't have time for this BS. You are also telling me I should allow women to be themselves emotionally, but that I should not be allowed to be myself. If this is what you are truly saying, then I hope you take your own advice, because I will not. I refuse to be seriously invested in a low quality relationship. If a woman can't care about me, I have no reason to believe she would care about kids if we had them. Unfortunately, I do believe I will not find a woman who will care about me, but I won't go without enjoying my life in every way I wish.

I am quite sure working out can bolster testosterone. I was consulted by a personal trainer at a gym about it. A lot of guys just sit on the computer and play video games these days, after going to work and sitting at the office, and doing a lot of other testosterone killing. However, I also have reason to believe there are testosterone reducing chemicals in our food, water and environment. I will go into it more later, as I have been planning to make a long winded and well cited post about it.

I read your summary. What are you trying to convince me of? These summaries only go to bolster the fact that women do not care about men's feelings. Do you expect me to be married to that? To put up with a "relationship" where I only care about her feelings and she does not care about mine? Where I repress my emotions all the time? Fine, that's what I am gonna do, but if I have to do that, then its not for a quality woman I would want to marry, and only a woman I would be interested in playing. Not only that, but your second summary goes to prove women are built to fuck the asshole and the asshole only. I only see more reason to be an asshole here, and I dont see how you could have a winning argument. If women have developed only far enough to play by primitive rules, they deserve treatment by the primitive rules. If they have evolved beyond those rules, they should be evolved enough to care about their god damn relationship partner. But don't worry, I dont believe in unicorns, I expect women to play by the primitive rules and will treat them as they deserve, and even wish.

my FSIQ on the WAIS-IV is 111. My processing speed score really brought it down, everything else is above 110 except for that which is 84. I think this has to do with me being a shaken baby among other things. My Perceptual reasoning is 127.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thuXrMoCzbA and for some reason 2 times the speed is 4 times more funny.

I agree with this except for the education part, but that its come at the cost of the situational fulfilment of men, children, and even women in other aspects of their lives. Stef himself has no lack of data of the detrimental effects of children growing up without fathers, and women trying to go it alone because of their hypergamy are encouraging this stunted growth. Not to mention becoming philosophically frustrated themselves and not caring to understand, as women typically do not even care for philosophy. And then, when you add in the fact that the entitlements that arise from this situation only bolster the power of the state, what you see is a setting up of society to become dependent and never learn how to be self-sufficient, among other problems clearly seen with the state.

You may want to check out the concept of colonial scrip; Ben Franklin attributes the beginning of the revolutionary war to Britan's outlawing of colonial scrip. Its basically an individual's right to create IOU's in their name, backed by whatever service or commodity the individual can provide. It worked in the colonies, and it can work for Greece. Cyber currencies can work for it, but anything cyber is subject to hacking. Also, any new currency is going to have to survive outlaw by the bankers and whatever government puppets they own.

More people than ever are going unmarried; http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married and people are starting to take notice of why, and the implications of what this could have for America. Problems are more prevalent in America than ever before, and this is one of the results, as well as a cause. The above article goes on to suggest some reasons, but is out of touch with the perspective of men today. It tries to place the blame on men, as women have often done, and never cared to consider how little it has become worth it for men to even interact with women, as we will go over through this post. It does get one thing right, saying “Feminism was supposed to bring women happiness,” Crouse said. “But the research shows that women today are much more unhappy then they have been in the past. They’ve ended up with far more opportunities, but their personal happiness is way down.” Women are hypergamous. They will marry up, but they will not marry down, while men will marry either way. It is in this aspect that women are more shallow. And although the argument can be made that it is more necessary for women to be this way because of the childbearing risk needing a resource provider, that argument is nullified when the women in question is the resource provider herself. Women fail to understand that they have trapped themselves in a state that goes against their natural gender instincts, and the frustration they have discovered at their journey into the workforce has come at their own philosophical fulfillment. It couldnt be avoided I suppose, as male-oriented jobs like manufacturing have been fairly alleviated in the US due to things like technological advancements that make men more obsolete; http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/ And the jobs that are mostly left in this economy are healthcare, and service industry jobs. Service is predominantly a female job, as pretty faces bring in more customers of both genders, making women the more obvious candidates for hire. There is nowhere for men to go; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/unemployment-the-vanishing-male-worker-how-america-fell-behind.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1 So despite what the first article claims, yes, the problem of marriage is largely due to men not having money, because they can't get jobs, among other factors. The thing is, men have created technologies which make life easier for women, to the point of men's obsoletion, and now that we have reached this point, women no longer appreciate men. So now we are at a point where men do not have jobs or money, and yet because of women's hypergamy, they still expect men to pay for dates, have a higher paying career, and put up with all of their other expectations, WITHOUT the prospect of sex. Sex was all a man could really hope for, as hypergamy negates any real possibility of love. Without the prospect of at least sex however, men have already come to the point where it's not worth it for them to even try, and have given up; http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/ Unfortunately, feminism's reign of terror didnt end here. A law was recently passed that men must prove consent was given for any and all sexual acts, with no consideration of abuses for this law; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html Think about this for a second. Many of the natural, enjoyable interactions happen in the moment. "It just happens" as women say. Random kisses, surprise hugs, the heat of the moment that is so fragile when setting the environment for sex with a woman. Now because of this law, every interaction must be preceded by a signed agreement to the action, destroying all natural male-female sexual interactions. But also, women are renown for their unwillingness to accept responsibility. If you did manage to get the woman to sign a contract agreeing to intercourse for one of the many attempts, she could participate and enjoy it, and later just because of social pressure say she did not actually want to, subjugating men to the already barbaric court system. And that's not all. You could never touch a woman at all, she could just have a grudge against you, and say you made an advance on her. There is no way to prove that she did not say yes OR no, and now because of this law you are guilty by default. In consideration of everything we have already seen, is it any wonder that men have long since given up on marriage, never mind an actual relationship or even sex? But we are not done yet. In the furthest reaches of female entitlements, in the deepest grasps of female tyranny, women are getting men to pay for children that are not even theirs; http://www.wxyz.com/news/judge-says-man-must-pay-30k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-is-not-his Imagine that. A man could be safe at home, playing video games, doing his best to avoid the stupidity of what feminism has turned relationships into, and STILL have to pay for the faults of women. This is nothing new I suppose. Women have no lack of entitlements from the state, and have no lack of advantage in the court system. It was always indirect beforehand however. This is just the latest of developed feminist tyranny, a more direct and obvious display of the truth; that men are nothing but slaves in the new environment women have created.

How do I upvote a post, man this is like, what I came to this forum to look for.

Im only 5 minutes into the video and I am liking it already. I think I might have known some of this stuff inherently, just not in so many words, that achievements only satisfy my craving for them for so long. But also I am sympathizing with what hes saying about Davinchi, I also often feel like I am not achieving my capacity. Its interesting listening to the similarities between this guy and me. I also obviously have a high ACE score. Is that why I feel such a desire to fulfill myself but never can? I am starting to wonder, is there some kind of correlation between child abuse and high IQ? Mmmmm.... this is a big one here for me, this idea of being punished for self ownership. That resonates with me highly. It still happens, and I still look to avoid responsibility as best I can, because I know there are consequences. Where was this video years ago lol? But also, I am wondering about something here. Lets say I take full ownership of myself from here on out. Stef is talking about the phenomena of running into dysfunctional people, and it being my fault if I choose to accept dealing with them. Well shit, how many people in the world are acceptably functional? Am I expected to only ever wait until I find the proverbial unicorn? That's not practical, I need to make money and survive NOW, I cant wait for the perfect boss/job/whatever. Also, where does one draw the line in expecting others to own their own faults? If I am just standing around, and someone just walks up and punches me for no reason, am I supposed to take ownership of that? The definition of vanity I was working with does not appear to be the definition discussed here. So I guess I need to pursue a philosophy of owning myself. There is a lot to consider here... I will think on it. I am already picking up the pieces of my blown mind from Matt's video. But I will take a look at your link