aviet

Based on the circumstances you give for your work, the your approach sounds good and I agree with the sentiment in your first line, i.e. it's not worth the time debating with people who are immovable and volatile. In the specific case of the emails I get, I am just going to script an auto-responder saying I don't respond to complaints about identity issues, which is what most of the emails are about. If they have a genuine objective point, I will take appropriate action. But the pithy identitarians will be ignored.

This seems to me an enlightened answer. I will give it a try.

In my experience it works. When I was in school, I orchestrated a group to confront a bully, to tell him that his behavior (verbal abuse, physical violence, extreme targeting) was not acceptable and that no one liked him. It destroyed him; and it may not have been the most enlightened approach, but we were a bunch of 13 year olds feed up with his behavior. To this day I don't have an issue with how we dealt with him even though we highly suspect that his behavior was learned from his father who may have had problems with physical violence. From seeing how he turned out, I think we gave him his best gift as his worst nightmare. It seems clear that he has specifically learned form the experience rather than just modifying his behavior to be socially acceptable. There was an issue with people siding with him in person (not all), but it was paper thin as not to hurt his feelings. He was destroyed after it for about 2-3 years, reduced to the lowest social order in the year. After that, I did the same with another bully, who was much worse with physical violence. From having spent time at his house, I suspect he also came from a family where there was physical violence and extreme mind games. After he was confronted, he was able to use his massive intellect to construct what I will provisionally call constructs of fear and guilt to stop himself from sliding too far down the social ladder. After it I ended becoming friends with him, initially out of guilt and he did modify his behavior because of it. I saw him a few years ago and he appologiesd for his behavior. A few years ago I confronted a manipulative person who had a tendency to like to mentally subjugate people. I did that on my own and he's changed his behavior. That he has few friends to fall back on may have contributed to him caving to one person. I did start with that, so I should go back to it. But my main query was not how can I change minds, but is it worth even bothering dealing with people who are constructing arguments that don't hold up to a mild prod? A good argument. I think, yes, because, when people can prove me wrong or suggest I am wrong, I would describe an initial period of jarring. Its a blow, but if the evidence comes forward, I won't push it away. But I am more interested in opinions on whether I should bother engaging people who throw falsehoods at me in the first place.

I run a website that gets about 70,000 visits / day on average. There are fairly regular grievance emails usually consisting of qualms about a language classification, a country's borders, the existence of a country or text I have taken from a 3rd party (which is clearly sourced). Some of the input has been valid and worthwhile, but the majority has been factually wrong or I just couldn't care. For example, I have had several complaints about the naming of the country, Macedonia, which is a contentious issue for some Greeks. In some cases when there is a valid concern, I have responded in a completely neutral manner. All it takes is one word and a message can take on an aggressive tone. For whatever reason, these emails I get are often filled with very aggressive language in regard to piddling issues. The reason I take this completely neutral approach to making replies is I have found it seems to defuse the situation and they often appear to be embarrassed about the tone of their original email. One philosophy that I have developed myself (though I am sure it is far from unique) is that people who are behaving in an unprovoked, abusive manner have to be called out. If they cannot develop basic decency, the best we can do is shame them into curtailing their behavior. I have found that group confrontation is very successful in doing so and often leads to their tail going so far between their legs you wouldn't believe. One confrontation on the other hand tends to hold little weight. On other occasions, I have delivered smackdowns to needlessly rude emails, which were all factually wrong as well. My responses generally contain factual, logical and sourced rebuttals to their points and a focus on the manner of their often abusive language. Responses to this, considering they have been intellectually destroyed, tend to be surly. They are unable to make any counter-arguments and if they do they can be easily swatted aside. The main component of their replies is an inability to drop the argument. They always have to find some tiny thread to cling on to as an attempt to be the victor. For this reason, I often choose the completely neutral approach, as it ends the argument with no winner or looser. So I just leave rude and aggressive comments alone. However, when it comes to facts and logic, I generally can't leave it. I have to give them the correct information, essentially making an argument. Obviously they don't want to hear when try reply back, though I typically get no reply. Recently I have put several displays on my site advocating for Brexit and this has provoked a few emotionally manipulative, guilt inducing and forceful emails from the International Socialist. I've casually batted their erroneous arguments out of the park. But, I am wondering. To what extent should I just ignore these people? Rather than correcting them, which probably won't work unless reinforced multiple times. That question is to be considered in a general context of all arguments, not just these emails I get. What do you advocate and why? Should I shy away from needles arguments with people who are likely to prefer going to their grave holding a medley of falsehoods than learn the truth? Or should they get the Donald John Trump treatment? The other day I got an email from a man informing me I 'must remove it.' The it being my Brexit display, which consists of 7 or 8 quotes of EU dictator, Jean Claude-Juncker. Among other bogus assertions I was told that the quotes of Juncker are 'not objective'. I have surmised he must be from the Karl Marx school of thought, in which all hypotheses, when tested, turn out to be false. One part of me can't be bothered to reply, the other wants to meticulously go through his email and remedy his inaccurate assertions. For those who love social justice, this is the my favourite bit of justiceering I have received: "I just want to know who wrote the ignorant false shit about Ethiopia?!!!! Ethiopia is the cradle of civilization scientifically and religiously. I'm quite sure it came from an ignorant white person!" It came from a Black Lives Matter lawyer.

Does anyone have any suggestions of other examples of little acknowledge white privilege that could be added to this list? When your white, infant child falls into Gorilla enclosure, the gorilla(s) will be shot. Microagression caveat: When your black, infant child falls in, the gorilla(s) will also be shot and the internet will go wild with claims the gorilla was only shot because the child was white. http://www.examiner.com/article/gorilla-shot-angry-blacks-claim-white-privilege-turns-out-the-boy-is-black ---- When you fail to save your infant child from being eaten by an alligator, you won't be arrested. http://www.infowars.com/leftists-not-sad-about-2-year-old-boy-killed-by-alligator-because-hes-white/ ---- When you take up too much room at anti-racist protests. Caveat: Recognize that you’re still racist. No matter what. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/07/recognize-that-youre-still-racist-no-matter-what-united-church-of-christ-blogger-explains-how-white-allies-should-handle-white-privilege/ ---- When you're only a professional football player because you are white. Microagression caveat: Black supremacy in basketball is a good thing. http://kuow.org/post/does-american-soccer-have-white-privilege-problem ---- When you become famous just by donning a Chewbacca mask and having an infectious laugh. http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/smart-living/what-chewbacca-moms-rise-to-fame-tells-us-about-race-in-this-country/ar-BBtQ1op ---- When you commit suicide, it's ethical. http://www.infowars.com/activist-white-people-should-kill-themselves-to-atone-for-white-privilege/ ---- When you cannot get cancer, because you are cancer. Caveat: P.S. kill yourself. http://www.truthandaction.org/mass-college-professor-white-males-are-a-cancer-and-must-die-urges-students-to-kill-themselves/ ---- When there are university courses just for you. http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/look-what-a-us-college-has-planned-for-students-who-self-identify-as-white ---- When you fail to realise there are too many white people at a white privilege conference. http://www.infowars.com/white-privilege-conference-attendees-complain-conference-is-too-white/ ---- When you had to be told only white people can be racist. http://politistick.com/mtv-news-its-impossible-for-black-people-to-be-racist/ ---- When white people beat non-white people in athletics competitions. ---- When undertaking white-only roles in the black liberation movement. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/white-peoples-receive-roles-responsibilities-black-protesters ---- When you are poor. ---- When you didn't commit a terrorist attack. http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/ ---- When you say any of the following: “You are so articulate.” “America is a melting pot.” “There is only one race, the human race.” “I’m not a racist. I have several Black friends.” “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” https://web.archive.org/web/20150209023840/http://www.uwsp.edu/acadaff/NewFacultyResources/NFSRacialMicroaggressions_Table.pdf ---- When you fail to notice countries that are better for non-whites have a higher density of whites. https://youtu.be/MFFJWzgUmTE?t=16m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMBLg3jS32k

This is another I saw, Lord Trumpu: It is very thankful that the Indians were able to hang on for so long without being taken over completely. The same with the South Slavs. They took a few hundred years of beating and were able to remain almost wholly Christian, protecting the rest of Europe. Interesting to see a giant section of Muslim oppression and next to nothing for the British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

No that makes sense.

Could you give example(s)? I am assuming you mean something like men showering women with gifts, essentially in exchange for sex. Or lying or withholding information as a way to lure a women into what is being advertised as a relationship that can go somewhere, when it is really just a vehicle for sex. And do you have any examples of women doing the same?

What do you mean? Like the women are artificially enhancing their beauty (subjective) and men are going along with that lie?

I am not sure what the direction of thought is here. But I would ask about the correct way of making bread and question if there is really a correct way to make it. I wouldn't mind talking about bead.

I 'live' in the UK, where there is a national health service (NHS), which is free for any of the 508 million EU citizens to use; and increasingly anyone in the world who wants to show up at Heathrow Airport. Particularly in the last few years there has been a lot of talk in regards to people not being able to see a general practitioner (basic doctor), long waiting lists, inability to get a diagnosis, etc. You won't have to go far to find serious complaints about the rationing of healthcare, for example, a friend of my aunt and uncle died of cancer that the NHS failed to diagnose. My own personal experience of the NHS was that the general practitioners act as gatekeepers, or pinball machine flippers, ejecting people who have problems from getting any care because there simply aren't the resources to deal with them. People are now forced to go private to get a diagnosis and then take that diagnosis to the NHS to get free treatment. Several years ago my mother began having various issues: problems with balance, dizziness etc. She went to the government health system (NHS) and was batted away. As the symptoms got worse, she continued to go to the general practitioners who eventually allowed her access to 'specialists'. These specialists operated in the same way, batting her away without any real investigation. As months passed the symptoms got worse to the point she would fall over and had to leave work. She continued to have to fight with the NHS to be seen by various specialists who found nothing wrong because they did not look. Due to her deteriorating health, she became increasingly upset and as a result the specialist she seeing said she was a hypochondriac who was mentally unstable and needed to go on anti-depressants. They made no difference. Eventually she paid to see a 'private' consultant, who was actually an NHS employee who increased his income by seeing private clients and ... within fifteen minutes he had come up with a prognosis that she was suffering from a neurological disorder called multiple system atrophy. This turned out to be the case. It is an illness which causes parts of the brain die, leading to the inability to speak and move; and eventually death. Rather than allowing that to happen, she decided to travel to Switzerland for assisted suicide. At the same time my grandmother was in a partly-government funded care home which was largely staffed by immigrants from undeveloped countries. They had been giving her unsanitary water from a bathroom tap to drink and this led to her getting a bladder infection. She was hospitalised to an NHS hospital where my grandmother's three daughters were pulled aside and convinced to refuse treatment and let her die because she was old. She puffed up with inflammation and died a few days later. The whole situation was investigated by the government, but they found no wrong doing. A few years earlier she was found to have colon cancer. The NHS only removed the cancer because they said she was otherwise healthy. My own negative experience with the NHS started when I was about 17 when I had a knee injury. It took three visits to general practitioners to eventually be sent to a specialist, which took so long (6 months) that the issue had largely gone. The specialist seemed to view me as some sort of sub-human to be shuffled out as quickly as possible. I saw him again a few years later and was treated in the same manner. The second time I was told I had problems with muscles skewing my kneecap, but he did not seem to think the physiotherapist he dumped me with needed to know that. Over the ensuing years I had several other problems with my lower body the NHS essentially refused to inspect; culminating at around age 25 when I had considerable pain down my right leg and groin. It was to the extent that I could no longer work or engage in my favourite hobby of cycling. The result was me being at home all day in a state of hopelessness. I again saw three general practitioners before I was sent to a specialist. The second could barely find her way down from her ivory tower as she gave me a three second (literally) inspection. She also suggested I was mentally ill and should be put on anti-depresants. Mistaking my anger that I could get nothing done about taking two hours to get to sleep at night due to server pain and sitting at home all day, watching life pass me by. When I was allowed to see a specialist I was diagnosed with a serious illness that I would rather not say as the horror of being diagnosed with it was so crippling that I never told anyone. As a result my life had been consigned to constant and increasing pain, topped with sitting at home all day. After some thought I decided I would get a plane to America and go and live in the wilderness of the Rocky Mountains. Doing myself in crossed my mind several times and not in the attention-seeking way. I saw nothing much left worth living for. A few months later I was called back by the general practitioner and I was told they had mistakenly diagnosed me. I was instead told I had the relativity insignificant tendonitis. I asked how they came to this diagnosis and there was no answer. It sounded like they were making it up. To recap: My grandmother was deemed not worthy of living by what was essentially a death panel My mother was essentially refused a diagnosis while fatally ill, driving her into despair I was refused a diagnosis and wrongly diagnosed, driving me into despair

Personal stories go down well here. It's amazing how simple and obvious the truth is yet many people are unable to see it over a lifetime.

Thanks, from the start, this seems like the kind of in-depth info I was looking for.

Two studies: http://time.com/79584/science-women-less-makeup/ http://www.bustle.com/articles/29836-do-guys-like-when-women-wear-makeup-the-answer-is-surprising-according-to-this-study suggest 'less makeup' is preferred more than none or lots. What is it you find a turn off about it?

In my life, I almost always talk about subjects such as history, economics, philosophy, human behavior etc. I don't talk about much other than this and I struggle to see how average people are able to stretch out a lifetime of conversations about what was on TV, indulgence, etc. For whatever reason, I have found little problem when talking to men. There is usually something that I am able to get them going on that has some sort of depth. However, it is a different case with women and it does not seem I am alone in this; I have heard multiple people on FDR phone-ins say that they've always had trouble being able to talk to girl[friend]s about, for example, "anything that is on this show [FDR]". I work in a sub-field of history, genealogy, that I think people tend to have a fuddy-duddy/old timer image of. Most of the people who are involved in the industry are 40+ and maybe most are even 60+. I generally find when I mention it to women that their response is a very odd type of fear-avoidance that you may get when trying to talk about something like philosophy. But in the case of genealogy it is on steroids and from my observation it is not do with their perception of me, but something internal to them. They will typically get visibly uncomfortable and their ensuing words are as if they are vocally reeling backwards. I'd describe it as a similar response as you might expect if said something casually racist. I've had similar experiences when it comes to other topics. For example, I managed to get a few political sentiments out of an Texan women, but when I asked them if they knew Ron Paul they became visibly distressed and obviously wanted to change the topic ASAP. They still wanted to talk to me, just not about that. I do understand that there are some women who are interested in such topics and I have come across them and I know it is probably a 'turn on' for them. it just seems to be a smaller minority than men. As a generalisation, I find that women tend to find the things I (and I assume everyone here) want to talk about are: odd, to be avoided and as a result of being interested in them I am to be disregarded. If anyone else has experienced this apparent fear and discomfort when discussing intellectual topics. Why do you think that is? And why do you think women can disregard men who are interested in such things, when they are probably a fairly good hallmark of resources or potential to obtain resources.

In either a recent podcast or one that was posted on the board someone mentioned an article by OKCupid, in which analysis of messaging and male/female attractiveness shows a bell curve on men's ratings of women: and a slippery slope for women's ratings of men: In the podcast this was not discussed in any detail; and I am at a bit of a loss as to what may be driving this. My first thought is that women put more effort into their physical appearance, in particular in relation to makeup. I was surprised at the extend to which women can up their game with makeup. I think if you take makeup and other effort women are more likely to put in, men and women are fairly equal in base attractiveness; if not more so for men as women seem to suffer much more from bad skin. But I feel that women putting only 15% of men as medium or better, compared to men putting around 50% of women as medium or better is stringent on the part of women. Another possibility is that women rate differently than men as a general rule. For example in terms of rating films, I rate something that is 'watchable' as 7/10; whereas my friend, who is a girl, says 'watchable' is 5/10 and she gives a lot of films 10/10; while I have given no film 10/10. Somewhere else, in relation to the same data, I heard the suggestion that women have come to expect too much of men. Does anyone have any insights into this phenomena?

To what extent do you think that illegitimacy (children born to single parents) can affect future generations? i.e. if your grandparents, great-grandparents... were illegitimate. And how do you think it might be expressed?

I may be wrong, but I think its pretty top-heavy with men here.

Your story is interesting. I still don't understand what the drives behind getting such a tattoo are. If I was in such a situation (I have been in a similar one) I would not feel compelled to get a tattoo. For me there is no need to create such a memorial - the knowledge of such connections in my head are enough. Would you say there is an element of tribalism to your tattoos? The words "I have honoured my loved ones." conjured up such images in my head. So there is definitely a category of people who could be called pretentious and I have a good idea of the mental processes which drove them to ink; but in the case of personal tattoos that are private I don't understand what it is that would convince someone to get a tattoo; while other people who may have been through the same circumstances do not find it necessary. An insightful post. Some of the sentiments more-or-less mirror my sentiments; on tattoos - I doubt their validity and cannot see any value in them. Like yourself I place a high value on people's thoughts and perceptions. If they found the time and money to get an elaborate, personal tattoo, the same sentiments behind getting it could be relayed just as easily without it. And without the tattoo my suspicions of potentially negative mental traits would not be so easily sprung into action.

Are you only doing classical music? [if so only the last video is relevant] If you are covering nationalist music, you have to cover Serbia, the global epicenter of triumphantism and nationalism. This is called: Srpska Granata by Perica Ivanovic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEWJVWiWMQ Some others: Serbia Strong (not sure what the real name is, also known as Remove Kebab) By Roki Vulovic: Mlada Srpska Garda (Young Serbian Guard) Generale, Generale (General, General) Panteri (Panthers) Hvala ti Arkane (Thank You Arkan) **** Classical: Name and lyrics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_Kosovo,_Kosovo

Thank you for all the replies. All of the posts have something to offer, though I don't necessarily have something to offer all of them in return... Stanford-Binet IQ: 142. When I was 17 I did another that was age-adjusted to 137. Your statement regarding K-selection is interesting. I left school at 16 and have essentially lived all my life in a small town where most of the intelligent and thoughtful people have left. There isn't much intellect about. I was thinking about this a lot over the past few days and have come to the same conclusion. If they do not like that for some reason then it is obviously not a good match. Yes. A good avenue for thought. Though there is not much in it. On the other hand, I would not be so embarrassed or embarrassed at all if it were strangers. One thing I did not mention in the post as I didn't want to make it too long is that my paternal-great-grandfather was illegitimate, as was my father's mother. My paternal-great-grandfather's mother was also illegitimate and he was apparently abandoned and raised by another family. For some time I have wondered what effects illegitimacy can have on subsequent families. I don't understand. Are you suggesting sister-swapping? I was in a similar situation not long ago, without the prestigious ancestors. You could start a thread on this. Thank you for this lead of through. I will pursue this. Your intentions of having a relationship seem healthy to me and like everyone else on this thread you seem to be intelligent. For those reasons alone I think you should pursue a relationship, because we need more of that and unless you adopt it probably won't continue.

I am in my late 20s and have only been in one relationship. It lasted about one year, but it was when I was about 4 years old. It was very sweet and romantic, but I'm not really sure if it counts. This is something I really want to address this year and in some ways I am glad that it has taken so long as when I was younger I think I would have made recurring bad decisions and ended up like some burnt out Robert Downey Jr type. However, I know that the question of past relationships is going to come up quickly and I want some advice on how to deal with this confidently. I went to private school, where there were only about 35 people in the year and about 10 of these were girls. After the first two years I orchestrated a take down of two bullies who wrecked havoc on the year and was the most popular person in the year for the next two years. In that time I was told the most attractive girl in the year liked me and she said so in my presence. And I had a couple of other similar opportunities, but I never knew what to do. Part of this, I think, is because I had a confused notion of gender roles, as to what is generally expected. My year was generally very reserved and civil, with virtually no relationships, whereas the year above and below were low-fiber and filled with utter debauchery. Since then I have not put any effort into looking for a relationship. There have been quite a number of opportunities that have come before me since then and in hindsight of listening to FDR, I am probably somewhat lucky I was not able to do anything about it. I rarely go to a club or clubesque bar, but when I have I have generally been approached by what Stefan would refer to as low-rent women, but at the time I would have either put them into the categories of attractive or not attractive and had little concern beyond that. However, I have just never known what to say to them. I have been approach specifically for sex about 10 times, but likewise have not known what to say to this, even if I physically wanted to. In terms of my physical looks, I am confident. Several years ago I put some photos on a website called Hot or Not and got a top couple of percentile rating from cira 2,000 ratings and my own judgement and experience confers. In the financial category I am > 1% in one country I live in and probably > 0.1% in the other. In the mental and moral categories I think I am above average, I just have a problem with romantic relationships. My question is: When the question of past relationship come up, what do you think I should say? The honest answer is: I have a problem with becoming romantically entwined, but I have little insight into why that is. As to why I have a problem with becoming romantic, I can give a few details that may provoke someone to some insight. 1) On the girlfriend I mentioned I had when I was four, when we came back to school for the next year, after not seeing each other for about 6 weeks, she approached me with two female friends. I do not remember what she said, but I ran off and never spoke to her again. 2) I can't remember seeing my parents being intimate in any way. 3) I am embarrassed to talk about relationships in general, but in particular in relation to myself. This has been apparent from a young age. I remember when my uncle visited when I was probably somewhere between the age of 6-10, he asked me and my sister if we had a boyfriend/girlfriend. I was embarrassed by the question and did not answer. I remember thinking that my sister should also feel embarrassed by the question, i.e. its not just a rule for myself. 4) If I had a girlfriend I would be embarrassed to tell my friends about them. Its not that I would be ashamed; I have no idea why. 5) In the period in which I was earning no income I didn't think I was good enough for a relationship because of that. I have high standards, both for myself and others, particularly in terms of behavior. I have been described as Victorian and a gentleman. I didn't think just being good looking was good enough, I had to have income as well. And when I got above average income, that was not good enough. It has only become good enough now I am 4X above average for people in general, probably 5-6X for people my age. So insecurity about physical appearance and income is not the real issue. 6) As mentioned above, I do not know what to say to a woman when I am approached. The last time I was approached for sex, they asked me maybe ten time, held my hand and rubbed themselves against me. I was not able to directly tell them I didn't want to have sex with them, that I didn't not want to hold their hand and I did not want them to rub themselves against me. 7) I am risk-adverse and an ultra-strict fiscal conservative 8) I was predominantly raised by my mother and grandmother

I have the skills, but not the inclination. I've never used social media, but the possibility for some sort of decentralised cloud social network is growing. I think it would be better to use a general social network like that. The ability to easily find like-minded people would be a good feature I don't think the big social media networks allow. A though for you: Try searching POF like this: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Apof.com+%22peacful+parenting%22&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:pof.com+%22peaceful+parenting%22 It appears there are some, thought most appear to be "peaceful, parenting". Due to the low number of people who will list such terms, I think its best to go libertarian: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Apof.com+%22peacful+parenting%22&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:pof.com+%22libertarian%22

My knowledge in this area is limited. It would probably be best asked on the Sovereign Man forum. I think the best thing in this vein would be a diplomatic passport. The desperate housewife method will only work in certain countries, for example a Bahamanian men can get citizenship for his foreign wife, but a Bahamanian women cannot get citizenship for her foreign husband. I think the best way to be allowed into most countries is get some skills. If you qualify for the top level visa in a country, it is not difficult to get in.