Good "Raw Material" for a relationship.

[Zelenn]

Evening guys. I want to talk about this concept of establishing virtue based relationships and kind of "refining" a person into the kind of person that it would be great to have a relationship with. As we've discussed before, not everyone is philosophical and many people have never had these kinds of conversations before, but that doesn't necessarially mean they wouldn't be good friends or partners, or wouldn't become virtuous if someone would simply have the conversation with them about ethics, philosophy, etc

 

Now, Stef's advice was not to pursue perfection, but rather to find people who are "open to reason and evidence." To basically find a person "close enough" and then through discourse, bring them to our side of the fence.

 

This is not an easy thing to do. I have known many Feminists and Statists who THOUGHT they were open to reason, but when in discussion, showed just how opposed they were to any evidence that contradicted the stories they wanted to believe about a topic (taxes, patriarchy, military etc.)

 

So, being rational is kind of "not enough" to, I guess we would say, "qualify" a person as worthy of friendship, love, and the effort it takes to argue against their "Inner Statist." What then, does qualify someone as worth our effort?

 

Could we form a basic friendship with someone in the military or is being part of the military "crossing a line?" Can we go on few casual dates with a known Feminist with the intention to reveal what Feminism is REALLY about, in hopes that she may be persuaded to see the gender issues a bit clearer? Or does being a Feminist make her "off limits" and not even worth trying to persuade? If a person is an advocate of peaceful parenting, but thinks Kant is the greatest philosopher, opposes war, but supports welfare, is that person worth engaging in discussio with the intention of philosophically "refining" them so that a relationship might be possible? Or is such a person... "wasted effort?"

 

I guess what I'm saying is that most people are these "grab bags" of unprocessed, mixed, contradictory ideas and that we are endeavoring to find friends and lovers from among their ranks; because finding a "natural" AnCap is so rare, we are really trying to "make" an AnCap by finding someone who is somewhat ethical and voluntarist (they think) and then through philosophical discussion bring them "all the way."

 

I'm just wondering what kind of ideas you think a person could hold and still be good "raw material" for this process of refining through philosophical discussion?

 

TL;DR

 

Is it possible to "make" an AnCap from somebody who at least grasps some of the basics of philosophy? NAP, peaceful parenting, voluntary interactions ect? Or is this impossible and our best bet for a relationship is to find a "natural" AnCAp as opposed to one "created" through discussion.

 

If this is possible, what kinds of ideas and philosophical perspectives would, if held, make someone great "raw material" for this refining process?

[Koroviev]

Short answer -  it depends

 

long answer - It doesn't seem like there are "ideas a person can hold" that would tell you whether or no they are worth the effort, simply because everyone is so different. I know a girl who is planning on having a natural birth, use cloth diapers, eats only the healthiest foods, yet is planning on using formula and immediately sending her kid off to daycare. Or, I'm sure we all know that relatively intelligent person who's good with their money and has put a lot of effort into making their lives better, but then goes off and marries someone who seems completely the opposite. 

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an easy answer, and in reality given time people will surprise you. Some people you think are going to be great and really smart friends will probably end up hurting and/or disappointing you, while others you didn't think much of early on may end up becoming your closest friends. All you can do is to be honest, open, kind, and see how they react.

 

The approach that seems to work the best, for me at least, is to be honest and open right up front, that is going to cut out a lot of people right from the get-go, from there you kind of compartmentalize based on the other person. Some people are going to just be people you hang out with every once in a while, whereas others may be better conversationalists or thinkers. Not everyone you associate with need to fit the cookie cutter, I think the ones you associate most with should, but some people can be "character builders." Likely, even most of your closest friends won't be able to handle the "gun in the room" conversation. The truth, and it seems to be something not very many people realize, is that there won't ever be many people you consider "good friends," but I look at it the way Stef does, "if you have a lot of friends, that probably means you have low standards." 

[hannahbanana]

Well, of course, you can always do whatever you want. If you meet someone who you wouldn't think would be compatible with you but you end up forming a relationship that makes you feel happy and treated as an equal human being, no one's stopping you from pursuing it.

 

I don't see why your example about feminists who say they are rational then turn out not to be, invalidates rational thinking as a "qualifier" for a relationship. Because they never really ended up being rational in the first place, right? In fact, that reinforces rationality as a qualifier because once you saw that they were not, in fact, being open minded and rational, I am assuming your relationships didn't do as well.

 

Could you possibly explain more about what you mean by a "created" An-Cap versus a "natural" one? I mean, there was a point in all of our lives where we didn't know about any of this, and it was only by being patient and listening to the arguments that we came to these conclusions...isn't that a "created" An-Cap? So then what would be a "natural" one? I guess I just don't understand your definitions just yet.

[MagnumPI]

Pimp game. Make them need you and they'll do what they have to, in order to keep you around. Instead of having them turn tricks, set the boundary at virtue and reason.

[Donnadogsoth]

If Ancap isn't teachable it will forever remain a table:  solidly founded but going nowhere by itself.

[Zelenn]

Well, of course, you can always do whatever you want. If you meet someone who you wouldn't think would be compatible with you but you end up forming a relationship that makes you feel happy and treated as an equal human being, no one's stopping you from pursuing it.

 

I don't see why your example about feminists who say they are rational then turn out not to be, invalidates rational thinking as a "qualifier" for a relationship. Because they never really ended up being rational in the first place, right? In fact, that reinforces rationality as a qualifier because once you saw that they were not, in fact, being open minded and rational, I am assuming your relationships didn't do as well.

 

Could you possibly explain more about what you mean by a "created" An-Cap versus a "natural" one? I mean, there was a point in all of our lives where we didn't know about any of this, and it was only by being patient and listening to the arguments that we came to these conclusions...isn't that a "created" An-Cap? So then what would be a "natural" one? I guess I just don't understand your definitions just yet.

You bring up excellent points.

 

"Natural" vs "Created" AnCap are perspectives relative to the person seeking a relationship.

 

For example, if I met you out and about somewhere you would be a "Natural" AnCap relative to my experience, in the sense that you already held AnCap ideas at the time I met you.

 

A person I meet who does not (yet) hold AnCap ideas and values would be "Created" in the sense that they weren't AnCap when we met, but they then become AnCap as a result of having met and spoken with me.

 

Does that clarify the idea?

 

And to clarify another point, I didn't mean to suggest that "rational thinker" is in any way invalidated by feminists who turn out not to be rational. You are correct that it would then be all the more important. What I meant was that many people will self identify as a rational thinker, even if they are not. And what I was proposing as an example was a person that self identified as BOTH a feminist and rational thinker (contradiction.) And the question about that example was whether or not such an individual could be (was worth) persuading out of irrational ideas (like feminism) using the reason and evidence that they also claim to value.

 

The question is really what kind of person is "close enough" to being an AnCap already, that all that is really required is a few good conversations to clarify in their minds what they basically already think and feel, but just haven't had stated to them in explicit terms?

 

I have met several several young women this week (all of them already married and majoring in neuroscience for some reason) who were essentially talking like an AnCap without knowing it. They "knew the notes, but not the music." They basically "got" that violence is wrong and one even "got" that "governments use soliders to protect citizens, but the soldiers rely on taxes, that makes citizens poorer which is self defeating," but she never would have used the phrase NAP or Taxes = Force etc.

 

But essentially, these were examples of women that were "pretty damn close" to being an AnCap without knowing it. And I could tell in a single, five minute conversation "where they were" relative to some AnCap ideas. If I began dating one of these women, I suspect that they would all have had some kind of "Ah Ha!" moments in our conversations because they basically already think some of these ideas.

 

So again, the question is, "How close does a woman (or potential male friend) have to be philosophically, in order to have good odds of "creating" an AnCap through conversation? How do we separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of potential relationships?

Short answer -  it depends

 

long answer - It doesn't seem like there are "ideas a person can hold" that would tell you whether or no they are worth the effort, simply because everyone is so different. I know a girl who is planning on having a natural birth, use cloth diapers, eats only the healthiest foods, yet is planning on using formula and immediately sending her kid off to daycare. Or, I'm sure we all know that relatively intelligent person who's good with their money and has put a lot of effort into making their lives better, but then goes off and marries someone who seems completely the opposite. 

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an easy answer, and in reality given time people will surprise you. Some people you think are going to be great and really smart friends will probably end up hurting and/or disappointing you, while others you didn't think much of early on may end up becoming your closest friends. All you can do is to be honest, open, kind, and see how they react.

 

The approach that seems to work the best, for me at least, is to be honest and open right up front, that is going to cut out a lot of people right from the get-go, from there you kind of compartmentalize based on the other person. Some people are going to just be people you hang out with every once in a while, whereas others may be better conversationalists or thinkers. Not everyone you associate with need to fit the cookie cutter, I think the ones you associate most with should, but some people can be "character builders." Likely, even most of your closest friends won't be able to handle the "gun in the room" conversation. The truth, and it seems to be something not very many people realize, is that there won't ever be many people you consider "good friends," but I look at it the way Stef does, "if you have a lot of friends, that probably means you have low standards."

 

This is a great point and most of the people in my life don't fit the cookie cutter and I actually value them that way. They are, as you say, "Character Builders." :-)

 

But when it comes to choosing a mate, which I guess is what we're really getting at, or maybe choosing men to have strong friendships with, I think it is absolutely essential that they "fit the cookie cutter," or at least come really close. I can't imgaine being with a woman that wasn't an advocate of peaceful parenting. Or forming a strong friendship with a man that was fully supportive of war and thought soliders were "cool."

 

I like your tactic of being upfront and honest to filter people out; a policy I myself have used frequently. The only draw back to that strategy, I have found, is that the intensity of it tends to alienate others before they've even had a chance to see what I'm about. in my older age of 27, I have "tonned it down" considerably, with the general effect being that my conversations last a bit longer and I provoke something resembling thought in another person.

 

Before I was just "being honest," and "honestly," I was a little ball of rage and anger. (The Red Pill Rage one experiences after learning all this is QUITE intense.) Nobody wants to hang with somebody who's pissed off all the time and broods on negative things like politics.

 

It wasn't till I discovered Stef's show, which focused more on non violence and self knowledge, that I chilled out, rediscovered my ambition and got my life moving in a positive direction. Before that happened, the "honest" thing was me being very angry for many days of the week.

 

Did not make me popular, I can tell you. Nor did it make me very articulate or able to express WHY I was angry all the time.

 

This is off topic, but I was discussing with someone about how Taking The Red Pill turns you into a two year old. You reenter a time in your life where your "ability to understand, exceeds you capacity to express." Like a two year old, you "get it, but can't talk about it." And this is very frustrating, because the whole time you feel angry because of what you've learned, but lonely and isolated and confused (and more angry) because you can't THINK about Red Pill knowledge coherently, let alone express your new knowledge to anyone.

 

Back on topic. I think being honest is a good strategy for filtering non virtuous people, but I also think that there are a lot of people who would be interested in philosophy if it weren't being pitched with a "Hard Sell" tactic. (Rar! Reason and Evidence! Taxes are Violent! Single Moms are an economic plague! And if you disagree you're an unvirtuous, evil Statist that can fuck off and die!)

 

Even though those arguments can be made, fairly successfully, one does not, friends win, by pitching it with that kind of attitude.

 

Honesty? Yes. But not so blunt we turn away the women or men that would have made great friends and spouses, had they been exposed to an argument, instead of just our hostile mood.

[hannahbanana]

You bring up excellent points.

 

"Natural" vs "Created" AnCap are perspectives relative to the person seeking a relationship.

 

For example, if I met you out and about somewhere you would be a "Natural" AnCap relative to my experience, in the sense that you already held AnCap ideas at the time I met you.

 

A person I meet who does not (yet) hold AnCap ideas and values would be "Created" in the sense that they weren't AnCap when we met, but they then become AnCap as a result of having met and spoken with me.

 

Does that clarify the idea?

 

 

Ah, yes I see what you mean now. I was thinking about it in an entirely different way.

I don't know, a lot of it seems like preference. On one hand, it's nice to have someone who is on the same page as you and can talk about these issues that are hard to discuss with others...but on the other hand, sometimes its cool to have a fresh view and revisit topics that may be old or basic to you.

I honestly don't know what the "right" answer is, or if there even is one...which is why I'm interested in what other people will respond to this. One thing that comes into my mind on this topic is to remember to empathize with this person, especially if they have never been exposed to an-cap ideas. We all know how difficult it can be to accept it, and sometimes it takes a little bit (it took me a long time of debates with my boyfriend before I felt I'd removed any doubts that I had about it - over a month).

Maybe a good way to approach it would be some sort of "litmus test;" maybe start out with a less controversial, but still challenging, topic and see how they handle it. That way if it doesn't go well, it won't be as hard on you. You could also take an approach where you only bring it up if they introduce the topic, that way it feels less like you're drowning them (the "hard sell," I think you described it).

Again, I don't really know, and it's probably difficult to come up with a "one size fits all" approach to this, but these are just some ideas.

[FDRenthusiast]

This is a difficult question to answer but I can offer my own experience.  I'm now an ANCAP but I became ANCAP from being libertarian, and I became libertarian from being a standard issue Republican, and I became a Republican after being a standard issue college liberal.  So, it's been a long journey but I think I've found my home!!  I do think the leap from standard issue leftist or conservative straight to ANCAP would've been tough and unlikely to happen in an acceptable time frame of a budding relationship but I also had a lot of emotional baggage/unresolved psychological issues that made being more statist a "good fit" for me at the time.

 

So, if you can find someone who's fairly psychologically healthy (more psychologically healthy than I was at least) then they'd probably be more likely to jump to what's rational since they wouldn't have all this trauma to work through.  Also, as Stef has said, look for people who have a history of changing and being open to new ideas because a body in motion tends to stay in motion.  If a woman has no history of changing her opinions or changing her habits or thinking, then I'd say that's not very promising.  To bring it back to my own experience, I've always been changing and open to new ideas so embracing philosophy was not pain-free but I started to really embrace it after listening to FDR for about a year.

[Frosty]

I think the problem with these ideas is that the number of philosophical, logical and open minded men severely outweigh the same kind of women, so whatever strategy you have as a man it can only really ever work out for a relatively small number of us.

 

I'm not a fan of those kinds of odds so I just opt out the whole thing, you could discuss strategy for creating more women who are like this but I think that's a cross-generation change that's required with peaceful parenting and all that jazz, so not a realistic option for men today.

[Zelenn]

I think the problem with these ideas is that the number of philosophical, logical and open minded men severely outweigh the same kind of women, so whatever strategy you have as a man it can only really ever work out for a relatively small number of us.

 

I'm not a fan of those kinds of odds so I just opt out the whole thing, you could discuss strategy for creating more women who are like this but I think that's a cross-generation change that's required with peaceful parenting and all that jazz, so not a realistic option for men today.

Forgive me sir, but I must say that is a facile argument. What you basically said is that women have a lesser CAPACITY for philosophy, logic, and open mindedness than men do. And that is simply not true.

 

Now, one oculd make the argument that women have less INCENTIVE to be philosophical, logical, and open minded given the current legal and economic climate, but men and women are equally CAPABLE of philosophy and virtue.

 

When looking for a woman I would suggest only looking at women who have the least DISincentive to utilize State violence (I.e Genrally speaking, Single Moms are off limits as are budding "Artists," Public Teachers etc.) Not likely to find Virtue in people whose paychecks come from the State.

 

But to be clear, ALL of those types of women are CAPABLE of Virtue and Reason, but since reason and virtue go very severly against their economic benefactors, you may find them reluctant.

 

I think opting out of marriage and going full tilt MGTOW is rather cowardly, actually. I have been contemplating MGTOW for sometime now (and I have been known to sya some very "not nice" things about women in general,) but upon further reflection, I've realized that men and women go together and compliment each other in very fundamental ways and that it would be a damn shame for a man to never know the deep satisfaction of loving and being loved.

 

Do not give up hope my friend. I have had three conversations this week with attractive young women (in STEM fields) that were essentially talking like an AnCap without knowing it. If you can get someone to accept the NAP, Universal Standards of Behavior (my words for UPB,) and Peaceful Parenting, I'd say you're half way there! To enhance your odds of success, look for women with exposure to the Scientific Method (STEM Field women,) or who have some exposure to the evils fo the State interfering with the Free Market (Women in small businesses who've experienced first hand what the State rakes out of their bank accounts.)

 

There are ways to DRAMATICALLY increase the odds of finding a good woman. Quoting statistics and talking about how "low the odds are" is a cowards way out of a great thing. Don't fall for it.

[Frosty]

Forgive me sir, but I must say that is a facile argument. What you basically said is that women have a lesser CAPACITY for philosophy, logic, and open mindedness than men do. And that is simply not true.

 

No I didn't, where did I say that?

 

I said the number is lower which seems to be trivially true given things like the ratio of men to women of FDR boards, given the almost zero attendance of women in FDR meetups, given the almost zero interest in libertarianism, anarchism and philosophy in general.

 

I don't see that the reasons for  why this is the case are terribly important for men, we're not here to fix women, I'm not interested in taking someone with little to no self knowledge and then educating them, as a fully mature adult I'm looking for another fully mature adult to partner with.

 

 

I think opting out of marriage and going full tilt MGTOW is rather cowardly, actually. I have been contemplating MGTOW for sometime now (and I have been known to sya some very "not nice" things about women in general,) but upon further reflection, I've realized that men and women go together and compliment each other in very fundamental ways and that it would be a damn shame for a man to never know the deep satisfaction of loving and being loved. 

 

This is shaming language, don't worry MGTOWs get this all the time, fundamentally because when you run out of arguments against the position the only weapon left in your arsenal is to attempt to socially shame that person, it's a type of emotional manipulation and it won't work because you have fundamentally failed to understand MGTOW.

 

MGTOW is expressly about disregarding social peer pressure put on men to conform to systems that are bad deals for us, so here are MGTOWs saying "we're not going to listen to your social shaming any more because it's not in our best interest" to which you respond with "<insert social shaming here>", I don't know what to say to that...other than calling me a coward isn't going to manipulate me into behaving in a way which is in line with your agenda.

 

Most MGTOWs do know what it means to love and be loved, you're making an assumption that the decision to reject social norms such as LTRs and marriage is done without the knowledge of what it's like to love/be loved, which in many cases is just flat out wrong. A huge number of men arrive at MGTOW through bad experiences with relationships and getting dicked over by a system explicitly hostile to men.

 

It's funny you end with looking for women in STEM, who are vastly outweighed by men, comes full circle about proving my point about the imbalance in numbers.

[MagnumPI]

http://revolutionarylifestyledesign.com/what-you-can-learn-from-the-pimp-game-about-women-and-life/

[Koroviev]

This is a great point and most of the people in my life don't fit the cookie cutter and I actually value them that way. They are, as you say, "Character Builders." :-)

 

But when it comes to choosing a mate, which I guess is what we're really getting at, or maybe choosing men to have strong friendships with, I think it is absolutely essential that they "fit the cookie cutter," or at least come really close. I can't imgaine being with a woman that wasn't an advocate of peaceful parenting. Or forming a strong friendship with a man that was fully supportive of war and thought soliders were "cool."

 

I like your tactic of being upfront and honest to filter people out; a policy I myself have used frequently. The only draw back to that strategy, I have found, is that the intensity of it tends to alienate others before they've even had a chance to see what I'm about. in my older age of 27, I have "tonned it down" considerably, with the general effect being that my conversations last a bit longer and I provoke something resembling thought in another person.

 

Before I was just "being honest," and "honestly," I was a little ball of rage and anger. (The Red Pill Rage one experiences after learning all this is QUITE intense.) Nobody wants to hang with somebody who's pissed off all the time and broods on negative things like politics.

 

It wasn't till I discovered Stef's show, which focused more on non violence and self knowledge, that I chilled out, rediscovered my ambition and got my life moving in a positive direction. Before that happened, the "honest" thing was me being very angry for many days of the week.

 

Did not make me popular, I can tell you. Nor did it make me very articulate or able to express WHY I was angry all the time.

 

This is off topic, but I was discussing with someone about how Taking The Red Pill turns you into a two year old. You reenter a time in your life where your "ability to understand, exceeds you capacity to express." Like a two year old, you "get it, but can't talk about it." And this is very frustrating, because the whole time you feel angry because of what you've learned, but lonely and isolated and confused (and more angry) because you can't THINK about Red Pill knowledge coherently, let alone express your new knowledge to anyone.

 

Back on topic. I think being honest is a good strategy for filtering non virtuous people, but I also think that there are a lot of people who would be interested in philosophy if it weren't being pitched with a "Hard Sell" tactic. (Rar! Reason and Evidence! Taxes are Violent! Single Moms are an economic plague! And if you disagree you're an unvirtuous, evil Statist that can fuck off and die!)

 

Even though those arguments can be made, fairly successfully, one does not, friends win, by pitching it with that kind of attitude.

 

Honesty? Yes. But not so blunt we turn away the women or men that would have made great friends and spouses, had they been exposed to an argument, instead of just our hostile mood.

 

Yes I completely agree. The honesty you bring should be like Stef was saying to the third caller on FDR3038, an honesty about your emotional state with an empathy for what the other person is going through.

 

I think the fundamental part of your question really hit me last night as I was listening to the single mom rebuttal, when he was talking about how hypothetical-single-mom could rely on friends, neighbors, and charity as opposed to government help, which is how can you be a FDR listener/thinker and still have close relationships with those around you. This is something my wife and I have been talking about a lot. We're planning on trying to have a baby soon but really have no one around us who thinks about things even close to the way that we do. The "solution" we came up with is that we need to put more effort into the relationships with others that we currently have. Unfortunately, often this feels like we are not being true to ourselves since, first of all it feels like we're putting more effort in than they are, and second these are not necessarily people we'd want to have our child spend much time around (aside from character building) since their views are so much different. Unfortunately the alternative is no one.

 

It seems like the "trick" comes back down to honesty and empathy. You need to be honest both with and about yourself, i.e. why do you want to be in a relationship with this person, why do you not, as well as be empathic to what they are going through, i.e. how is the "gun in the room" conversation going to effect them. This does not mean you should not have these conversations with others but it should help to frame them, and time them, in a way that is more productive for both parties involved. For myself personally it's having to constantly remind myself where I started and how long it took me to get to where I am.

 

As to opting out, I definitely agree with you that it's a very lazy path to take. Although, yes there are a lot of bad cases out there and a lot of bad women, and a lot of risk getting into those situations that does not mean you shouldn't try to find the good ones. Awareness is absolutely important, but not finding a good spouse and raising good kids with them is also not adding to the pool of good women, but rather giving more opportunities for the shitty men to reproduce which only adds more shitty men and shitty women.

[Frosty]

As to opting out, I definitely agree with you that it's a very lazy path to take. Although, yes there are a lot of bad cases out there and a lot of bad women, and a lot of risk getting into those situations that does not mean you shouldn't try to find the good ones. Awareness is absolutely important, but not finding a good spouse and raising good kids with them is also not adding to the pool of good women, but rather giving more opportunities for the shitty men to reproduce which only adds more shitty men and shitty women.

 

Again lazy is just more social shaming.

 

When someone weighs the pro's and cons of something and comes to a decision that it's not in their best interest to opt into a system which is toxic to them, that person isn't lazy, they're just risk averse and value their freedom, independence and assets more than they value what relationships provide them. People weight these things differently depending on different factors such as experience, knowledge, personality etc.

 

If I couldn't be bothered because I was lazy, I would just say that I can't be bothered.

[WorBlux]

Pimp game. Make them need you and they'll do what they have to, in order to keep you around. Instead of having them turn tricks, set the boundary at virtue and reason.

 

This is absurd on so many levels. Virtue can't be forced, and such manipulation isn't in itself virtuous.

[MagnumPI]

This is absurd on so many levels. Virtue can't be forced, and such manipulation isn't in itself virtuous.

How is it manipulative? You want me? This is what you need to be. It's a hell of a lot more straight forward than the 20 questions approach. Do you approach and be like I'd like to ask a series of inquiries regarding your virtue...

[kathryn]

I can only speak to my own experience, but understanding the politics of the family was the turning point for me. Once I fully understood the authoritarianism that was happening in my family of origin, and once I realized that the obligation I felt for them was completely imaginary, it was easy to see those patterns in the government and in schools. 

 

I went to a woman's college that was very left leaning and full of feminists. I remember during the Obama/McCain election, I voted for McCain (exclusively because that was how my parents wanted me to vote). The women at my school who were open about voting republican were severely ridiculed, so to protect myself, I told all my friends at the time that I was voting for Nader. It was sort of a running joke to all the girls. "Oh, that Kathryn! Voting for Nader... She's so quirky!" Of course, the only reason I felt I had to lie about my choice was because I didn't have a valid argument as to why I was voting for McCain. I was voting that way only to avoid the verbal attacks from my parents, then lying about it to avoid verbal attacks from my peers. The following election I voted for Obama (a huge rebellion and betrayal in my parents eyes), but I never felt sure of any of it. Never fully agreed with any of the politicians, and I always saw the act of voting as pretty useless. (Especially since I live in FL, so we literally didn't have any affect on the last election. Lol.) 

 

My uncertainty and pervasive doubt was part of what made the transition to AnCap so natural and easy, but the biggest thing was coming to terms with the realities of my family. The personal lead to the political. 

[things make sense]

Pimp game. Make them need you and they'll do what they have to, in order to keep you around. Instead of having them turn tricks, set the boundary at virtue and reason.

Does this really work? I get where you're coming from because people react to incentives.

If you play this game, I think the girl will be virtuous not for virtue's sake, but will "pretend" to be virtuous in the short term to get in your pants. You might be attracting the type of girls that you wanted to avoid in the first place. I could be wrong though.

[MagnumPI]

Does this really work? I get where you're coming from because people react to incentives.

If you play this game, I think the girl will be virtuous not for virtue's sake, but will "pretend" to be virtuous in the short term to get in your pants. You might be attracting the type of girls that you wanted to avoid in the first place. I could be wrong though.

 

Well, if she's a fraud, that is not virtuous. But yes. I mean, it's just reacting to the market demands. There's this idea that you can tell right from the first date whether or not they're good enough. That's just a good way to get carpal tunnel. Sure, sometimes it's that obvious like cakes of makeup or obesity, shitty attitude, junk like that. But then you don't talk to her to begin with?

 

If you can appeal to someone's senses you can start to sell them on the deeper ideas. This is why car companies lose their ass on sports cars, because it gets people on the lot buying sedans. You think my F-Type is the end game? Fuck no. It's a propaganda tool to get people thinking about Jaguar so they flock to the new XE, and recently redesigned XF, then later the SUV, in droves. It was no accident that the volume sellers came after the flashy sports car.

 

So, basically be what she wants on the surface. Fun, successful, intelligent. Then sell her on philosophy and virtue by living the life she wants to be a part of. And if she can't stack up, send her packing. Worst case, you had fun with someone for a while??

 

I mean, show someone you're loyal and committed... by refusing to talk to them again because they offered to buy you food. All they'll see is that you're a fucking idiot. Odds are very, very, high that the ideas of philosophy, reason, logic and honesty are going to be new to anybody you meet, anywhere, ever.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Can someone define cookie-cutter and Character Builder

Research and text is contradictory or atleast not clear to me: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cookie-cutter

[shirgall]

"cookie cutter" is a derisive term for someone or something that is so completely normal as to be indistinguishable from others

 

"character builder" is a positive term for a challenge that ends up improving someone, generally behavior, thinking, or knowledge.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Unfortunately the alternative is no one.

What is the problem with no one, no neiboors you disagree with running the show in fornt of your kids?

[Koroviev]

What is the problem with no one, no neiboors you disagree with running the show in fornt of your kids?

 

The problem with "no one" is that there are other people out there whether you like them or not. The problem with "no one" is that we are social creatures. The problem with "no one" is that then the only thing you have to turn to in a crisis is the government. Personally, the problem with "no one" is I travel a lot for work, so if something happens to my wife or kids, when we have them, it could potentially be 12+ hours before I can be there.

[LovePrevails]

IMHO you can't change, and definitely can't save, anyone else

you can help them become a better version of themselves but that is about the limit

if you want to change someone you put all this power in their hands to please you when they conform with the changes you want, or displease you when they don't - and inevitably they get this on the unconscious level and start acting it out to punish/reward you for not respecting their autonomy

 

nothing wrong with having friends who don't tick every one of your boxes (they have to tick all the "need" boxes but not all the "want" boxes)

but if you are going to get really close to someone eg. long term relationship - you need someone who is aligned values wise and is really into the idea of open honest communication etc. when you say that you are into it because if you can't respect their autonomy and want to change them too much they will have a nuclear weapon that may get used when they are in a bad mood with you - whether they mean to use it consciously or not. They punish and reward you by meeting or not meeting your expectations. Not a great situation to find yourself in 2 years down the line.

[Mothra]

I have some experience with this. My last relationship started after I had already become ancap and had been listening to Stef for a while, so I was familiar with the "find some reasonable and logical and bring them to our side" tactic. My last boyfriend called himself a free-market socialist when we met. Over the course of 6 months, he had become a libertarian. And probably 6 months later had completely come to the dark side and was an ancap.

 

When we first met, I remember thinking that he had promise because he was an atheist, liked to talk about politics, and criticize society. He seemed to enjoy talking about these deep ideas I loved so I can attest that it is possible to "convert" someone. The relationship unfortunately didn't work out in the end, though. The whole ancap thing I would say is necessary but not sufficient. And it unfortunately can't undo any trauma that may have caused a person to become dysfunctional in other ways.