Rov_Scam
1d ago
It reminds me of a friend of mine who went to a trip club to see some adult film star he liked, despite the fact that it was a weeknight and he had to get up early for work the next day. He got hammered and made sure he got more individual attention from her than anyone else in the place, and when he realized it was 11 and his handover was already going to be bad enough, he informed her he had to be leaving. She kept protesting, explaining his work situation, and she kept telling him YOLO and you can survive one bad day at work, and you just need to sober up a little and you'll be fine, etc. Then he uttered the magic words: "I'm out of money". That pretty much ended the conversation right there and he was free to go.
So yeah, this kind of relationship is ultimately pretty hollow, and I don't see the appeal personally, but some guys spend big money on hookers, strippers, and other empty stuff. The business model won't be built around this being a substitute for human interaction generally, but around various whales who get addicted to it.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
I worked for an inventory service when I was in college and mall stores did their inventories after close, which any day other than Sunday was 9:00 pm. So a typical inventory would last from 9:00 to 1 or 2 am. Some stores would do there's before open and those would start at six so the sales floor would be done around 10. Take this advice with a grain of salt since it's been 20 years and my memory isn't great, but I don't believe security ever had to let us in for any of the early stores. We were always told to park near the "main entrance" of the mall, which is almost invariably the entrance into the food court if the mall has one. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think there was always one door that was open near here where you could just walk in; I don't remember having to ever call security or anything like that to be let in, though since I had a legitimate reason to be there it's possible that security just left a door open for us, though that wouldn't make a ton of sense because in that case I'd imagine they'd leave the door close to the store open.
It's also worth keeping in mind that in this situation you'd stick out like a sore thumb. Actual employees have keys to service doors that allow them to access corridors that run along the perimeter of the building so they can get into the back room of the store. I believe this is strictly necessary since the security gates will only unlock from the inside, though I'm not entirely sure about this. I do know that when we left a late store in the middle of the night, the last group to leave would always exit through the outside door. The point is, though, that the risk of detection is pretty high, since the parking lot will be empty and you'll be wandering around aimlessly in an area that is pretty highly surveilled.
While @self_made_human's recommendation of a hard hat and safety vest is generally correct, there are better ways of getting in (not to mention that it's become a bit of a meme at this point). My recommendation would be to dress in business casual and carry a computer bag. Show up around 6:00 am or a little earlier and try the main entrance doors. Your cover story is that you're from Boschini, Miller and Associates accounting firm there to supervise the inventory of a store that's located in the mall. You will only need to use this if you get accosted, though if you're bold you may be able to use this at a security intercom or something if there aren't any open doors. Make sure the store you pick is a national chain with a different location in a nearby mall. If security somehow knows that there's no inventory scheduled for that day, get out some paperwork that has the name of the other mall on it and get flustered and embarrassed that you somehow got it in your head that it was at this mall and you obviously have to go now because you are late.
Ironically, the bigger risk here is that the security guard buys your story, because now you have nowhere to go but you can't really leave. You'd be limited to making a beeline for the store and then a beeline back to the entrance, telling the guard about your mistake if caught again. Other than that, it's a good cover because it admits that you aren't supposed to be there. It also means that the guard will be disinclined to pursue the matter further or make additional inquiries because the apparent situation is now that you're running extremely late, and any nervousness on your part would be expected considering the professional bind you are now in. I can say from my years as an inventory taker that it isn't unheard of to go to the wrong store. Aside from that, I don't know why you'd want to go to a mall in the middle of the night. Whatever vibe you're imagining is so unimpressive that I can't even remember if they kept the music on, or if they turned off any house lights. As far as I can remember it's just a bunch of closed stores and no people. Just go to a dead mall around closing time and the vibe will be the same.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
Would you find it more ontologically satisfying if the plaintiffs kept filing daily uncontested motions to recertify the class that the court had to sign? Because that's the alternative.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
Ah, I actually practice this kind of law so I can help you out here (not class actions, but mass torts generally). The question isn't so much whether someone who isn't born yet can be a member of a class; it's the more general question as to whether someone who isn't a member of the class at the time of certification can become one at a later date. And the answer is yes, and it's not controversial, although there are some practical effects that make judges less likely to condone this sort of thing in the modern view, though those concerns don't apply here.
Consider a products liability case. ABC Corp. sells a product with a design defect that has the potential to injure people who use it. A bunch of people are injured and a class action is filed. But most people who use the product haven't been injured. If they were to become injured at a later date they would become part of the class, and the court may require the company to put up settlement money in a trust fund to pay damages to people who are injured years or even decades after the case has resolved. This is especially true in toxic tort cases involving hazardous chemicals, where people can develop diseases years or even decades after exposure.
The reason modern courts are moving away from this is because class actions have to give an option to opt-out and pursue an individual claim, but people without standing to sue in the first place are unable to do this (you can't opt out of a claim you don't have). So when they got injured at a later date they would automatically be subject to a class action award that may be getting pennies on the dollar from a trust fund. For example, the Owens Corning Fibreboard Trust pays 3.7% of the gross scheduled value of asbestos claims. And the gross scheduled value isn't what you'd actually get in a real lawsuit, but what value was assigned by the court at the time of settlement, based on the value of cases settled at the time. Fibreboard created the global settlement fund in 1993, at which time they were paying $126,000 on average to settle claims, so a trust claim will get you about $5,000. For a mesothelioma case that would get millions if it went to verdict. This luckily isn't an issue in asbestos cases, where there are plenty of other defendants to sue, but it would be a problem if the entire case was against one company.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
There's a plaintiff's counsel I deal with frequently who will occasionally send out exhibits ahead of a deposition, and all the points she wants to emphasize will be highlighted, and I very quickly learned two things: 1. It's really easy for your eyes to go straight to the highlighted portions, and 2. It's just as important that you read what isn't highlighted. If you're trying to create right-wing ragebait for a targeted audience, it helps if you can not only direct readers to the most inflammatory sounding parts of a document but also omit 3 of the 5 pages included in that document, lest some smartass actually reads the whole thing and comes to the incorrect conclusion. It also helps that the document wasn't intended for the public but for a specific audience and thus omits crucial context that the target audience would be familiar with, though I can forgive Ms. Collin for that because I doubt that she took the time to familiarize herself with that context either.
Getting down to the nitty gritty, as Ms. Collin so helpfully highlighted, the policy provides that:
Hiring supervisors must provide a hiring justification when seeking to hire a non-underrepresented candidate when hiring for a vacancy in a job category with underrepresentation. Hiring justifications must be submitted to and approved by DHS Equal Opportunity and Access Division (EOAD) prior to an offer of employment being made.
She did not, however, highlight the following definition:
Underrepresented: when the FTE (full-time equivalent) representation of one or more protected groups is less than that group’s estimated availability in the relevant geographic area and labor force.
In other words, this isn't a wide-ranging justification requirement for hiring white men; it only applies to job categories in which there is underrepresentation. And underrepresentation isn't based on the minority population as a whole, but on the estimated number of qualified minority applicants in a particular geographic region. To see what this actually means, though, you would have to look to the DHS Affirmative Action Plan, which the document's intended audience would almost certainly be familiar with. There, you'll find that there are seven job categories, that protected groups are divided into three broad categories: Women, disabled people, and minorities. This gives us 21 data points for determining whether there is underrepresentation, of which four actually show it as such; Minorities are underrepresented in three categories (supervisors/administrators, skilled crafts, and service maintenance) and women in one (paraprofessionals). There are no categories that underrepresent disabled people. There is no underrepresentation in the technician, professional, or administrative support categories. When you look at the statistical breakdowns, it is clear that these targets are dispassionate and completely unidealistic. There are approximately zero women currently employed in the skilled craft category (plumbers, electricians, etc.), but since the estimated number of qualified women in this category is zero, there is no target, and you thus don't need to justify hiring a man. For the service maintenance, on the other hand, there is a minority hiring target, even though these are the kind of low-level service jobs that minorities were historically relegated to in the past. The upshot is that you need justification for hiring a white janitor over a black one but not for hiring a white attorney over a black one.
And this says nothing of the fact that the justification involved doesn't even have to be that persuasive. If you look at page three of the document (which Ms. Collin didn't provide), it provides a laudry list of acceptable justifications, with the caveat that the list isn't exhaustive. The point of the process isn't to force the issue of hiring more minorities in jobs where they can't cut it, it's to to make hiring managers take a second thought about why they're hiring one candidate over another. The canonical conservative argument against AA is that it substitutes racial preferences for merit, but such arguments are always made without any understanding of how AA works in practice. All this policy does is say that if you think the white guy is the best man for the job, in the limited cases where AA even applies, you should be able to explain why he's the best man for the job. If you're incapable of doing that, then one wonders why you picked the guy in the first place.
You can feel free to disagree with the merits of the policy; I was merely pointing out that it's much different than the Tweet you posted implies. But that's all collateral to the real point, which is whether such a policy is evidence of a wokeness epidemic. The key here is page five, which Ms. Collins did not provide for us, though even if she did it's unlikely that anyone would recognize its significance. It well within the references and statutory authority and all the other housekeeping stuff that appears at the end of these kinds of directives, and contains but one item before the signature line:
Supersession:
DHS administrative policy 4100.005, “Affirmative Action Implementation,” effective 05/06/14 and all policies, memos, or other communications whether verbal, written, or transmitted by electronic means regarding this topic.
If one actually examines the referenced document, they will discover an Affirmative Action Implementation Policy implemented in 2014 that contains the following provision:
Following the completion of interviews with all candidates, if a candidate from the protected group for which there is an underrepresentation is not selected, the supervisor must submit a Justification Form to the Equal Opportunity and Access Division, explaining the reason for the decision to offer the position to someone who is not a protected group candidate.
In other words, this NEW policy that goes into effect next month is actually just an elaboration of a policy that's actually been around for over a decade. It gets even better, though; the 2014 Affirmative Action Implementation Policy is the third revision of a policy that initially went into effect in 2002. I couldn't find a copy of the 2002 policy so I don't know if it contained the above language in it, but I suspect it contained something substantially similar, as I was able to find an Affirmative Action Plan from 2004 from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic development that contains a documentation packet with a form asking substantially the same questions as are required in this "new" plan, i.e. asking the hiring manager to justify hiring a non-affirmative candidate. And those requirements appear to have been stricter, as they indicate that the non-affirmative hire must be substantially (emphasis in original) more qualified than the minority candidate, while the new guidance contains no such provision.
To this effect, it's hard to see how you've given any evidence that "wokeness" has increased in any meaningful way in recent years. And yeah, I know the Biden's EEOC filed a bunch of diparate impact suits. But that doesn't say much; the EEOC has been doing that for decades. And before that they were filing pattern discrimination suits whose effects were much more severe than making a police department use a different test. In 1974 nine steel companies entered a consent decree by which they would grant minority candidates practically automatic seniority when it came to bidding into skilled positions as compensation for past discriminatory hiring practices. What this meant in effect was that if you were a white guy working in the labor pool for years with the hope that you'd eventually be able to bid into an apprenticeship to be a pipefitter or something, you'd get stepped over by a black guy who had been there for a year and got first priority. I don't hear many people talking about the wokeness of the Nixon Administration, though.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
Because there are way more of them, and other guys aren't optimizing for them. The number of guys with shitty profiles is mind blowing. So is the number of girls with shitty profiles, but if they don't set their sights too high someone halfway decent will message them. Guys don't have that luxury.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
I think the OP's point would be better stated as not so much liberal but liberal adjacent. Few men had facial hair in the 1950s, and those who did were either immigrants, bohemians, or men old enough to have been around the last time beards were in fashion. Then they were adopted by the 1960s counterculture, along with long hair and other fashion choices, as a deliberate rejection of mainstream aesthetics. By the 70s, while some of the hippie fashions had decidedly died, facial hair had become fairly mainstream. But you have to keep in mind how this looked to someone born before the early 1940s: They would have been well into adulthood by the time facial hair hit the mainstream, and would have grown up in an era when it was at least somewhat unsavory. To a member of Nixon's Silent Majority, facial hair was seen as sloppy, and was associated with hippies. Think of Abe Simpson's opinions of Joe Namath's sideburns, or George Steinbrenner's facial hair policy with the Yankees. And what kind of politics were the hippies associated with?
I'm glad you brought up Waylon Jennings here. Waylon has an image as a good 'ol boy, an image that's right-coded today, but that wasn't always the case. The transition of the South from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one was just beginning when he came to prominence, and it was hard to tell what kind of impact the 1972 election had on the Southern Strategy when Nixon won in such a landslide. The South wouldn't go Republican in a non-landslide election until 2000. While most Southerners weren't liberals in the hippie sense, they weren't stereotypically conservative in the traditional sense either, lingering views on racial issues aside.
Then you have to add the country music landscape into the mix. Nashville was in a bit of a crisis in the late 1960s, as traditional American styles like jazz, country, and traditional pop were being rejected by the new generation in favor of rock and R&B. Mainstream country circa 1967 was defined by a slick, mainstream sound that was decidedly unhip. This was the top country hit that year. It could have easily been recorded ten years prior and was only country by virtue of the acoustic guitar and light pedal steel. It's no surprise that, for how big that song was on the country charts, it didn't cross over to the Hot 100 at all, and Jack Greene isn't exactly a household name today, even among country fans. Even the venerable Johnny Cash was in the middle of a dry spell, putting out crap like this. This isn't to say that there weren't great songs from this era or any crossover success ("Stand by Your Man" being the prime example), but it was clear that things had to change with the times.
This process was an awkward one. Willie Nelson had had a few hits in the 50s but spent most of the 60s drifting, his label not knowing what to do with him, and was thus a prime candidate for the kind of experiments that went nowhere. While the albums he made at RCA with Chet Atkins were certainly interesting, they weren't exactly good. One bright spot was Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison LP, which revitalized his career. The fuck all attitude became a template for the next wave of country stars in the 1970s: Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, and of course, Waylon Jennings. Outlaw country was country reclaiming the edge it had lost over the past couple decades, rejecting the nudie suits of the Opry for a countercultural image that glorified outlaws, gamblers, hustlers, and all sorts of other questionable characters at the margins of society. It told stories not just of love and loss but of adultery and murder. Johnny Cash may have hit #1 with Kristofferson's "Sunday Monrnin' Comin' Down, but for my money Waylon recorded the best version of it, capturing the feeling of a sad loser with no place to go. Compare it to Cash's version, which, with it's forced chick-a beat and tacked-on orchestration, sounds out of another era entirely. And there was no easier way to signal the start of a new era visually than for the three icons of the genre to sport beards, combining countercultural associations with images of a romanticized American West.
After ten years, though, long hair and beards don't have quite the same impact, especially since the look has been increasingly adopted by the mainstream, so the youth who want to be hip have to find new ways to freak out the squares, first with mohawks and piercings of the punk era, then the big hair androgynous look of 80s pop metal, just to name two examples. In the meantime, the 1980s has seen the mainstream embrace a more clean-shaven look, and while plenty of normal people still have mustaches and beards, the prototypical yuppie doesn't, and most musicians and media figures don't. In 1992 grunge is starting to replace hair metal as the rock music of choice, and bands like Pantera are entering their heyday in an attempt to reclaim metal from the commercialized dross it had become. And what was furthest from the look of the hair bands? The long hair and beards that were popular 20 years prior, when bands like Black Sabbath and Deep Purple were making music that actually did have and edge.
What about those pre-boomer squares I mentioned several paragraphs ago? They didn't go away. They're older now, but voting in records numbers. Any mainstream man over the age of 50 probably wouldn't have ever considered growing a beard and wouldn't have had an affinity for any music past the pre-Beatle 60s. To them, all the changing youth hair fads of the preceding three decades were just one amorphous mass of people who didn't know how to present themselves. A guy like Bill Clinton could at least sympathize. He didn't have a beard, but he used beard aficionados Fleetwood Mac for his campaign song, and was the first rock and roll president. The Republicans, on the other hand, ran guys like Bush and Dole in the 90s, who yammered on about family values in a fairly naked appeal to an America that was corrupted by hedonism. Which side of the aisle do you think would have been more likely to listen to Pantera in that environment? Do you think a guy like Dan Quayle would look at Dimebag Daryl as the kind of gentleman he'd hope his daughter would bring home?
The Democrats, of course, weren't much better on this front, with Tipper Gore founding the PMRC and still having to appeal to the kind of older voters that are suspicious of guys with beards. But any way you slice it, there was still an association with countercultural weirdos, whether they be hippies or metalheads, and they were more likely to be worn by rednecks (who were still voting Democrat in large numbers), blue collar union voters (whose jobs didn't rely much on appearance), hippie holdouts, and, yes, college professors, who at that time were largely of the generation that was in college in the 60s and 70s. They were much less likely to be work by the Bible Belt Values Voters and businessmen who made up the Republican base. They still weren't mainstream enough that a politician of either party could wear one without the risk of alienating a sizeable number of voters; even if the stereotype was dying, it wasn't worth the risk (for the record, my grandmother, a lifelong Democrat born in 1925, hated beards, especially the one my uncle occasionally wore). Now that that generation is mostly gone, and anyone under the age of 80 is of the generation that made facial hair acceptable, it's okay for politicians of any party to bring the look back.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
I understand what you're saying, and I'm happy for you, but GP was giving generalized advice. Like I said, most people aren't that selective. I can't imagine giving someone dating advice that consists of "list all your fringe interests that won't impress women at best and turn them off at worst and plug away for years with little success in the hopes of attracting your one true love". It's not what most people are looking for. And while I understand not wanting to get too involved before finding out it's a dealbreaker, it's not like you're going to keep it a secret. Like I said in my post, when you're online dating, you are your profile, and you're going to be your profile until she meets you in person. The profile is to get your foot in the door; after you actually meet, you're a real person, and discussing hobbies and interests is fair game for a first date, and you can tell her whatever you want on that front. And if you think that one date is too much of an investment to be worth the risk, then online dating just isn't for you, period.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
For years, on this very forum (well, fine, you have to come buck to the /r/SSC days), whenever someone pointed out the advances of the SJ movement, the response was something to the effect of "it's just a couple of crazy kids on college campuses / Tumblr", or alternatively there'd be an attempt to "steelman" the movement to make it look more reasonable than it actually is ("defund the police doesn't really mean defund the police"), something later dubbed "sanewashing" by other elements of the left.
It was more than that, but not much more. There was a lot of media rhetoric from the left and teeth gnashing on the right about certain things, but in the end it doesn't seem to have amounted to much. But beyond some limited effects at the local level, most of the media coverage from the left amounted to little more than trend pieces (where a fringe phenomenon is puffed up into something bigger than it is), and the right's reaction had all the hallmarks of a moral panic. I can't tell you how many arguments in bars I got into where someone would insist that this school district just down the road was teaching kids that white people are bad blah blah blah and can you believe what these kids are hearing about gay people only to find out that they got this information from their neighbor's cousin's kid, or something, which is the equivalent of them just admitting that they got it from some dubious social media post. I have yet to talk to anyone with actual firsthand knowledge of any of this who could reproduce lesson plans or anything.
And at the national level, this rhetoric was soundly rejected within the Democratic party. Regardless of how the Republicans would like to portray them, there are few woke Democratic elected officials. The Squad is the most notorious, but those are a few House reps in safe seats, and even some of those got primaried the last go-round. AOC may be nationally known, but it remains to be seen whether she's that popular outside the Bronx. And when woke politicians do get the opportunity to go national, they fall flat on their faces. If there was ever an election where wokeness could triumph over the Democratic establishment, it was 2020. The woke lane was there for any Democrat who wanted to take it. Who did? Kirsten Gillebrand and Beto O'Rourke. Arguably Kamala Harris, though she wasn't very convincing about it. The Democrats ended up nominating Joe Biden, about as an establishment candidate as you can get. Hell, Mayor Pete made a convincing run as a moderate and even led early on despite being the mayor of a town most people couldn't point to on a map.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
It's anime, a perfectly mainstream form of entertainment. Some women may find it off-putting, yes, but it's not like having kids, or smoking, or religion, or that kind of thing that you should tell someone up front. Most women probably wouldn't care if they found out, it's just not something that adds to your attractiveness. Worst case scenario, you can bring it up on the first date, or when you're texting back and forth. The point is just that it's not something that you want to waste valuable profile real estate on, to increase your chances of getting a foot in the door.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
It's not about hookups vs. soulmate. It's about whether or not you expect a soulmate to have certain interests. If the answer is yes, you only want to be with someone who likes anime as much as you do and is attracted to guys who like anime, then I agree that you would have to put it out there. But that's not the way it is with most things or people. Just look at how much attention to sports men pay vs. women. Or woodworking. Or hunting. Or any number of other hobbies or interests. You can't expect your romantic partner to have 100% of the same interests you do, and most married couple I know aren't like that, right down to my parents. So yes, it's possible that you can be really into anime and have a girl who knows nothing about it and rolls her eyes at the idea of it and still have a successful relationship.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
Even if that take is outdated, liking anime and video games isn't something that women are going to find attractive. It's neutral at best, and you don't want to waste your limited real estate conveying information that isn't going to move the needle in your favor. A lot of guys make profiles that seem tailored toward impressing other guys, but girls do the same thing as well. I guess the female equivalent would be mentioning that they like reality TV. What guy is going to find a girl more attractive after learning that she's really into Real Housewives? It isn't something most guys are going to look forward to watching together, it doesn't make her seem more interesting, and it may give the impression that she's kind of stupid.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
It ultimately comes down to how wide a net you're willing to case. Yes, if you're looking for someone who shares interests that 99% of women find unattractive (but not so unattractive as to be dealbreakers), and you aren't willing to date someone who doesn't share these interests, then just put it out there as a filter. If, however, like most people, you don't expect the person you're dating to like 100% of everything you like, then it's not worth scaring anyone off. Remember, these women have options, and the last thing you want to do is give them a reason to hit the dump button before making an attempt to get to know you. I've learned from my own habits that it doesn't take much to set this off. Not that it's necessarily anything negative, but that the profile provides so little information that I wouldn't even know where to start. You have to give me something to work with if you want me to start a conversation with you. If 99% of women aren't into anime or video games, and it isn't something that otherwise makes you look attractive, then even if it's ultimately neutral it's not doing much. And beyond the truly negative stereotypes, it signals that you're the kind of guy who sits around the house all day and doesn't get out much.
Rov_Scam
8d ago
There's no "one weird trick" to evade Federal housing discrimination law, or the state equivalent, for that matter. The law doesn't apply to private clubs, but that assumes that the housing is incidental to the normal purpose of the club. For example, consider a club that has a clubhouse in a major city where they hold events, have a full-time bar, have parties, go on outings, etc. If they also happen to own a lodge in the mountains that is available to rent to members only, housing discrimination law wouldn't apply to them, and one couldn't allege a discriminatory admission policy as triggering that law. On the other hand, if you organized a co-op apartment building as a "club" that consisted of member-owners, and had rules that prohibited sales to anyone but other club members, the only purpose of the club is maintaining the building and it's not incidental to the club's purpose, so discrimination laws apply. It probably won't matter, though, because these projects are doomed out of the gate, and the land will probably be sold by the time HUD or the Arkansas Fair Housing Commission files suit, and it's unlikely that any prohibited group will attempt to buy land and be rejected and sue privately.
Rov_Scam
8d ago
Is there something I'm missing here? I'm not sure what the history is or who you think this poster is, but I don't see anything remotely wrong with this. Maybe some history I'm not aware of?
Rov_Scam
8d ago
What's your opinion of What Hath... so far? I read it shortly after it came out and thought it was one of the stronger entries in the series, at least among those I've read. I'd also be curious to know which other installments you have read and your opinion of them, besides the McPherson, of course, which is one of the towering monuments in American historiography.
Rov_Scam
8d ago
I don't entirely know how to explain the behavior of certain people online, but I have my theories. I think some people have a tendency to be agreeable and avoid confrontation even if it's texting with a stranger, and if they get cold feet for whatever reason it's easier to just ignore the situation or come up with an excuse than it is to be honest. The polite thing to do here is to lie in the bed you made, go on the date, and if he asks you out again say you had a good time but aren't interested in pursuing things further. I've had cancellations before, but most of them have come a couple days before the scheduled date, which give me the opportunity to make other plans, or have been quickly rescheduled and gone off, or both. I was only ghosted once day-of, about ten minutes before I had to leave the house, and it pissed me off to no end. Basically we had been ironing out the details for several days, and when I got out of the shower to check for any messages I had a notification but when I tried to open it I had been unmatched. Apparently she thought that I'd see the message, not realizing that unmatching me prevented this. In any event, not knowing for sure what had happened, I felt compelled to go to the location anyway on the off chance that there had been some mistake or glitch and she showed up, as unlikely as that was, because in no instance will I be responsible for standing somebody up. I had already found her Facebook page through some mild "research" and was tempted to send out a message under my real name expressing my disappointment that someone 37-years-old would be so immature and have such disrespect for somebody else's time, but I wisely decided against it.
How is stand-up an ick?
I wasn't the guy who posted that, but the problem isn't so much stand-up itself as it is putting it on your profile. The issues with stand-up are two-pronged: First, the vast, vast majority of stand-up comedians are bad. Second, bad stand-up comedy fails harder and more spectacularly than other forms of public entertainment. Bad musical and theatrical performances draw polite applause. Bad comedic performances do not draw polite laughter. Laughter is a visceral experience that can't be credibly faked. Imagine dating a girl who sings badly in community musical theater and drags you to one of here shows. You may have to bite your lip but you can make it through. Now imagine she drags you to her stand-up show, and you don't find anything she says remotely funny. She's going to notice that you aren't laughing, and it's going to be especially noticeable if nobody else in the audience is laughing either. Bad stand-up comedy in cringeworthy in a way that other things done badly can't approach, and the sight of a comedian truly dying to the point that you're expecting crickets after every punchline is physically uncomfortable.
I wouldn't say there's anything particularly wrong with doing stand-up on occasion at an open mic, but putting it on your profile when you aren't doing it for a living suggests it's a more central part of your personality than it probably should be. Part of the issue with this and podcasts are that anyone can ostensibly do them without any obvious talent. By way of analogy, being in a horrible band you're totally serious about at least requires the ability to play an instrument to a passable degree. Now compare this to those people who take karaoke way too seriously. Most of these people sing passably well but wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a recording studio, yet they always pick songs nobody's heard of because they think they're going to bring down the house. One guy sang some lame Josh Groban song that sounded like "O Canada". One woman preceded her off-key caterwauling by telling everybody she was enrolled in a contest to win $10,000. No that she won the contest, that she entered the contest. Think of it like Disney. If you find out the girl you're dating likes Disney, then maybe you can deal with it; it's a popular studio. But that's different from the girl who puts a picture of her in mouse ears in front of Cinderella castle on her dating profile.
Also, bartending? I thought the entire point of being a bartender is to get laid?
That was a stand-in for barista or cashier or parking lot attendant or the kind of other jobs that people with college degrees may do while they're looking for an actual career. Women with professional jobs are going to wonder what the deal is with a college-educated person working a job that decidedly doesn't require a degree. Better to explain it in person.
To be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that OP misrepresent himself, as I don't know what his politics are, but I was merely stating a fact: Politics aren't immutable, and if you want to maximize your success, you have to be some flavor of what can plausibly be described as liberal. I'd say that if you live in a mid-size metro area, 80%–85% or attractive, professional, interesting women are going to be liberal. Hell, at least half of the self-identified Christians I've seen have identified as liberal. Very few will be openly conservative, a few will be moderate, and the rest will omit the information entirely, but usually those who omit it entirely often aren't one's I'd be inclined to message otherwise.
Remember, these women have more options, and the last thing you want to do is give them a reason to hit the dump button. When there are plenty of liberal men out there, it's relatively unlikely that they're going to waste their time on someone who might have voted for Trump. And let's be honest, it's about Trump more than anything else; you can have traditionally conservative opinions out the wazoo but as long as you can genuinely say you hate Trump you'll have a fighting chance. If you want to use the apps as a conservative you can try, but you might as well wear pro wrestling t-shirts in all your pictures while you're at it.
Rov_Scam
8d ago
Based on friends who have all gotten long-term relationships from the apps, combined with my own experience, here's what I can tell you:
- Use Hinge, and nothing else. The quality of people on there is much better and the other apps are garbage.
- Use good photos; don't just pick the six most recent photos with you in them. The first one should be a good picture that shows what you actually look like. One picture should be of you in a group, so they can see that you actually have friends, but more than one creates confusion as to who you actually are. It also shouldn't be one of you and your ex, and ideally shouldn't include anyone better looking than you are. This also shouldn't be your first picture, and should be somewhere down in the order so the only people who will see it will be those intrigued enough to scroll down that far. At least a few pictures should be purpose-shot. You don't have to hire a photographer, but a friend who knows how to work a real camera with a long lens will help. Don't include too many pictures where you're wearing a hat or sunglasses as this makes it hard for to see what you look like. Some of the pictures should be "action shots" of you engaging in hobbies so they can see that you're interesting rather than read about it. Make sure you're smiling and showing your teeth. A lot of guys tend to smirk or look overly serious, and women don't like that. Women also don't care about cars so shots of you posing in front of your Mustang or WRX just make you look like a douche. The only exception would be if you own a Lambo or something and want to attract women who are after your money. Don't include pictures of you with deer you shot or fish you caught. No pictures of you shirtless or flexing. Selfies are bad. Bathroom selfies are worse. Bathroom selfies of you flexing are worst. You can include a Linkedin style professional photo if you have one, but I'd save this for last.
- Fill out the profile completely or almost completely. The purpose is to make you look like an attractive, well-rounded person. Include your job (unless you're a doctor, which will get you more matches but from women looking for guys with money), especially if you have a good professional job. If you're working as a bartender but graduated from college, it's okay to just list the college. It's also okay to just list the job if you're paranoid about them being able to figure out who you are (which can be surprisingly easy). It's fine not to list your religion if you don't want to, but your politics are liberal. Most young women in urban areas simply won't date Trump supporters, and if you say you're moderate or other or nothing they'll just think you're a conservative who doesn't want to admit it. Your height is an inch taller than you actually are, unless you're like 6'5" or something. Unless you're obviously black or East Asian your race is white. It's fine to omit one or two of these but if you omit too many the profile looks incomplete and it makes you look either uninteresting or like you have something to hide.
- If you have children, say you have children. If you don't, say you don't. Omitting this does you no good and can fuck things up. Women who aren't open to dating guys with kids won't risk it on guys who they don't know that about if they have other options. If you do have kids and they find out later it might be a dealbreaker. As far as intentions, be specific with those as well; if you want kids say you want kids, if you don't say you don't, and if you're open to the idea but not committed one way or the other say that. "Not sure yet" may be an option if you're under 30, but in general you'd just be turning people off since a girl who wants kids isn't going to be happy if the guy decides he doesn't want them after she's been dating him for two years. You're looking for a long-term relationship; if you're looking for a hookup you shouldn't be on Hinge. Saying "life partner" may be fine but could come across as a bit intense. Saying "figuring out my dating goals" makes you look confused and indecisive; I always assume people who write this are dipping their toe in the water after a divorce and will probably be flaky. Saying "long, open to short" or the reverse makes it look like you're either taking what you can get or are looking for a hookup but don't want to admit it.
- Select your prompts carefully, and include as much information as possible. I don't have a list of prompts at my fingertips, but you should be able to discern which ones actually say something about you and which ones don't. You only get three of these so use them wisely; saying that you order the loaded french fries for the table doesn't add anything to the discussion. On the other hand, saying what you do on a typical Sunday communicates what you like to do when you're not working or running errands, and saying what you could do together communicates what you have to offer in a relationship. Avoid one-word answers and non-answers, which are things that apply to pretty much everybody. So, you like tacos, travel, and music? Great, so does everybody else. Give her a reason to date you over the masses with generic responses. Even if she doesn't like all the things you like, it will at least make you seem interesting.
- Avoid using negative prompts. The last thing you want to do is give someone a reason not to match with you. If something is a serious dealbreaker, Hinge has a match note feature where it will come up when you match and give them the option to back out. I've only seen this once, and it was just a generic thing about actually being serious about starting a long-term relationship. But unless something is a serious no-go I wouldn't bother; you only get three prompts, so use them wisely. Also, and this probably goes without saying, but there are a bunch of prompts that mention therapy that shouldn't be used by anybody.
- The general theme of this list so far is that your profile will make or break your success. Six photos and three prompts are the only information the person on the other end is going to have when deciding to make a match. This is valuable real estate and you don't want to waste any of it. I've talked to a lot of female friends about this, and they're pretty unanimous and unequivocal about their complaints. It's been said over and over again about how women have it much easier on these apps then men, and while that's true to an extent, women have their own frustrations. Sure, a woman may be flooded with likes, but a large percentage of those are going to be from guys who have half-assed profiles that don't give them any usable information and another large percentage is going to be from guys who put some effort into making profiles that seem designed to appeal to other guys (though women are equally guilty of both of these). If you're not supermodel hot, seeing one of these profiles will make her hit the dump button without a second thought, and if you are supermodel hot she'll think about it and come to the conclusion that you're a fuck boy looking to score.
- No that we've gotten through the profile, you have to actually use the app. First, you won't get many likes, and the ones you do get will be from women you probably aren't interested in dating. Hinge isn't a swiping app like Tinder where you have to randomly match with someone. You send out likes to profiles you're interested in and the other person can choose to match or reject. Like in real life, men have to take all (or at least most) of the initiative—men match by sending out likes, women match by reviewing incoming likes. The only women who normally send out likes are the ones who aren't receiving a sufficient number of quality likes themselves. The rest are either women who happen to really like your profile or women who just got on the app and haven't yet realized they don't have to send likes out. The likes women send out are generally to men who are supermodel hot. This has created an interesting dynamic where men rarely get any incoming likes and don't match with the ones they do get, while women may send out a bunch of likes but rarely get matches from those.
- When you send out a like, Hinge gives you the option of including a message along with it. You should always do this. Remember, women are getting a lot of incoming likes, and most of these won't have messages. You're going to have to start a conversation eventually, so you might as well do it now, and it will at least give the woman a reason to check out the profile rather than just hit the dump button. And these messages should be well thought out and have something to do with the profile, preferably one of the prompts. This shows that you actually read the profile and are taking an interest rather than just clicking on a pretty face. And sending messages like "Cute" does nothing to start the conversation and doesn't demonstrate anything—if you didn't think she was cute you probably wouldn't have reached out in the first place. Some guys online have said that this does nothing but make them waste time thinking of something to say to someone who probably won't respond, and that they get comparable results by not saying anything and only putting in effort if there's actually a match, but this seems lazy to me. Again, most guys won't say anything, and you need to do whatever you can to make yourself stand out.
- When you actually get a match, respond promptly, and try to follow up your response with a question to keep the conversation going. Remember, women have an easier time getting matches, and you don't want to give them any reason not to respond. Don't be afraid to go back to the profile to get more source material, but also don't be afraid to get into things that aren't covered by the profile. Put some effort into this and don't slip into idle small talk; "How was your day?" isn't going to elicit any useful information for you and isn't going to communicate anything to them. Don't communicate during the work day unless you want them to think that you don't work very hard. Weekends are trickier; remember, you're trying to give the impression that you lead a busy, interesting life, and messaging on Saturday night or a beautiful Sunday afternoon doesn't give that impression. That being said, if it's a miserable day or they message you first, don't be afraid to respond on a weekend, and don't wait all weekend to respond to a message you got after work on Friday. Pick your shots.
- Don't be afraid to respond promptly. You don't have to check the app every 15 minutes, but you should be logging in at least once a day, preferably not late at night. If a girl is slow to respond it can be tempting to use that as a license to stall yourself, but remember, she probably has other options, and isn't going to keep talking to a guy who doesn't seem that interested. Sometimes you'll catch her on the app at the same time as you and you'll get a real-time conversation going, but mostly you'll get one exchange per day, and sometimes you'll respond one day and she the next, and you the next, etc. Sometimes things move faster, and people get busy and don't check the app for a while. Also, give her at least 48 hours to respond, but after this don't be afraid to double text. Sometimes people are just busy and forget, or possibly you did something to make them think you weren't that interested. I wouldn't worry about this making it look like you're needy. She might not be that interested, but you have to take all the shots you can at this point. If she still doesn't respond, but hasn't unmatched, at that point I'll wait until it's been two weeks since the last communication and send another message. After two weeks the app hides the dead conversations, but if there's another message it will unhide it and get you back on the radar. Usually it's a lost cause at that point, but you never know. Some people have things come up that make them drop everything, and by the time they get back on they won't respond to your message because they think the ship has sailed. I take the view that if they haven't unmatched me or otherwise communicated that they're not interested that I'm still at least marginally in the running and it's something worth pursuing.
- You should aim to have about three active matches going at once. Less is fine if you aren't getting any, but any more than that is wasting your time. Trying to keep a dozen conversations going at once is going to get pretty unwieldy pretty fast; it's time-consuming, and you're inevitably going to be more interested in some of the matches than others. There are obvious exceptions. Sometimes you'll get nothing for a while and get a flood all at once. Sometimes you'll have a full plate and more will trickle in, or conversations you thought were dead will get unexpectedly revived by the other party. Think of it as a podium with a first, second, and third. Any other active matches are off the podium, and the ones that have been around longer should be closer to the top. Everyone else you may be matched with is an off-podium reserve, and may include both active, unintentional matches and dead conversations who haven't unmatched you for some reason. If something changes with one of the finalists, knock them off the podium and rearrange things accordingly. Also, once you have a full podium, you should stop sending out likes. The last thing you want is women you might be interested getting short shrift due to bad timing and dipping out due to lack of attention on your part.
- Don't string along those lower in the running. This can be tempting, either because you have limited time for dating you don't want to waste on them, and you don't want to be on date two with your third place before you've gotten to date one with first place, or whatever. Women aren't stupid; if a conversation goes on too long without you asking them out, they're going to get the picture and will stop wasting their time.
- To that effect, don't let conversations drag on with anyone for too long without asking them out. This is obviously going to depend on the frequency of messaging, but unless there are unusual circumstances, you shouldn't go more than a week, and if you're getting (and sending) prompt responses it should be a lot less than that. In-app messaging should be used to establish rapport and show interest, and that's it. It's hard to get a feel for when a good time to ask someone else is, but you'll quickly get the idea. If the topic you're discussing is played out and you're scrambling to change the subject it's a good sign. If the conversation is flowing on multiple subjects it's a good sign. If the conversation is dying and you can't think of a response, it's a good sign. Sometimes you'll ask someone out because you're excited to meet her, and other times you'll ask someone out because you're bored with the conversation and are willing to take a chance that she'll be more interesting in person. If I get an unexpected response from a months-dead conversation, I'll usually just ask her out right there because I'm not interested in wasting my time again. As for what to say, keep it simple. "It's been nice chatting and if you're interested in hanging out let me know when you're available" is as good as anything. You don't have to propose anything right away, though if you're not available certain days, let her know. Sometimes people will be good with responding but get cold feet when it comes time for action. Usually it means they were just stringing you along as a plan B. I'll usually give them longer to respond to a date request, like a week, because I don't know if they're trying to figure out a schedule or something. If they still haven't responded, they're going to keep getting weekly messages from me until they either respond or unmatch. I can understand losing interest and not responding while in the messaging phase, but if there's an offer on the table, I think they should either accept it or reject it. There's no penalty for persistence, so there's no reason not to.
- As for what to do, I usually prefer drinks or coffee for a first date, preferably on a weeknight. Dinner is a traditional date option, but doesn't work as well for online dates. The cost of dining out makes it expensive for something that probably isn't going anywhere, and can attract the kind of woman who just wants a free meal. More importantly, there are disadvantages due to timing, as there is no date where dinner is the appropriate length. If it's going poorly you're stuck there til the end. If it's going well you're going to have to find a bar or somewhere else to go afterward, because the 60–90 minutes a restaurant meal takes isn't really enough time. If you're at a bar or coffee shop you can linger as long as you want or beat a retreat if necessary. For what it's worth, I only went out to dinner on a first date once, and only because the girl backed me into it, and she ended up being a bitch (not to me, but you can usually tell). I also don't like "activity dates" for a first date, since they tend to be similarly expensive and don't give time to interact. The purpose of a first date should be conversation, and I don't want to spend money to not talk to someone.
- When you're on the date, be yourself. If you end up getting involved, she's going to meet the real you eventually, so don't waste her and your time putting on a facade. If things went well and you'd like to see her again, let her know that you had a good time and text her the next day asking her out again. If you don't want to see her again, tell her you had a good time and leave it at that. Giver her a day or so to reflect on things. A decade ago, with IRL girls I already knew, I would tell them I'd like to see them again at the end of date one, but I don't do this anymore, because it puts them on the spot. I said this to the last IRL girl I dated, who was ten years younger than me, and she seemed uncomfortable and gave a noncommittal answer which ruined the rest of my night and the next two days. Imagine how surprised I was when she agreed to a second date after I asked her out again. Which brings me to another thing—I don't know if you're familiar with the "three day rule", but if you are, forget it. It may have some applicability depending on your age, but most mature women don't expect you to play games. Give them time to reflect, but don't feel the need to drag it out. If she agrees to a second date, it's going to be because she's interested in you, not because you used proper dating technique.
- Don't get discouraged. It will probably take I while for you to get matches, and you're probably going to be plugging away at it for months before you get off the app. This is normal for everyone. If you aren't getting matches after a month, then you need to take a serious look at your profile and make an adjustment. Also, keep in mind that these are real people, and treat them like you'd want to be treated. Online dating is similar to the internet at large, where people use the nature of the medium as an excuse for shitty behavior they wouldn't do in the real world. Try not to be one of these people, but don't hold it against other people. People will abruptly cut off conversations, but not unmatch you. People will cancel or reschedule dates at the last minute. People will take forever to respond without an apology or explanation for the delay. People will match with you but never talk to you. You'll meet people who text really well but in person have the personality of a manilla envelope taped to a beige wall. You'll have dates that you think went awesome with someone who doesn't want to see you again. You'll have dates that you think went terribly but you'll get a second one out of nowhere.
- There are a lot of people online who will tell you that this is impossible if you aren't a male model with an MD. Ignore them. I have numerous friends who have met long-term partners on Hinge, and none of them are exactly Adonis. None of them ended up with women below the standard of what I'd expect, and most of them are dating (or married) above what I'd expect. Also don't believe the people who tell you that since the apps have an incentive to keep you single they're specifically designed not to work. While this theory sounds plausible, there will never be an app that works so well that a major market will run out of single customers. There are definitely some weird idiosyncrasies and glitches, but by and large, the apps do what they say they do.
- Don't, under any circumstances, pay for this. Some people are convinced that the apps are designed to keep people paying, and that they won't work unless you pay. As I said, they work as advertised. Paying gives you access to features that are of dubious benefit. For instance, getting unlimited likes per day may seem like a good thing (the free version limits you to around five), but the consequence of this is that you end up burning through the local dating pool before you've had time to optimize your profile. Roses are a scam; don't bother with them, even the free one you get a week. Filters may have some use, but not for what they charge. Profile boosts are pointless for men, who don't need more people seeing their profile for reasons stated above. These features are window dressing for their real purpose, which is to attract the kind of undateable whales with bad profiles who are convinced that their lack of success is due to them not paying enough money.
- Beyond this, I can't really give you advice. The first step is creating a profile that is likely to get you matches, and the second step is managing your matches so that you can get dates. During this period, you basically are your profile, which is why the profile is so important. After you meet, though, you transform into a real person, and so does she, and now anything I can tell you is just basic dating advice you can get anywhere else.
Best of luck to you.
Rov_Scam
12d ago
I think the next frontier is the rights of midgets. It's been simmering for a while, and I assumed it would happen as soon as the trans thing died down, but that was ten years ago and the trans thing lasted longer than I would have thought.
Rov_Scam
12d ago
Even if bees did suffer 7% as much as humans, that isn't much. Consider that doctors use a 1/10 scale when asking patients to describe pain. A 1 on this scale barely registers, and dividing the scale into tenths is evidently the most useful way to do things (a 1/100 scale would be quite unwieldy). I know it's not the most useful analogy, but if 10 is the worst pain imaginable then a 1 on the scale is pretty low, definitely in the "mild annoyance category". So basically bees are capable of experiencing pain to the extent that my thumb knuckle decided to start hurting a few minutes ago or that my Achilles tendons are tight in the morning. And this is the most suffering they are capable of experiencing, i.e. the same suffering that the majority of people experience on a day to day basis without thinking about it, even excluding those who are suffering more.
Rov_Scam
14d ago
My argument wasn't that crashing the wedding was morally justified because of the level of trust involved, just that the lack of trust on the part of the hosts meant that my actions didn't contribute to the erosion of trust in the same way they would if they were simply operating on the honor system. You could live in a zero trust society where every box of tic-tacs was sold from behind 4 inches of lucite and two armed guards, and you wouldn't be justified in stealing it. It would just be disingenuous for someone to caution you that your successful theft is contributing to an erosion of trust.
Another explanation could be that working-class women are more likely to hold public-facing or customer service jobs that require one to present in a certain manner, while men are more likely to do blue collar work where they only have to communicate with their coworkers.
More options
Context Copy link