Harlequin5942
No bio...
User ID: 1062
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
I think that this is oversimplified. Being attractive as a woman takes a lot of willpower (not eating a lot in the modern world), work (applying make-up is not easy) and money (clothes, make-up, perfume, hairdressing etc. are not cheap).
And there are innate things as a man that can make people more pliable to you. For example, I am fairly tall, broad-shouldered, I have naturally very good skin, a prominent jaw, and all my hair in my 30s. These make life easier for me as a man, but I didn't have to work for them.
Harlequin5942
4mo ago
because Palestine regards all of Israel as Palestinian land
Palestinians do, but there is no Palestinian government, so attributing intentions to a Palestinian state seems wrong. Of course, this adds to your point about the meaninglessness of "Jews settling on Palestinian land." There is land where people who identify as "Palestinians" live, but there is and has never been a "Palestine" (in the contemporary sense) to have land as Palestine. It's only marginally less misleading than talking of Utah as "Mormon land."
In 2016-2020, Russia hadn't even prepared for annexing the Donbas, let alone invading Ukraine. Russia also had hopes of reversing Euromaidan. After all, Poroshenko was unpopular, Zelenskyy was an unknown quantity, and Ukraine had performed a similar reversal from West to East after the Orange Revolution in 2005. Invading Ukraine would guarantee that such a reversal would not take place.
By 2022, Russia and its Donbas puppets were militarily, politically, and administratively prepared, while Zelenskyy turned out to be just as much of a problem for them as Poroshenko.
Trump's reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine would have been to cry a few tears for the Ukrainians, praise Putin's savvy and genius, and provide less support for Ukraine than Biden has done, and hope to appease Putin by encouraging Ukraine to cede the territory that Russia wants. We can predict all that, because that's what Trump's position has been on the Russia-Ukraine war.
I am no fan of Biden, but it's irrefutable that Trump is far softer towards Russia than Biden. This is one reason why many people like Trump! Trump's policy towards Russia has always been appease, withdraw, and sincerely pray to the Almighty for the victims of the consequences.
Arab Israeli citizens have a right to vote, work, and move around freely.
Gaza and the West Bank are "apartheid" in the same sense in which Germans couldn't freely choose to work, move around, or vote in the US, UK, France, or USSR (but then again, neither could Soviet citizens...) after WWII. The German state had ceased to exist. The Palestinian state has never begun to exist. Palestine is occupied (in a very hands-off) way by Israel because there is no government of Palestine.
This is one of the problems with a "Two State Solution," which I favour. How do you have a two state solution with only one functioning state? You can say "Israel could take a more hands-off approach" so that a Palestinian state can emerge, but that's a lot to ask of Israel, given that Palestine is full of militants trying to kill as many Jews as possible.
The Allies allowed Germany to emerge from WW2 and even supported the development of German state institutions, but only AFTER Germans had stopped trying to kill the Allies.
So the best road to a Two State Solution, AFAIK, is Palestinian militants surrendering armed conflict and recognising Israel, on the condition of Israel at least permitting (even perhaps aiding) the emergence of a Palestinian state. I would also be fine with Jordan and/or Egypt taking over the West Bank/Gaza, under conditions of full recognition of Israel.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Women have spent decades not caring one bit about what men want or what hurts them
This is needlessly oversimplifying.
Because reading all the screeds about "it's so unfair! women have all the power! they should lose all their rights and be forced back to the days of exchanging sex for meat so that men can have a fuckdoll of their own at home for their own exclusive use!" makes me wonder why women would want to get married in the first place.
It makes me suspect that the weird "Women don't want commitment and children, men do" assumption that I see in a lot of discussions about birth rates are men trying to shift the sexual marketplace in their favour. It would be like women saying "Men don't really want sex, otherwise they'd become HVM and be begging us for marriage." (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some women on Female Dating Strategy think something like that.)
Human relationships don't always work Lion King style (male wants to play, needs to sort himself out for female to play with him, female plays with him to get commitment from HVM) but that's one of our better reproduction methods. It's certainly a lot more spiritually rich than arranged marriages, sex workers, IVF, or the hare-brained schemes I have come across online.
Is it manipulative? Only if people don't understand how the game works at some level, and pretty much every non-retarded neurotypical human does, if only subconsciously. And it incentivises not only reproduction, but character development by both partners - the male to develop an attractive personality, the female to develop a spine so that she isn't exploited by the process and to take the risk of having her heart broken.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Would you apply the same logic to pedos and child porn?
Probably. Most people want harsher punishments for the former over the latter.
Why else would they fantasize about it instead of the nice guy who asks them politely
Do you only fantasize about stuff that you would want to happen to you in real life? How about non-pornographic media? Do you only enjoy films and books where you want to be the characters? Do you only play games where you would want to live in that world?
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
it is worth noting
Please speak directly. Why is it worth noting?
I agree that thinking all the time about getting a girl is not a good strategy, at least for a sustainable relationship.
What destroys many young men's souls is rating themselves based on people's attraction to them. Rating yourself on any basis is unwise, but rating yourself based on other people's approval is even more unwise, because it's a way of voluntarily making your happiness contingent on the mental states of another person - something that neither you nor they can do much to control.
I think my friend is luckier than most women, at least as far as happiness goes. The real joy of relationships and sex comes from activity: from actively pursuing something meaningful. That's how happiness works in general. It's not getting what you want that gives you most of the happiness, it's doing things that you think have a good enough chance (relative to the value of what you are pursuing) of achieving your goal. Our neurochemical reward system is designed to push us towards achievements, not to make us happy and satisfied. So my friend, who had to work hard to learn how to talk to girls, be emotionally stable, and be interesting, experienced more happiness than some naturally hot chick.
Similarly, a woman who exercises hard, learns how to cook healthily, learns how to look beautiful using make-up, and how to be someone that guys enjoy staying with, will probably have more happiness than a woman who just naturally looks beautiful. As Jonathan Haidt puts it, "happiness comes from in between" - the joy of life comes when you realise that you are doing things that help you to get what is important to you.
I would only add to Haidt that those goals must be thought of as "wants" rather than "needs". Pursuing women because you think you need one (for happiness, status, or just because) is a great way to be unhappy. Pursuing women because you want one (or more) is a great way to be happy. I'm pretty sure that that's the key difference between my friend and incels: for him, a good relationship was something he wanted and worked hard to achieve; for most incels I know, they think they need a woman for "...reasons...".
Harlequin5942
4mo ago
It's also, when probed, what is denied by many (most?) self-identified "anti-Zionists." Obviously, there are other anti-Zionist positions, e.g. Israel should not expand beyond its current borders or Israel should offer citizenship to Palestinians (perhaps just those in the West Bank and Gaza, perhaps those beyond as well who can prove ancestry). Those are bailies for anti-Zionists, though in my experience many of the more knowledgeable ones (typically Arabs) are quite frank that they just don't want Israel to exist.
Even hardcore feminists (who I doubt are in this thread) don't argue that men and women are the completely the same, socially or biologically.
The biological differences in this case are obvious, but even socially: just about any woman coming on to a guy is a signal to hin that he's a hot piece of ass; just about any man coming on to a woman is a signal to her that she has an ass (and maybe not even much of that).
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
No, I noticed them.
Note that "X has a right to pursue Y" is not the same as "X needs Y." For example, there is a (defeasible) right of sane and non-criminal adult citizens to vote, but adults don't need to vote in order to be happy, live meaningful lives etc.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
needs of incels
But does an incel need sexual success (with the right woman, in the right way, with the right conditions etc.) in order to be happy? They certainly express a strong desire for such an experience, but is it necessary for their happiness? Obviously it isn't sufficient - there are millions of depressed people who are not incels - but I'm not even convinced that it is necessary, any more than I am convinced that e.g. a trans person needs everyone to affirm their self-identified gender in order to be happy or that a devout Muslim needs everyone to be a Muslim in order to be happy. These are just strong preferences that people have, and adults (and even many children, at least beyond a certain age) are perfectly capable of being happy despite unsatisfied strong preferences.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
I can never shake the feeling
How hard have you tried, honestly?
If you can't shake something off, perhaps you don't really want to let it go.
Harlequin5942
2d ago
The only reason the West got sucked into the conflict in its current capacity is because Ukraine put up an impressive resistance
Was it that, or more that Russia is much more pathetic (and apathetic - just look at their public's reaction or the level of mobilisation/defence spending that Putin can muster) than anyone expected?
From what I have seen, it's not so much that Ukrainians have been fighting well, and more that Russia's ability to project power beyond its borders is almost completely gone. Once they could dominate Eastern Europe, now they take months of grinding to gain worthless plains within a country that they once lorded over directly.
Harlequin5942
28d ago
I think that, in current year, "birth control issues" don't affect women per se differently; the people they affect are Humans with Wombs. So, with consistency, they wouldn't come under that category, though women would still be more likely to be Humans with Wombs (womb-men?).
Harlequin5942
1mo ago
I'm definitely not a fan of the Divine Command Theory, but I think you're being unfair here. Why not posit a difference in degree of disobedience? Surely murdering someone is more disobedient than committing adultery in your heart.
What's more disobedient about it? Both are breaking God's commandments.
On Matthew 22, the key term here is magos (μεγας) which is used in the New Testament to mean largest or highest in rank, just as "greatest" is ambiguous in English. One clever thing about the commandment Jesus gives is that it is both largest in scope (every violation of every other commandment is an instance of it) and rank. If humans truly had complete faith and love for God, then they would neither commit adultery in their hearts, nor murder.
Note I'm not saying that this is common sense, but just a natural implication of an unranked DCT.
I think the better question is why you'd give your own interpretation of Divine Command Theory any time at all, given the many times in the Bible when it's explicitly contradicted.
Oh, that's just teasing! Don't be so coquettish, show the goods.
Harlequin5942
8mo ago
I think affluent African parents are more relaxed about their kids marrying white than many Asian (especially South Asian) and Arab/North African parents, possibly for cultural and religious (they're usually Christian) reasons.
And because parents, like women, tend to be hypergamous, and a white son-in-law is higher status than an Asian/Arab/Indian/etc. son-in-law.
When someone is talking about the 'sexual market place' in the context of dating in the western world they are obviously not talking about brothels and prostitution. You are not being rational or precise with language when you play these word games. It is at best obtuse and obfuscatory.
If someone uses "Nazi" to mean "conservative", then they obviously don't refer to conservatives, but would their usage really not affect their inferences or the inferences of others?
The point I'm making is extremely simple. Man A gets approached by women, gets replies on dating apps and in general finds casual sex and relationships very easy to come by. Man B gets none of those things. In fact women don't even look at him for longer than 2 seconds to decide that he is not attractive.
Man A doesn't need to think about his life goals in terms of what he needs to garner attention from women. Man B does. Man B recognizes that if he does not come by some form of 'thing' or 'currency' or 'bargaining chip' or 'whatever word you want' to balance out his apparent unattractiveness to women, he will likely end up alone or unhappy. Both of these guys might be similar otherwise, but their struggle is not the same. Both want sex and affection. One needs the 'thing' to even be able to play the game, the other does not.
True, different men, like different women, have to work more or less hard to get romantic success. (This is more unforgiving for women than men: almost any woman can get sex, but what people usually want is a loving long term relationship, and men tend to be the gatekeepers for that. A man can work to balance out his unattractive physical traits, whereas a woman's degree or money is unlikely to help her much with the opposite sex.) This is because people care about physical appearances. Physical attractiveness is certainly helpful for initial attraction, though things like conscientiousness and agreeableness seem to be more important for maintaining love long term, since the latter requires a lot of empathy and (rewarding) hard work.
Now, why is working harder to get what you want through labour, exercise, study etc., rather than largely getting it due to inborn attractiveness, not "masculine"? Stereotypically, I would have thought the opposite: a man who is admired by women through displaying virtues and competence is more "manly" than one who is admired by women purely on innate physical grounds. Consider a reversal: is there something unusually masculine about the story of a woman who DID win the affection of her beloved through her abilities and character, despite her plain looks and innately awkward personality?
I appreciate the appeal of gaining easy approval due to one's looks, but I see it as a more classically female way to gain romantic success. Even in nature, among animals that do mating rituals, it's the male that needs to prove himself through dances, chasing the female around etc. in order to mate. Usually, the female just has to look fertile and healthy, and perhaps not even that, even if the result of mating is the male being eaten.
Think Cinderella (be beautiful and agreeable, then someone will eventually be nice to you) vs. Indiana Jones (handsome man, but still only gets the girl by proving himself, proves himself by solving problems and by saving her from danger - sometimes repeatedly in the same movie). Obviously, the latter is more of a classically masculine archetype: the questing knight in European folklore.
This is also seems to be why "saving the man from danger" has more of a maternal rather than romantic feel when it's a woman doing the saving, whereas "saving the woman from danger" has more of a heroic and sexy quality when it's a man doing the saving, unless it's literally saving his daughter as in the Taken movies. And if a man can save the village/kingdom/world/universe, then he's that much more of a classically masculine figure, since he must display great virtue/competence to do so.
Harlequin5942
11mo ago
Art only has to inspire emotions in people.
Is that true?
If we could inspire the same emotions by taking the relevant pills, would art be redundant?
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
Obviously your post is full of simplifications (generics) but the spirit is right. I think that the fundamental source of almost all relationship problems - whether romantic or otherwise - is motivational. Even literal morons and maurauding spergs can be very socially adept when they are motivated correctly; I have seen this a lot of times now. On the other hand, I have seen extremely charismatic and gifted men/women screw things up, usually because:
(a) They were using another person(s) to gain some sort of internal self-esteem, rather than seeking deep and enjoyable connections for their own sake. This seems to lead to trying too hard or not enough, depending on the nature of the self-esteem pursued: proving that you are "lovable" as you are (a good way to be lazy and whiny), proving that you're a winner because you got a HVM/lots of chicks/a wife material woman/whatever.
Solution: stop pursuing self-esteem. Self-rating is a really stupid idea, as pretty much all the great religions and philosophies imply. Leave that to God, if anyone.
(b) They have perfectionist aims. It's fine to want to meet the perfect person, in the perfect way, and have the perfect romance, but that's not going to happen, and all love involves sacrifice. And unconditional love is clearly an insane aspiration, when one thinks it through.
Solution: admire the perfect but accept the imperfect. Perfection is for heaven, if anywhere.
As you suggest, it's really a lot easier than most men think. As a basically average-looking guy, it took me about 2 years to go from hundreds of unanswered messages to women to being messaged by hundreds of women, and it was largely just a matter of being motivated in the right sorts of ways. The actual changes themselves (losing weight, better photos, a more playfully written profile) were comparatively easy.
Harlequin5942
1yr ago
tells students not to tell their parents
Do you think that the teacher might have been joking?
Strictly speaking, no one "needs" much of anything to be happy, which seems to be as much a function of life meeting your expectations as anything. Lower expectations enough
I agree up to "expectations". This is a significantly ambiguous phrase in this context. I might "expect" X in the sense that I hope that it will happen. Alternatively, I might "expect" X in the sense that I think that other people (or God, or fate, or whatever) is obliged to give it to me. Or that the world is an unfair place if I can't have X. The latter sense is the type of expectation that causes most anger, as well as a lot of unhappiness.
And I would say that happiness, in general, comes from one's own activity and its relation to one's experiences, rather than meeting expectations (in either sense) as such. Our mental reward system encourages us when we are doing actions that are subjectively meaningful: they are conducive towards a desired goal. Again, this is one sense in which incels shoot themselves in the foot: most of the happiness that you can have from sex comes from the pursuit, not the act itself.
Of course, if they say "I'm no good unless I'm having sex, and with the right sort of context, and with the right sort of person... etc. etc.", then they might feel temporarily better after boosting their egos by having sex under the right conditions. But what then? Pretty soon, they'd find some other noose to hang themselves with. "I'm no good unless my partner only has sex with me, and only thinks about sex with me" or "I'm no good unless I'm having sex with lots of different women" or "I'm no good unless I'm levelling up to a more attractive woman" etc. etc.
The same pattern occurs with people who have anxiety. Deal with one source of danger and what then? There's always some risk in life to be anxious about. Only once the delusion "I must be safe" is addressed can someone be consistently free of anxiety.
Similarly, only once incels are free of delusions like "I need to do/be/have certain things in order to be happy" will they be free of their unhappiness, anger, and depression. And like everyone else, they won't be free 100% of the time, but that's fine - nobody needs to be happy all the time to live a good life. Indeed, there are many times (bereavement, disappointment, combat etc.) when unhappy emotions are perfectly rational and helpful.
how realistic is it to have them drop their hopes of sex
I wouldn't suggest this at all. There is a huge difference between hoping for X and thinking that you need X.
Personally, I only started getting laid once I stopped thinking that I needed to get laid, and instead thinking "Wow, I really want to get laid!" I suspect that pretty much all incels would find the same thing happened to them, sooner or later.
As for happiness, I don't think that there's a political obligation upon others to make a person happy, though you might argue that there's an obligation to create a society where that person could live a happy and fulfilling life, if they worked their ass at it. I'm not convinced that incels don't already live in such a society. And I'm not saying that they are all lazy - just possessed by a dangerous illusion that they need sex to be happy. Ironically, if they were free of that delusion, they'd be more likely to get sex. Neediness is not attractive, at least to people with whom you'd actually want to be in a relationship...
I'm not disputing the moral judgement, I'm disputing whether they're vegetarians or not.
So if Hannibal Lecter only kills and eats a victim once a year, then it would be misleading to call him the "cannibal serial killer"? Sure, he's a serial killer, but Hannibal's no cannibal!
You could say that eating human flesh is an unusual feature of Hannibal that enables us to distinguish other serial killers, and so it's not analogous to calling someone who eats meat once a year a non-vegetarian. However, eating meat once a year is itself a distinguishing feature among vegetarians.
It's in the process of conquering the second largest country in Europe and would have succeeded if Trump had been president.
It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't.
More options
Context Copy link