faceh
1hr ago
Thankfully one of my favorite experiments of all time has withstood the test of time.
The Asch Conformity Experiment.
And that one actually fits here too. If the social norms of the group don't nudge people to 'conform' with healthy hygiene and cleanliness, then you start letting those norms be defined by the worst offenders.
faceh
1hr ago
Throw in some physical combat training and you have my endorsement.
I'm kinda heartened when I see that a lot of nerds are getting into MMA. For many, training jiu jitsu seems to scratch that particular itch for a mental challenge.
faceh
2hr ago
Ultimately I think it comes down to being a little selective in your consumption. I don't eschew anime in general, but I've learned what I like and what I do not. Unfortunately the larger anime culture has shifted more towards the stuff I'm ambivalent to negative about. Of course I have my preferences for classics like Cowboy Bebop and GiTS, and the most recent series I really got a kick out of was Vinland Saga. I would love another season or two of Black Lagoon but that seems vanishing unlikely now.
Turns out I enjoy animes that DON'T lean into the most notorious anime tropes. I don't need some overpowered protagonist, tons of fanservice, ridiculously cute side characters, or a harem romance subplot to get into it. The series' I mentioned above also really scratch an itch for stuff you cannot find in Western Animation.
So by sticking with the stuff I actually like, I don't get bogged down in the most obsessive, anti-social, degenerate elements of the culture.
If you find yourself suffering though a series you despise just so you can be up to date on the current trends, or you're debating the finer points of various waifus with an obese NEET then something has probably gone wrong. I enjoyed the hell out of One Punch Man Season 1, found Season 2 lacklustre but good, and then I heard how horrendous Season 3 was so... I just didn't watch it. I don't need to waste time on it to stay informed on debates and memes and drama, because this is not what I care most about in life.
Its the element of self-control, discipline, and, call it 'maturity' that seems to be lacking for many of these folks. In many (most?) cases its probably down to autism or something. But parents aren't WRONG to notice when so many of the 'weird' kids are into anime and this tends to put anime nerds in social circles that will potentially stunt them or otherwise keep them from acquiring the useful discipline and self-control they'll need to succeed in life.
Whenever I start to worry that I'm not a very successful or well-adjusted person, I just attend an anime screening at my local cinema and I'm like "actually, you know what? I'm fine."
Me attending any major fandom convention.
I was/am a nerd, but then I run into the nerd nerds and I feel the need to shove them into a locker and then go wash my hands afterwards.
Part of me is like "well don't deny a person their escapism" but there's also another thinking "you need to be cut off from the internet for about six months during which you're put through boot camp training designed to get you into decent shape and have a healthy routine in life and THEN you can have some anime, as a treat."
Ultimately it makes me do some self-assessment: "Do I want to walk down a path that could end up being THAT type of person?" And often has me actively deciding to limit my intake of the media in question. Kinda like seeing an alcoholic passed out on a bench, his pants soaked with urine, and deciding "I'll just skip the bar tonight."
It goes towards my other theory that many subcultures (even outside explicit 'nerd' hobbies) end up driving away 'attractive' and 'normal' people because they are usually governed by the most obsessive types, who have the most time on their hands, and often have NOTHING ELSE TO DO but gatekeep and bully and since this is the one tiny bit of power they have, they will drive away any possible competitors.
faceh
22hr ago
I just don't buy grand overarching narratives that its all a single gender's fault rather than the complex interplay between genders, their desires and their interactions.
Once again, you won't find me saying its either gender's fault. I have never uttered the words "I blame women for [X]." Go ahead, look through my comments. If I meant that, I'd say that.
Look, I don't think women are the problem. But the problem is with women. Specifically, in their mind, in that they've formed cultural expectations that, via feedback loops, are completely divorced from reality and renders their own desires unachievable.
So... you have to address their desires. Reality can't be manipulated to fit their desires, so it seems obvious to me that you gotta at least TRY to make their desires comply with reality.
There is no fixing this by changing men's behavior. You have to address the problem where it resides.
Here's a serious question. If the sort of guy who 'dislikes' women is repellant to them...
Why is it that young men who go on dates have a lower opinion of equality then those who don't. Almost like it is exposure to women that leads to the reaction. Or is it that having a low opinion of equality gets you dates? This seems to undermine your thesis.
As is your right, I once was like you, I made the same arguments you do, with the same totalizing world view. I think it can be very cathartic, but it's very resentment driven.
No resentment in my heart. It actually saddens me that female happiness is on the decline so drastically. We need to fix things for their sake, too.
What's annoying is pointing out that all that data, anecdotes, and personal experience is all pointing in the exact same direction.
And then having that dismissed with the equivalent of "sounds like you hate women bro." Nope. Given how much and how many forms of female toxicity I've been exposed to over the approximate last two decades, I'd say I'm actually very, very appreciative of the goodness in women, when I encounter it.
Part of my personal history is that I was two weeks away from actually getting married before my ex broke it off.
So strangely, I was able to get a woman to the point where she was asking to get married to me. I doubt I would get that far if your thesis were true, do you?
I've had a lot to think about since then.
Basically, I did six months of therapy grappling with my personal failings. Came to grips with those.
And then I did a whole lot of research to figure out why I was apparently struggling, to figure out how much was attributable to me, and how much was attributable to 'outside factors.'
Across the board, it turns out that there's a complete failure to form functional relationships observed in every country on the planet. Its worse amongst the young.
I will take no personal blame for problems that are clearly systemic in nature. If EVERYONE is struggling in precisely the same way, its not an individual problem. Its definitely not a me problem.
Especially when I've gotten far closer to a successful outcome than the majority of people out there.
And before you ask, my ex has not gone on to find a better guy and have a happy stable relationship. Almost the opposite. Its utterly clear how her personal issues have driven her outcomes, and have little to do with me.
So no, I'm not very persuaded by someone trying to assess my desirability based solely on posts I make on the autistic argumentation and controversial debate forum, who has never interacted with me in real life.
What I do have is a level of disagreeableness that refuses to go along with polite fictions to ignore a clear, broad problem.
Which, let us be clear, I've been using this forum for LONG time, including the period when I was in that relationship.
I can provide ample character witnesses if you're really going with the position that I exude anti-woman bias.
What I talk about here, and not elsewhere, are just large, observable, verifiable social trends that just so happen to coincide with personal experience and many, many anecdotes.
The whole reason I got here is I was trying to figure out if the difficulty with dating I experienced was in fact due to my own shortcomings or if there was something larger at work.
Turns out its something larger. And it all centers on major changes in women's behavior, across the board.
Speaking of large social trends:
Everyone is just spending less time socializing.
This is just in line with what I keep observing. I fight the trend by holding house parties, and I find that there's particular dynamics that create the trend in the first place.
If this is a problem that is due to ME being a particular way, why has this trend been in place, particularly among the younger generation, SINCE 2005.
Its getting really annoying to have to respond to speculative allegations that I'M somehow driving the outcomes here when the outcomes are identical for larges swaths of the population, and it seems independent of any individual actions I could take.
MY KINGDOM for someone who can bring forth the data that proves that I'm actually wrong.
The funny thing is, I agree with you. But from reading your comment history, your misogyny (and trust me, I do not use that word lightly) makes me distrust anything you say.
I can assure you this matters little to me. Like not at all. This is anti-persuasive. You're like the third or fourth person on here alleging misogyny on my part, yet my posts get upvotes so it seems I'm being persuasive to someone. I'll re-up my point:
Look, I'll make this clear, as that is the spirit of this whole forum: I do not care about being an edgelord, I do not care if you are offended, or if you are flattered. I care about being correct. Edgelords end up being correct in some cases because they can speak on matters that polite people will carefully ignore. Being correct is not a necessary condition for being an edgelord, however. If my being (mostly) correct makes you think I'm an edgelord, whatever. I hold a ton of other opinions that are 'edgy' to some crowds but very normal in others. I'm not trying to shock or offend anyone.
If you want to change my opinion, present better data. As I said:
And EVERY TIME I ENGAGE WITH SOMEONE WHO THINKS I'M WRONG, they utterly fail to undermine or effectively attack any pillar on which I've formed this belief.
I've been begging for counterexamples for years. I WANT to be proven wrong:
My first hope is that someone has some countervailing argument or data that actually shows its not so bleak as it seems.
I want to understand the problem well enough to know if I'm not seeing something, or I'm seeing something that's not actually there. Nobody has brought that forth that I've seen.
And finally, if nobody is going to implement a solution... fine. But the status quo will not hold!
You do not provide any, so I will continue to assume you don't have any, which is because they do not exist.
If you want to fix the world, you're not gonna do it by attacking half of the population, even if the media is unfair when it writes about men.
Which half is getting attacked in the mainstream.
Please, tell me which one it is. This seems like a causal factor that itself has to be addressed.
This is like 90% of my point.
If we're not willing to give men actionable advice and assistance this doesn't get solved. Piling pressure them is not helping, as evidenced by EVERYTHING GETTING WORSE for them.
Like, if the problem is the phones, you should be talking about the phones, not about how women are awful.
Oh look I've been talking about the phones too.
I DARE you to find a single place where I've said "women are awful" or anything that is an actual synonym to those terms.
This is like saying I think kids are awful because I think they shouldn't be allowed to drive semi-trucks. C'mon man.
I do concede that maybe you're not like this in real life.
This seems obvious. If I could argue about this stuff easily in real life this place wouldn't have much use, would it?
Perhaps the fact that discussion of these sorts of objectively verifiable facts is verboten is why the status quo persists? Maybe?
If a trend affects women by 40% and men by 30%, then no, it's not.
Do you not think an effect size that is 25% larger is significant, meaningful, important?
Okay.
Young women are over twice as likely to say social media has influenced their opinions than young men.
Hence why young women are about 2-3x more likely to identify as liberal/democrat than young men, ENTIRELY explained by the women shifting whilst the men stay steady.
Which, well, we notice that white liberals have the highest rates of poor mental health among political ideologies.
And women are at least 2x as likely to be on antidepressant medication than males. This divide is starker among the younger generation (i.e. the trend has changed for the worse in women only.)
Quoth:
The increase was prominent among young women and girls. The monthly rate increased about 130% faster among 12- to 17-year-old girls, and about 57% faster among young women between the ages of 18 and 25.
So this all tracks.
And they're now less likely than men to want to get married. Female desire to get married dropped by 22 percentage points over 50 years. Male's dropped... 2. Its the women.
Female religiosity and church attendance dropped off a cliff. from 30% unaffiliated to 50% unaffiliated in less than 10 years. A 20 point shift. Men's shifted... about 6 points. For the first time EVER there's a religiosity gap in favor of young men. Its the women.
Oh, and here's data that 3x as many women under 30 hold a negative view of young men, compared to the reverse. 21% vs. 7%. Oh its 'only" 14 points, right?
When does it become pure epistemic malfeasance to pretend these distinctions don't exist or don't have significant impact on outcomes?
Its the women.
I'm not ignoring the harm to men.
I'm just noticing that every single article examining gender-based social issues pathologizes male behavior and either implicitly or explicitly excuses female behavior. Its almost impossible to find article even WRITTEN by a male that explains their issues sympathetically.
Anyhow. Solutions? Here's my previous thoughts:
I'd like to see some feasible measure developed that can 'quantify' the benefits and harms of social media use and THEN we can craft policies that regulate the issue, just like we do with cigarettes, toxic waste, and like we USED to do with gambling. My general prescription is that we should add friction to the vices.
If we can provably detect that social media detracts from attention span, mental health, educational attainment, and financial stability, then surely we can discuss regulating them at the source, right?
(remember those studies I posted up there with women being more influenced by social media AND having worse mental health?) In practice, flat bans might be the ONLY thing that provides sufficient friction.
Other possible solutions: require women wear a watch device that counts down the days of their highest fertility so she's under no illusions about her timeline for marriage and kids.
My favorite proposal to bring up: Return the funding/loan standards for higher education to their pre-1993 levels. But this would detract from womens' ability to go to college so I'm SURE there'll be a fit pitched about it.
If it isn't clear by now I've considered this whole thing from just about every possible angle with as much data as I can find.
I'm still hammering away on my point here because I have yet to have a single solid refutation: Women's behavior has altered drastically over the past 30 years. Mens hasn't shifted that much.
Meanwhile EVERYONE reports being less happy.
Its the women.
Yeah, except as with EVERY OTHER SOCIAL TREND, its more women than men. Same with LGBT identification.
This is all tied up in the same basic cause.
If you want to reverse it, target the more susceptible gender.
The data from this report display an interesting divide regarding gender. Teen girls are more likely than teen boys to report that social media negatively affects their sleep, productivity, self-confidence, and mental health overall (Duffy, 2025).
Its the women.
faceh
3d ago
That just pushes the problem off on those countries. What about the men that live THERE?
And, as I said not too long ago:
I'm reactionary enough to suggest that an average male shouldn't have to leave the country of his birth to have a prospect of finding a wife. That's a major social failure.
"We shouldn't work at solving this massive domestic social issue as long as men can travel abroad to avoid facing it" is, at its core, a STUNNING admission of impotence and/or dereliction.
Here's a question: Would you support an immigration policy that specifically EXCLUDED young males in favor of inviting in as many nubile fertile single women from abroad as possible?
Which group, do you suppose, might oppose this policy?
Solution: form your own community.
Been at it for three years. Here's a report I made a year ago:
I've spent the past two years holding regular social gatherings at my house, which is cheap, low-pressure, and I can control the environment to 'guarantee' a pleasant experience. Wrangling adults to hang out together is HARD. Some can't find a babysitter, this one's busy with work or school, that one's just tired and wants to go to bed at 9. So you invite people on the assumption that there'll be a number of last minute dropouts.
I'm active in my gym, which is full of great people but turns out most of them are busy with their own lives. I went through a period of putting together parties, get-togethers, and casual hangouts on at least a monthly basis.
Ironically, my most consistent attendees were the ones who managed to pair off (not with people they met through my events) and thus became... less consistent.
Once again, I find myself one of the few unpaired people in my group. Which makes me now the only one with any time to put in to building events. And I'm trying to reforge my close friend group for like the 5th time in my life.
If I go back and search my past posts as a compendium on my dating attempts over the years, it will mostly have the same complaints, over and over again. I PUT IN ALL THE EFFORT, WOMEN ARE COMPLETELY DISINTERESTED BECAUSE THE APPS GIVE THEM INFINITE OPTIONALITY.
My lament a year ago:
There's also a particular dynamic with females. I specifically try to have mixed-gender gatherings (part of my goal is to get people of opposite sex to form connections and maybe create dates and relationships), but with females in particular, they tend to only want to come if they can 'know' that other females will be there. And if they aren't coordinating directly with other females but instead through me, the organizer, there's an information asymetry. If I tell them "oh yeah plenty of women are coming" how much do they trust my word? So last minute flakes are probably the rule there.
There is exactly zero, zilch NO social pressure on women to actually honor commitments, show up to events if they're not feeling it, or do anything other than passively participate and then leave when something more interesting arises.
This is approximately the same approach they display towards romantic relationships in general.
I don't just have studies, I have my own emperical research over years now. Its the women. The problem is with them.
A close friend in Chicago did something similar with Latin dancing.
Had a friend who did this regularly get me into some classes and social dancing and gave it a good ol' try. ABYSMAL gender ratio. I think all guys have the same idea. Most women that show up bring their own man. I wouldn't mind learning the skill but for finding a partner it'd be a waste of time that could be used on more fruitful endeavors (none of my endeavors have been fruitful in finding a partner, of course).
Any space that has a decent gender ratio won't have one for long if men get the idea that they can show up and have a chance at meeting a single lady. I've seen this in every single context imaginable.
Understand that my cynicism is entirely earned, in addition to studied.
faceh
3d ago
So I'm curious (genuinely) as to what precisely you think the correct approach is that has decent odds of success.
What community out there is welcoming to new members, gives them a true purpose and puts their contributory efforts to good uses, and doesn't mind, and in fact supports members eventually pairing off together?
And, critically, has a decent gender ratio?
No cults, please.
I attest that, at large, in mainstream society, these functionally do not exist any longer.
faceh
3d ago
That's not how relationships happen anymore.
Its been replaced with online interactions and apps.
And people just NOT forming relationships. The doors you're describing are just shut, by default.
You describe my PREFERRED method of finding a partner. You're also describing the exact method that failed me repeatedly over the years when it turns out the women in a given community aren't actually looking for partners from said community.
This is my point. I've gone through this process, I've failed, and I've tried to adapt.
Its OTHER PEOPLE who have the mindset that led here. I'm just dealing with the fallout.
faceh
3d ago
Ones who expect foreign travel.
I mean, you see them on dating apps a lot, but I think they're just harder to pin down dint of being so traveled.
Not really a big point either way. Lots of women advertise their preference for traveling.
Its slightly rarer that one has been actually well traveled in their youth.
faceh
4d ago
I think there's women like this out there.
I think they are extremely hard to locate if you don't already know them or their families.
faceh
4d ago
We have evidence. Nothing I've seen would be quite sufficient to convict anyone of note.
The one that raises my suspicion is the so-called Lolita Express. If you were going to either pressure a VIP into a compromising act or reassure them there was no chance of getting caught in said act, 30,000 feet up on a large Boeing aircraft is pretty ideal.
faceh
4d ago
On the one hand that is likely correct.
On the other, Cliven Bundy is still a free man.
faceh
4d ago
A lot of the language you used implied very strict control against a woman's wishes.
I mean, I noted that women left to their own devices have gotten fat, covered in tattoos, and do weird things with their hair. And they're abjectly unhappy too.
Who else should rein them in, if NOT their husbands?
It's clear that you think of yourself as a benevolent dictator, but your still describing a dictatorship.
Yes. Actual dictators have wives too.
But I only extend my dicatorship to the boundaries of my actual, personal property. And, it turns out, I don't view a wife as personal property.
"fair and equitable for any woman willing to help raise my kids." Language imply that this control persists after she's had kids, and that the kids are yours (singular) not yours (plural).
Do you think the phrase "help raise my kids" implies that I'll be involved with and assisting this process too, as in there's mutual exchange here?
I dunno, once again I just try to use the terms that actually express my beliefs as precisely as possible. You're pattern matching them to a type of guy that is basically nonexistent in the modern era.
faceh
4d ago
Seen it suggested that a multibillionaire could do a version of the 'charter city' thing except they create literal 'company towns' where they revitalize some downtrodden area with a new industry (even if heavily subsidized at first) and make sure all the townspeople are employed, safe, and well-fed.
Which can translate into "will fight to protect you if the feds come knocking." You just have to be willing to let much of your wealth intentionally trickle down.
Elon has sort of done this with Starbase, Texas.
This does little to tackle the primary issue head on, though.
faceh
4d ago
Vance states he is an Epstein conspiracy theorist (but not in the popular way), in the interview he focuses more on the financial aspects of whatever Epstein got up to and focuses away from the pedophile stuff, hard to tell if he really believes nothing is there on that end.
This has always been about my view on it. Been aware of Epstein since around 2007 (grew up in Palm Beach County, where he got prosecuted).
My nuanced view is that the pedo-ish stuff is bad, very bad. But it was never the end goal or the raison d'etre of the conspiracy. It created leverage, and the leverage was used for... WHAT? Financial shenanigans was certainly part of it.
Hence why I'm a bit annoyed (not surprised) that everyone wants to string the folks on the epstein list of specifically for sex crimes, rather than possibly more broadly impactful activities that would be very interesting to uncover.
Cognitive rigidity is a choice. You should get over it. You can be happy or you can be right, which would you prefer?
Thus far I'm managing to be both.
Most people are managing neither, it would appear. I'm cognitively rigid insofar as my process has brought me towards what I actually want in life, and I see others processes do not.
Note, I may have a different overall set of priorities than the average person.
Their partners? People talk, I’m not sure about your personal platonic ecosystem but are you really so spoilt for choice that you can afford to burn bridges and close doors of opportunity?
Which bridges and doors are you referring to?
People aren't getting in relationships at all these days. The doors have been closed already.
Its worst among the young. Nobody is reckoning with this in a meaningful way.
The whole problem is that whatever mindsets you're trying to talk me into has led to this disastrous landscape.
Why would I change MY mindset when I can directly observe that doing so doesn't actually improve the situation?
faceh
4d ago
My autism is sufficiently advanced that yes, I am simply predicting with confidence that the natural/inborn evolutionary psychology factors will kick in and I will feel that specific way in the future with near certainty.
But you realize how many steps have to happen at this point to even get there, what else can I do but talk in theoretical terms?
I've said it before (though I can't find the link at present), if she's willing to bear and raise my children, she will receive my reverence eternally even if her looks slide.
Indeed, that's part of the point. If she is willing to accept the travails of pregnancy, I will dig in deep to my provider role, and will accept the tradeoffs to her personal appearance because the outcome we're achieving is SO mutually beneficial I can't imagine deciding against it. My consent to her gaining weight is both implicit in the act of getting pregnant and I will happily make it explicit and praise her to the heavens for the sacrifice.
I'm mostly seeking the parts of a good and compatible personality that happen to correspond with keeping oneself healthy and aesthetically pleasing... while not overindexing on that measure.
Because guess what, those are traits I'd like to pass on to and inculcate in my kids! Its all tied up in the same ultimate objective.
"I will track what you eat, how much you exercise, and select your wardrobe" which is how it kind of came across the first comment.
Yes, and I'm suggesting you should interrogate a bit why you jumped to THAT interpretation from the rip rather than asking clarifying questions. "I will get a final say in how she dresses and maintains herself," to me, means closer to "she's making decisions independently (or with my counsel), but I hold veto power when I think it necessary." Tracking how much she eats and exercises sounds like a freaking DRAG, man. Although maybe more possible with AI agents. She wants to get ice cream for dessert I will provide without blinking. She wants to eat ice cream for every meal... imma put my foot down.
I try to be as specific as I can and avoid ambiguity in my language, and don't always succeed, but man, if I wanted to say "I WILL CONTROL ALL HER FOOD INTAKE AND WILL PHYSICALLY RESTRAIN HER FROM GETTING A HAIRCUT" I would have said that.
And whilst I can SEE how you could get to that interpretation, I would suggest that isn't the most charitable or straightforward takeaway unless your priors suggest any signal of wanting some control in a relationship indicates being a micromanaging overbearing control freak.
Hopefully I've given sufficient clarity now.
AGREED.
More options
Context Copy link