banned
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5mo ago
And thus he could have simply concluded that Muslims shouldn’t be in the West and banned his followers from using Western media or visiting the west. I mean a lot of the Woke stuff is anti-Christian as well, and most serious Christians avoid exposure to that kind of media and so on. They don’t drive through crowds.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
But for better or worse, we're so far away from that world in the way our society currently runs that it's just not viable to cherry-pick one or two things from that world and try to just apply to them to ours.
It's not a matter of cherry-picking. It's simply stating that things are clearly good or bad. Mandates are clearly bad. FDA testing for information purposes, mixed in with insurance schemes, is probably mostly okayish, but it's clearly bad in a pandemic (in empirical terms, just looking at how it went). Banning people from taking risky but possibly hugely beneficial actions, regardless of their situation, is clearly bad.
Who would take such a vaccine in a world with no mandates at all by anyone ever
Probably people who highly value the potential upside. For example, if you were someone who was older, perhaps with a comorbidity, and your line of work significantly depended on your ability to have in-person interactions with a significant number of people, there's a decent chance that you'd not just want to take the vaccine, you might even be willing to pay a lot to get one. There was plenty of chatter from wealthy business people who were saying that they would absolutely pay a bundle of money to get one, if only it wasn't banned. Any product has early adopters, even if that product has risks. People wondered about, say, the fire risk of EVs, but there were still plenty of early adopters... and they provided good data for others to understand the risks and value them appropriately. (Of course, now would be a good time to check in and see how you view the HCT/RCT debate, because this is a real, live, issue that people are debating, not just cherry-picking.)
This is one of the most common failure modes, perhaps even a typical mind fallacy. Because you think, in your situation, that you wouldn't want to take it, you think that no one would want to take it (or you think they'd have obviously wrong preferences, since they don't match up with your own). Of course, this comes with the converse typical mind fallacy, thinking that once the FDA has approved it, then since you would want to take it in your situation, everyone would want to take it. Of course, neither of those things is true, empirically. This also isn't cherry-picking; it's just observing what is true and what is not true in the world.
And what then if it turned out to be far more dangerous than Covid itself, or even helped it spread faster, as quite a few drugs have in fact been discovered in trials to actually do?
I don't know; some people could regret doing it; some people could regret not doing it. Did the FDA evaluate the fire risk of EVs through extensive trials and testing before anyone was allowed to buy one? Or autonomous vehicles? What if they turned out to be really dangerous? I guess we have one hell of a mess. Using an analogy I've used here before, what would the world be like if we just let people work on their own cars? (I.e., this world.) We didn't make every repair procedure have to be completely and thoroughly evaluated by the FDA and only dispensed by licenced mechanics. Different people would have different risk assessments! They'd make different choices! It would be a mess!
I get that you feel like it is your personal responsibility to make sure that enough people (not even just enough; presumably you will personally ensure that it's magically the right people magically at the right time) choose to take it, but not if it's those other people, who you personally don't want to take it right now. It is your job to decide for them. I'm sorry, but it's not your job. It's not your job to decide if I should diagnose my own check engine light or not, either.
Or even, say, bitcoin. Some people were early adopters. Others still don't have any. "Who would buy bitcoin, a silly little string of numbers, with no mandates or FDA approval? The bitcoin-maxxers, of course. And what if it then went to zero and they were all wiped out financially? (It could still happen!) Now that would be one hell of a mess." Eh. Some people could regret doing it; some people could regret not doing it. It is not only literally impossible for you to prevent all regret in all people everywhere, it is not your job.
I mean, I guess it's somewhat possible for you to prevent all regret in all people everywhere; you can just mandate/ban literally any action they could take. Give them no choices. Then they can't regret those choices, because you wouldn't allow them to choose otherwise anyway. That said, they'd probably regret appointing you as the No Ragrets Czar, because you'd almost certainly make choices that are bad for them in hindsight (like, for example, not letting them get a COVID vaccine). Many people are truly regretting the trillions of dollars, years of our lives, the social development of our children, etc. that were wasted by putting folks like you in power.
I'm guessing it's probably somewhat faster than the approval process for human drugs, but not dramatically so.
Shame.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
You've been told not to post low-effort sneers like this before. I tell you the same thing I tell all the Joo-posters; you're allowed to hate Jews, and you're allowed to write about why you think we should consider Jews invidious parasites, but you have to put effort into it (and also pretend you believe the Jews you are talking to are human beings who are entitled to participate here too, even if you don't), not just drop snarls about how anyone can be dismissed because he happens to be Jewish.
You have a very bad history. You are in that category of poster whose posts are 90% "Goddamn I hate Jews and women." You earned a couple of AAQCs over a year ago but since then have a long string of warnings and temp-bans (and tons of posts that are borderline but we usually let pass).
Improve the quality of your posts and tamp down your spite or you're going to be banned again.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
What I tell you has weight inasmuch as I'm telling you what you should avoid doing if you wish not to be banned. Whether you care about this is up to you.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
This is not a question. This is an insult masquerading as a question.
You've been warned about this before. Stop doing it or you will be banned.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
5mo ago
Can you unban him for 24 hours so I can ask him where he draws the line between 'whole narratives are engineered from the ground up as weapons and should be ignored with extreme prejudice' and Arthur Chu mindkilling himself on a regular basis? Because they are definitely on the same continuum but I'll just look like an asshole asking him now he's banned.
cjet79
5mo ago
I don't like seeing this. I've been a mod on these forums for a long time. Going back to slatestarcodex subreddit back in 2017. This is sadly not new.
There is no "real" message it's possible to engage with, and the people responsible just need to be supressed and incapacitated. (emphasis added)
Back then it was about "punching a nazi".
We are a discussion forum, and no good discussion ever really starts with "we need to not listen and physically suppress the people I disagree with".
You've been warned multiple times in the past about this, and banned for similar offenses. You are headed towards a permaban at this point. One week for now.
SteveKirk
5mo ago
I'd be proud to be banned for that post. I can't think of a better way to prove everything I said was right.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
You've been told repeatedly to stop dropping low-effort "Nuh uhs" with no attempt to actually articulate your argument, and last time you were told you'd be banned if you keep doing it.
In fairness, that was a year ago, but on the other hand, you rarely post, and it seems whenever you drop by it's to post like this.
3 day ban. Knock it off.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
@Goodguy's preemptive appreciation notwithstanding, what the hell is this post?
You write a lot of AAQCs, and then you apparently decide to "cash them in" with posts like this, and I've told you before to stop doing that.
Banned for 2 days so maybe you will believe me. No, this site does not need "petty bitching" and "spice" to improve the flavor.
I'm Australian;
[Insert ad hominem fallacy on an account of foreigner category]/Joking.png
Am I correct in thinking that that guy, assuming he really is a US Army recruiter, will probably get in trouble for that? One would assume that this would be in flagrant violation of recruiter codes of conduct, and possibly implicate him in violations of base security protocols.
You could be correct, but you could be incorrect. It depends on more information than we have.
One of the weird things about the initial claim is that the Pentagon banned tiktok from government computers in 2023 barely a year and a half ago. In fact, there was an Army recruiting scandal in 2021 about use of TikTok when not supposed to. If an American recruiter is doing recruitment on TikTok, he is either doing something very wrong regardless of message/loyalty concern (violating policy), or may actually be operating within approved scopes (is operating within special exceptions).
If it's the later, there may be no violation at all. It may, in fact, even be the point.
More on that later, but it's not like the militaries lacks people who garner contempt for wanting to sit out specific conflicts. Kamalla Harris's vice president pick during the recent US election had the baggage that he tried to present himself as a service veteran despite possibly having arranged to get out of his reserve unit's overseas deployment. It's not exactly hard to find dissent within an institution over 2.8 million strong (standing military, reserves, support civilians), with some people shaping (or ending) their careers to not be associated with some conflict / etc. In past unpopular wars, it wasn't unknown for people to join entire other services (such as joining the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army in Vietnam), or to unceremoniously retire to avoid deployments (in the Iraq War era there was a surge of American reserve / national guard retirements by people who were content to be in the reserves during the 90s when it was considered low/no risk).
Ultimately Ranger's argument relies on assumptions of a separate topic (presentation of loyalties, as opposed to policy adherence) where there's a perception of what sort of loyalty people think is required (members must be willing to fight all enemies and say so!) that is less absolute in practice.
It's less absolute because manpower is not only limited (there has never been an endless supply of ideal candidates), but manpower is often both fungible (one person here can free up another person to go there) and mutually exclusive (person trained for expertise A can't be used in occupation B anyway). Full-throated concurrence with all wars wasn't a requirement in the conscription era (where conscientious objectors / pacifists could sometimes be shunted to support roles, or just put in risk and expected to save themselves), nor is it typically demanded in a volunteer-service model (where service members have some significant influence over their careers as they reach higher ranks, and thus can choose areas where they're not likely to do what they really don't want to do).
There are certainly cases / issues when an expeditionary military says 'go' and the person says 'I don't want to,' but these are both very rare at the level of the recruiter in question, and, uh, wouldn't be present for someone who is a recruiter.
///
Now to return to the point passed earlier, where it could be a context of approved message. (Emphasis on could.)
Ranger's argument works from a perspective of how this is terrible because lack of loyalty and inherent untrustworthiness and mercenaries bad and yada. Ranger is also very clearly not thinking like a manpower-capability developer (i.e. recruitment at scale), but operating from a basis of purity politic demands. Purity politics is bad force generation policy. Even governments obsessed with ideological compliance, such as the Soviets, used a purity-cadre model (political officers) as opposed to a purity rank-and-file model.
Starting from the most obvious, monetary incentives are absolutely a basis of building and retaining talent. This isn't an issue of 'mercenary' pejoratives, it's a point that that in a volunteer service model the military is an employer, and as an employer they are competing with all other employers to recruit and retain. Fundamental disconnect there, and also woefully ignorant of why so many of the common US incentives include post-service benefits, like paying for college (i.e. investing in domestic talent development after getting your military use out of them). This is why in modern history the American military has been often seen approvingly as a 'way up' for underclass Americans- it provides substantial training / more structured environments / post-service education that people may not otherwise be able to afford. It's not a guarantee, but it's a powerful incentive. Someone who serves 4 years and than leaves to enjoy college is not a failure, it's a success story of how you got someone to successfully serve 4 years at the lowest runs of the military and then improved their national value potential.
Part of any recruitment pitch, in turn, comes with conveying the perception of costs for taking the job. If a recruiter says 'you may never go see your family abroad,' then that is a lot of people who might be willing to serve but not if it means they can't serve abroad. Similarly, if a recruiter says 'you must be willing to fight the Chinese state, no matter if the PRC attempts to use your family as hostages,' then again, you are winnowing the field. The US military is designed to fight on 2 different continents at any time, with at least Europe and Korea providing non-Chinese fronts.
Further, a recruiting pitch that can appeal to both hard-core joiners (the people who would be more gung-ho than the recruiter) and the wavering (ethnic Chinese who would share the sentiment of not wanting to join a war against China, but would also not want to fight the US) isn't inviting a trojan horse with the later category, it's getting an asset.
The chinese language is, in a word, hard, and there is generally a shortage in any non-Chinese government of people who can speak and/or read it. As a result, there is a demand that far exceeds the supply in people who can (a) read / speak Chinese, and (b) are willing to do it for the government. Someone who is (c) willing to do it at an enlisted soldier's pay (low) at (d) enlisted soldiers hours (no overtime pay) and in (e) enlisted soldier's living standards (non-affluent) and at a (f) enlisted soldier's 'can be moved across the world to where most conveneient (incredibly high) is incredibly good value-for-money.
There is, in other words, a great many useful / desirable roles that a government wants a Chinese-speaker for, many of them that do not require taking up arms against the PRC even in the course of a war against the PRC. Many of them require no access to sensitive material / networks / resources either.
The role of any human resources / recruiting institution is to try to match potential incoming talent to desired needs, not to refuse to accept valuable talents because it is unsuited for any particular need. 'Speaks Chinese, but is not willing to fight the Chinese state' is not a the most desirable recruit package, but it's a very useful one. The questions / investigations of loyalty / questions of what they are willing to do are real considerations, but they are more questions on how to direct talent to the best cost/benefit position after they joined, not whether to encourage them to join.
They are also, critically, questions that go on well beyond the initial recruiter pitch. As such, a recruiter who is authorized to make such a pitch agreeable to such people, may be doing nothing wrong.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
5mo ago
This isn't likely to be an actual problem in practise. "Don't you guys have phones?" I'm sure they'll manage, even if porn is technically banned, people have some idea about how to get around it, and if you've seen Indians being horny on the internet, it doesn't have to be visible nudity for someone to jerk it.
Worst case scenario, they can have their wife come in and lend an, uh, hand. No mouths, saliva isn't ideal for semen, but I'm not going to be standing and watching.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
You're doing the thing again.
For one brief moment I thought maybe my plea to step back and try engaging in good faith had not fallen on deaf ears.
So, let's be explicit here: if you want to accuse mods of banning people for tribal/ideological reasons, you'd better come heavy, and by that, I mean be prepared to defend your proposition with evidence and well-formed arguments. Not these kinds of low-effort sneers that pretty much every one of us is fed up with.
You haven't been banned because we are loathe to ban someone just for being a jerk to us. But since you seem to be taking advantage of this fact, you've now heard from multiple mods who are about ready to ban you because we really don't need to keep taking shit from you.
Climate Change Solutions: An Opportunity To Subvert Capitalism and a million articles like it would seem to disagree. Does anyone have the link with the green party woman talking about how they won't need to abolish money because everything you could use it for will be rationed or banned by the state on environmental grounds, from shower time to travel?
Edit: here
stuckinbathroom
6mo ago
My understanding is that if you get reported by more that a certain number of users in a certain timeframe (I think I read somewhere that it’s 2 users within 3 months, but that may be incorrect or may have changed over time), your Hinge account gets banned.
At the time I wrote the previous post, there was no appeals process; it seems like now there is, but I only found out about it after the appeal deadline passed. So I’m out of luck: my account is permanently banned, and I can’t make a new account using the same device/phone number/photos or it’ll get banned as well.
I have no idea who reported me or why.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6mo ago
You know, that was pretty harsh and I probably should have edited that last part more heavily.
That said, I meant every word, and in the past, curt mod comments like "Don't boo your outgroup like this" get people demanding to know why we're enforcing ideological conformity and why someone got banned just for Telling The Truth. @No_one is a (not quite uniquely, but in a very small group) bad poster who wants to use the Motte as his platform to talk about how much he hates other people. But you're right, it wasn't the best way to express it.
[Numbers spelled out because Markdown is hard and my multi-paragraph numbers mean the next number restarts it. Send help.]
One. It's pretty great, but does have downsides. Dry eyes, worse best-corrected-possible acuity, earlier nearsightedness with age.
Two. Wow that sucks. I'd be genuinely very sad if Hinge banned me (not that it's stopped me from thinking I'll work on my AI more when the ADHD monkey in my brain decides it's time for that again). I think trying to circumvent, or just contacting them, is worth considering.
Check out Jswipe (Jewish Tinder) or Lox Club (Jewish the League). There are probably also other ethnic apps, but those are the one's I've tried. Not a lot of tall people in any of the above, so that helps, and it's a pool that probably likes smarts and money more than tinder.
Three. If they can't produce results in 3 months, 6 if you're feeling generous, fire them. Let's say you paid them for two half days per week, at $100/hr. That's 10k/3 months, which is not much if I understand your preference model at all. Even if it takes trying four people before someone does anything useful, you're out 40k, and I struggle to imagine you can't find someone useful given that much effort. I imagine you're somewhat blocked psychologically on doing whatever you should do maximize your dating game, but when you make it someone's job, they don't have that guilt/etc, and you've selected them for being at least maybe good at it, so results really are plausible.
Raising the question: how do you find this person? The internet. I've hired a dozen housekeepers over as many years by just posting on craigslist. Sure, you get mostly weirdos, but there are great people out there if you're willing to do some phone screening. Stuff your pride down, write a post about what you want help with, and refresh that inbox. You could almost just use your original motte post.
Four. Nope, not legal. Easily twice as not legal as torrent sites, maybe twice and a half. Seeking Arrangement is the famous one. I don't know much about this, but poke around reddit to see people's experiences.
Five. If you're dedicated enough to lifting that you're doing it reliably/hard enough (e.g. Stronglifts 5x5 worth of effort/three days x 1-1.5 hours/week, with progressive overload) and seeing your numbers go up, trainer can probably be skipped at least until you're past noob gains. If you get to benching your body weight, you're solidly into "you may hurt yourself and/or stop progressing" territory without a trainer, unless you have great proprioception and hit youtube/etc pretty hard.
How do you find this person? So many trainers on the internet. See #3, but easier and less awkward. Any gym has trainers. Unless you are very advanced or have a medical problem, a mediocre trainer is going to be drastically better than no trainer. Try a few until you like someone.
SwordOfOccam
6mo ago
I’m not engaging with the overall argument, just noting that you are not properly characterizing how debanking works with regard to a very public and very controversial person who has had involvement with the law.
Being banned from social media platforms for violating stated policies is not very exciting either.
I think there is a very real tension in a free society in cases like this. Somebody can be deprived at scale by private actors (who have strongly correlated interests and risks) of a key service—banking—for only appearing to be possibly engaged in illegal activity, with no explicit coordination or direct government involvement (regulation does play a role, of course).
We force medical insurers to serve those they would otherwise avoid and we ought to force sports gambling companies to stop limiting the good players, and there’s a whole host of laws on protected characteristics, but in general companies should have some level of choice to refuse service. “Legal discrimination” remains a minefield.
Ironically, the idea I’ve heard expressed by left-leaning technocrats that every American should have a government-provided checking account by e.g. the Fed to make things like tax rebates and such easier and eliminate unbanking could solve this particular issue.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6mo ago
ADL has ramped up on doxxing X accounts. Not even their usual profiling of right-wing public figures, but literally "this is an X account with a lot of followers who says antisemitic things, this is the real identity of that person." For some reason ADL isn't banned for doing this.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6mo ago
The "risk profile" lol. Yes, there are advocacy groups behind the scenes putting pressure and maybe even making threats if these institutions don't follow along. The point being, his insinuation that Nick is "allowed to continue talking about what is ostensibly the most incendiary third rail of American politics" without noting that he is banned from nearly every single Social Media platform except Rumble and X (only recently and due to Musk acquiring X and unbanning him), and he's literally banned from banking and engaging in electronic transactions in USD.
Seems I see much of dissident rightist figures and even some people who aren't exactly there like Matt Walsh sympathize with Nick against hiis address being leaked and targeted, even if they have their disagreements. Including the fact that Fuentes can be off putting in his behavior.
Like with some of Fuentes fans, there are always some people who are insanely hostile and I actually suspect in addition to mental cases there are bad actors spreading division by being as off putting people who overeact supporting vile things to happen to other right wingers and promoting extreme narcissism of sometimes small, other times greater differences. And such overreactions is a bad thing in general.
There is a constant argument that twitter must censor doxes or ban those who make them. And that Elon has abandoned his responsibility and original strong claims on the issue.
I do think that organisations like ADL, SPLC, hope not hate, and other defaming hate groups should be banned from everything for their track record of trying to destroy anyone who is against their far left extreme anti white agendas.
Fuentes is also in some trial because after his address was leaked and a Jewish feminist he was fighting on twitter, visited him in his home, and he maced her after opening the door.
In my view he deserves to get no punishment whatsoever for macing her. If you stalk and try to enter someone's home that you got a political disagreement and they mace you, and you are otherwise unharmed, you got off lightly. People who are confronted under such circumstances and don't even suffer permanent damagey, well I say she got a lesson not to visit people again. Or rather a message was sent. And the person that must be dissuaded in their actions is her, and not Fuentes for macing her.
Twitter suppresses even under Musk certain views.
Leaking addresses of people in a manner that would lead to physical confrontations should be banned on twitter and that is a way to discourage such attacks without more suppression of political speech. Which twitter already does too much and too much in the radical neocon/left wing activist side.
And additionally when there is such a physical confrontation, unless the guy who is confronted is actually some sort of sufficiently vile criminal escaping the law (I would side with a parent killing rapists of their children), then to discourage attacks we need to give benefit of sympathy to the guy hounded by others finding them and attacking them, unless their reaction is wildly disproportionate under the circumstances.
Albeit, when it comes with politicians and sufficiently influential people they do deserve public scrutiny and the public deserves the opportunity to comment on their influence more directly, but even then there can be limits. Fuentes who actually has been blacklisted in many ways by the system isn't this but the people do deserve the right to criticize him.
With anonymity it is both necessary and good but also you can have bad actors including intelligence agencies, fbi agents and political networks that pretend to be something different than they are. So it is more complex. Still whatever the complexity, If anonymity was removed things would go in a more radical turn because the backlash towards mainstream radicals that comes from anonymous accounts will be reduced. Anonymity does not necessarily always lead to that but it allows correct but persecuted views to be spread and makes it less likely that people would be afraid of saying that the emperor has no clothes. Without anonymity, the more neoconish or ADL type people would be able to defame their opponents as much as they like which as it happens here would cause violence. In addition to the violence, or restriction of rights like de-banking of a more organized sort. Having people around who oppose this thing is a deescalating force. Additionally more violence by the side I mentioned being enabled, will lead to more right wing violence as well.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6mo ago
Isn't this exactly what Fuentes accuses Jews of doing?
Fuentes has always done an "Hey I'm an Afro-Latino bit." Denying he's a "White Supremacist" is understandable, it's just a slur. It's like if the officer were to ask "are you a heretic?"
He's allowed to continue talking about what is ostensibly the most incendiary third rail of American politics - the "Jewish question"
He is literally banned from banking. He's not allowed to have a bank account. He's also banned from all credit card and payment processors so he can't even make money selling merchandise like hats. He can only take donations through crypto. Despite never having been convicted of a crime, he's debanked. You do realize even violent criminals are allowed to have bank accounts and process credit card transactions to sell merchandise? He isn't.
How does one get debanked like that without massive, backdoor coordination of influential people?
He was also put temporarily on the No Fly List, although the circumstances of that are disputable since the process is not transparent. He had some crypto that somebody donated to him seized from the government. As mentioned, he's not even able to sell hats because every time he tries to establish a payment processors he gets banned.
There is maximum pressure put onto him, really the whole debanking thing shouldn't even be legal in the first place. It's a novel way to get around the First Amendment by financially ruining somebody for their speech using the power of a heavily regulated industry.
Isn't this exactly what Fuentes accuses Jews of doing?
No, it's not at all what Fuentes accuses Jews of doing. Fuentes accuses Jews of presenting as White to levy criticisms of White people or otherwise low-key advocate for Jewish interests. This is a distinctly Jewish behavior. There are no White people who put on a super Jewish aesthetic and present as Jewish to talk to "fellow Jewish people" while actually promoting White interests and criticizing Jews. That doesn't happen and it's not what's happening here, Nick is just invoking his heritage to discredit the accusation of heresy ("White Supremacy").
Throwaway05
6mo ago
In short, my lack of success is due to being banned from Hinge (the best dating app I have ever used)
I'm going to write taking the rest of what you said at face value (by which I mean that you are a very well educated, successful and therefore likely hardworking and intelligent individual).
The above quote is a loser attitude. I don't mean you are a loser, far from it. You are demoralized because you aren't getting lucky and luck is required because that's what you need with the way you aren't embracing every opportunity.
If someone was trying to break into your field (7 figs in early thirties???) would you tell them to just passively apply to jobs or take low end jobs and not excel? Fuck no.
You gotta hustle. And we have reason to believe you can hustle in other domains in your life - you gotta apply those lessons here. Dating is going to involve a lot of discomfort, it's easy to justify avoiding discomfort but that is what it is and what you gotta overcome. Some of the other posters here complaining about dating have bigger concerns - but you, your fundamentals are extremely "attractive" and you are living in a place with a shit ton of women meeting your needs.
That means you are probably doing something wrong or you aren't doing enough. That is good news! It means you can do something different, and/or do more. It's going to be uncomfortable but dealing with that is a core skill in dating and in business.
Okay an example - you got banned from match apps. Why? Someone probably reported you or something, likely multiple someones (does that mean you did anything wrong? no, women on the apps be crazy). Is there a way to appeal this ban normally? No. Do you likely know someone on LinkedIn who knows someone who works there? Given your background very possible. You can cold message someone and be like "hey I work in NYC and I'm interested in whaling on this shit but I'm banned for no apparent reason..." Is this likely to work? Maybe not. Could it work? Yes absolutely. I was having a serious redacted issued with major tech company and I contacted person I knew for redacted reason and they got someone to fix it. If you have the professional network you can use it. Even if you don't have a connection you can leverage if you have a built up LI you can probably just cold message a few people. If you don't have a built up LinkedIn you are probably not networking enough, that will help you at work but those networking skills can also be leveraged to pick up women, especially if you are looking for a specific type (meet a guy who hangs out with ABGs? ....become friends with him and you'll meet ABGs IRL).
Likewise make a CMB. Now. Do not stall, if you stall that stall will last a long time. Make it and start using it now, maybe you don't find anyone with the qualities you want but dating is a skill and like any skill it has to be practiced, it is also a numbers game so you gotta get on it if you want it to work.
I don’t have that many opportunities to meet single women IRL: my hobbies and social circles are pretty male-dominated and the attractive women in them are already taken; plus work keeps me pretty busy.
More discomfort - pick up some new hobbies that have women. Depending on how male-dominated your current hobbies are that could end up being great for you for reasons other than dating, but if what you are doing right now isn't working (and it clearly isn't) you gotta start doing something else!
This, I think, is especially true when it comes to women who are my type (well-educated Asian-Americans), as they tend not to just hang out in bars or whatever waiting for guys to approach them; if they’re in the dating scene at all, it’s through apps.
I think you also have to be careful with how dialed into your type you are. That's instantly going to make things more challenging for you, but if that's still the only thing you want I think you are missing out on some of the stereotypes - FOBs might be not hanging out in bars, but ABGs are big into the clubbing and rave scene, are all over certain kinds of bars, you can approach while they are doing some dumbass trendy thing in K-town etc.
“Ban cars” or the like is indeed a common in-joke among crimethink corners of interweb whenever some Truck of Peace makes incidental contact with pedestrians.
For much of today, the top thread (other than stickied ones) on the New Orleans subreddit was calling for cars to be banned from the French Quarter.
More options
Context Copy link