Parththakkar12

Precisely! 100%

Because, when you ask them the question 'Why are you rejecting me?', the answer will be something along the lines of 'because there's this, that and the other thing wrong with you'. Look at this forum, for Christ's sake! The narrative tends to be along the lines of 'You get rejected because there's this, that and the other thing wrong with you. That's why you're not good enough!' I have sorted through a lot of crap like that while being radically self-honest, only to find that it's not true! This is to first do the rejecting and then blame the other person for the fact that the rejection happened. I'm not saying that rejection is a wrong-doing, but it does suck nonetheless and it's not a favorable outcome. What's really going on behind the scenes here? Why the criticism and hate? Am I the only one who sees the elephant in the room here? If you don't mind, could you please substitute the term 'responsibility' in my first post with the definition of it that I used? You'll see what I mean!

To be clear, I did not say that rejection is abuse. And, I did mean the use of the word 'responsibility' in the way I defined it. I didn't mean it in the sense of holding the other person accountable for a wrong-doing!

I don't get how the man is accountable for the rejection. As the guy, the rejection is something happening to you! You have no control over it.

No, responsibility is the 'ability to respond' or the choice to do something. Yes. Do you see accountability as abuse, by any chance? Is that like this unwritten female standard? Yeah, well, that would be the appropriate thing to do.

One thing I think they kinda do have a point about is the fact that women don't take any responsibility for rejecting guys. It's always somehow the guy's fault for 'getting rejected'. I never really understood this - how is it your fault for getting rejected?! Why is that your responsibility to begin with?! On the one hand, women want to 'take responsibility for being the selectors' and 'be in their power as selectors'. All good and fine. But, the consequence is that you have to take responsibility for your rejections! And not blame the other person for 'getting rejected by you'. I don't see that happening, which makes the whole thing look very hypocritical.

Everybody is freaking out about it big-time. PM me if you want to talk in Hindi!

Yupp.

@Preety_India I've never really been ready to date.

What? What's wrong with what I said?! You're proving my point by not being straightforward, just so ya know. Yeah, I do live in India.

If these conversations happened out in the open instead of inside some 'female safe space', 99% of relationship-problems would get solved. I find it very interesting that there's all this hatred and resentment towards men, but when men ask women 'What do you want?' it's either crickets, or some airy-fairy nonsense like 'I want the relationship to feel x, y or z ways'. Men don't know this stuff. This stuff needs to be told to men!

Are you saying that incels have a point?

Your idea reminds me of The Shawshank Redemption, where the Jail Warden was this puritanical Catholic who gave everyone a Bible! Converting everyone to Christian and involving them in religious activities.

This is not a personal attack on anyone. The issue is with the structure of the system. People like Leo have to operate within the system to help us break out of it. So, spiritual teachers can be considered exceptions to this situation. As far as education is concerned, we do not remember most of the memorization that we did in that system. We don't use most of what we learn in school in our everyday lives. I would not consider that an 'education'. It's more like the anti-education system! https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/?sh=6a137e831735 It was there on the World Economic Forum's site. They may have deleted it now but I can assure you it was there! Every hierarchical system has an agenda. It goes agenda-first, not truth-first. There is a survival-agenda first, then a narrative is built to support that survival-agenda! That narrative may or may not be true, but if it supports the agenda, it will be acted on! The leader's agenda is the system's agenda. The system goes in the direction the leader wants it to go. What this does is that it creates deep epistemic problems, in that the narrative of the system will be indoctrinated into the parts of the system, i.e. all the people occupying positions in the system. Whether it matches with reality or not! And, everyone has to believe it because there is massive hierarchical pressure on them. A very good example is the story of 'The Emperor has no clothes'. This is the fundamental corruption that comes with a hierarchical system. Now, if you are to root out the corruption, you root out the system! Cryptocurrencies are a good example of a holarchical system. It's decentralized money. The free-market is another holarchical system. An education-system in which the teacher interacts with the conscious mind of the student and trains their minds to think about and make sense of things, solve problems, think critically. The problem with indoctrination is that you aren't interacting with the conscious, logical mind of the student, you are interacting with their subconscious mind and programming it. When you throw so much information at a student, their mind gives up on being able to process all of that information and it becomes dull. This makes the student zone out and into a zombie-like state! The lectures have been designed this way. Then, when you grow up and watch TV, they can throw information at you through the news and you will let it in without processing it like you've been trained to by your school. School trains you to listen passively. What can be done instead would be to involve the classroom in activities in which you actively listen to important information and use it to solve problems, collectively. And, real problems. That's a more holarchical way of doing it! You won't have to force it on them, their brains will want to do the work of thinking about it and being creative about it. My bad. I didn't think this through. This looks fine to me. This is more holarchical, this would be a food-system that's more bottom-up in that you aren't depending on their food-system. You can release dependency on the government food-system if you get your own homestead. That's fine. You can't use it to get political power though. Because if the old system goes down, and it was the best we could do in terms of hierarchical systems, I don't think you can make it work again. There is no way to hard-negotiate with the government. A government is pure force! Pure control. There is nothing legitimate about governments. You can argue with them but you can never have any leverage over them in a negotiation.

It tells you what to believe. This is totally unnatural. Human beings are not designed to blindly believe hearsay, we have our own brains that construct our own narratives and worldviews. Yes, you do need information from sources to construct your worldview but when you do it unconsciously, you are totally mind-controlled by the indoctrinator. The problem is that people aren't conscious of how their mind constructs reality. Which is why indoctrination works. If we wake up to this reality, indoctrination becomes untenable! It stops working. It is a doomed strategy for this very reason, because this truth that our mind constructs all of reality can't be hidden for far too long from us anymore. If we don't create a holarchical system, the subsequent hierarchical systems will get more and more controlling and dominating. It will become very difficult for you to start your own homestead when you have people saying 'You will own nothing and you will be happy'! As far as corruption is concerned, it is not a bug in hierarchical systems. It is a feature. We think we can root it out of the system but the reality is that if you actually do it, you will root out the hierarchical system itself!! Try doing that. You'll know what I'm talking about!! Holarchical systems can also meet your needs. In fact, if they're decentralized, then it'll be a lot more efficient at that! The world will become more utopian, in fact. Your strategy is one of rebelling and protesting. Cannot possibly work, unfortunately. They will just keep creating new narratives, new 'solutions'. They are such experts at controlling the masses and controlling protests that their 'solutions' will be these half-assed sad excuses for the real thing and then everyone will just have enough of the hue and cry, life will go back to normal. Also, it plays into their hands because you're going and crying to big daddy government for solutions! You're giving them more and more power by doing that and it's not possible for them to not abuse it. They must abuse their power over you because you abdicated it!

It is the future. If we do it hierarchically though, it would be more expensive than our current political system. People will not gravitate towards a hierarchical system that takes responsibility for people's health, wealth and happiness! The point of a hierarchical system is survival and only survival. Individually and collectively. It's very pragmatic because that's how the leader of a hierarchy has to be! There are reasons why our present political systems don't care about the health, wealth and happiness of the public. You would need more holarchical systems! Systems that are not centralized, that are decentralized. If you have mental growth-dynamics or education-systems that respect the mental autonomy of everyone involved, that don't rely on indoctrination, which doesn't respect people's mental autonomy, that would be a decentralized way of collective narrative-creation. We already have the internet, which is a decentralized way of spreading information. Nobody controls the internet because it is a bottom-up system! The education-system, schools and colleges, etc. are top-down and they controlled the spread of information before the Information Age, before the internet. If you have a way of creating a 'mainstream narrative' that is decentralized, then we're talking. That means that the moral system can be decentralized! Once you have that going, you stop needing governments. Then we can enter a more holarchical era and those holarchical systems will be far more efficient than hierarchical systems, because they will be more flexible! That'll solve the problem of rigidity with hierarchical systems.

The important thing isn't the issue of who's right. The important thing is to see the epistemic structure, which is a structure of mind-control and to claim your mental autonomy back! The important thing is to not parrot the narrative of the elites (or the conspiracy-theorists, doesn't matter) and unconsciously act according to their agendas for humanity. When you ask yourself the question of who benefits from this narrative and why, who owns it all, when you follow the money, you'll see who benefits from you believing what they're telling you to believe. Doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong for the purpose of this discussion, it's very important to look at who benefits and what their agenda is. Then, based on their next move, we get to plan and make our move in preparation for that future scenario!

Are you saying that conspiracy-theories are like a cancer to the existing epistemic order? Isn't that a good thing?! Just admit it, man. If your favorite elites say it's right, it's right. Otherwise it's wrong! Why do you trust their narrative so much? Why is it so trustworthy? Is it just because these institutions and organizations have been around for a long period of time and they're so familiar? How is this 'good epistemology'? Here, are you sure you aren't making the mistake of dismissing 'anecdotal evidence' the way the mainstream scientific establishment does? It may just turn out that the 'anecdotal evidence' could be more and more widespread and people just don't see it because they're totally brainwashed by the media and they trust their favorite elites! And the 'science' doesn't agree for some epistemically dogmatic reasons. Do you remember when I'd posited this theory? March 2020. You'd locked the thread for 'spreading conspiracy theories'. Now, you're on their side because your favorite elites agree!! And, they keep changing the narrative according to what serves them in the moment. All of these are geopolitical moves! Now, they're being the conspiracy-theorists and you're gonna nod along because they said so. Now, the war isn't against conspiracy-theories anymore, it's against 'vaccine misinformation' or something like that. I think it's too late for them!

I don't know, man. When you censor them, you make them look very smart! How will you make them look stupid?

You mentioned 'easy going' and 'sensitive'. That's actually a contradiction! A sensitive person is not going to be easy-going, they are going to be deeply affected by everything. Same for being 'understanding'. Someone who is 'understanding', is not going to be easy-going! They're going to be more of a serious personality-type.

By this definition of 'connection', what does it mean when you say that you 'connected really well with your partners'?

What's your definition of 'love'? What's your definition of 'connection'?

What does it mean to 'not take it to heart'? I don't get what you're saying. Also, out of curiosity, how well do you connect with your partners? Do you connect with them, or is it just my survival-agenda and your survival-agenda, i,e. your survival-agenda to get laid and my survival-agenda to get you to commit?

Have you ever gotten rejected?

All they know how to do is control. That's the only thing they know to do! But, how do you control an ideology that says that they're trying to control everything?!