Consept

Problems maybe not the right word, but lets say issue that can come up if i want to date freely, even if just temporarily. I doubt i would want to be polygamous, just because its a lot to deal with and im not even convinced that setup works long term, but i wouldnt rule anything out and I guess thats what ill find out in this time. Well i think this more applies if you have a monogamous relationship and you either suddenly start considering other options or you were always considering other options but just didnt really communicate that with her. What ive found is that if youre upfront, they know what the situation is and can chose to exit that situation, it also puts less expectation on you to fulfil that 'boyfriend' role. But as I say I dont think its something id want to do indefinitely

I wouldnt go as far as to say that, by definition its not normal because most men dont/cant do it. Obviously it happens but as I said its hard to sustain and when you build any connection with a woman it takes effort, so multiple women is difficult to keep that going. Im more considering it now just because ive come out of a relationship and am usually in relationships so i want to take a bit of a step back and see whats out there.

Its not necessarily the issue that they dont want to be 'replaceable', the issue is more that eventually, in my experience, they usually want to be the only one, which i completely get. So essentially its not sustainable, also you cant get as deep obviously if there is more than one woman in the picture. Anyway what im leaning towards now is dating freely for maybe a year or until i get bored, in the meantime on dates or mini relationships work out what im looking for, improve myself etc. All the while being open with whoever i date, i put this into practice last week and it was cool.

You could flip this idea though, as an experiment try and steelman their arguments, even if its complete bullshit try and understand what they believe, what might be true about it and even if you cant find much truth in it, why it might be compelling for them to believe it. For example, those that follow scientology may, theres truth in exploring your mind or bringing dark memories to light could help you, also it benefits followers to believe because they are looking for community or certainty in their lives. I think from what you wrote it isnt necessarily peoples ideas that bother you, its more that you take them on wholesale without contemplation. Of course everyone is going to have gigantic blindspots, especially as, as we are as people like certainty, so when we take on an order we 'know' that its true. We will even argue with others about how our perspective is the true one, what we're really arguing for is a certainty about the world. So i think its good to take on new information, use healthy skepticism and be open to changing your mind. As well do put someone so high on a pedestal that a coherent argument from them solidifies that perspective for you.

There's a lot of interesting books on evo psychology and things that 'could' be true however they're not necessarily concrete truths more like theories. There are also other factors that come into play, like changing societal standards of beauty. For example we've seen in the western world the ideal of beauty was being a size 0 model in the 90s, where having a big ass was basically a negative, to now where being more voluptuous is in. We couldn't have evolved so much in only 20-30 years. The other point is that, if you find out that a woman that you think is reasonably attractive but didn't really think about too much, is attracted to you, your attraction levels for her will go up immensely. People really talk about this but it's one of the biggest attraction boosters, knowing that someone's into you. Obviously it doesn't work if you're not attracted at all, but if there is even a little attraction it will shoot up.

Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head when he said the right are basically at war with the woke ideology, so much so that they're willing to side with Putin, an enemy of democracy, against it. Which is kinda insane when you think about it

Hey people, would appreciate some advice here - So I'm not saying I feel like a loser overall in life, it's more like I'll try and do something and feel like I've failed and that I'm just inherently mediocre at that thing. So for example I've recently started playing football (refuse to call it soccer lol) again, which I played all through my childhood and teenage years up until when I was in my late 20s just because of injuries (achillies). After almost 10 years out I decided to play again, it took me a while but I got back to at least an OK level even though I turned 39 last month. We've recently set up a little team and play in a local league, the first game was last night. Now I felt I didn't play that well, no one told me this but I just felt I could've done better. The feeling I got, I can only describe as frustration, a but of self-loathing and this thought of, 'am I just not good at anything?'. I get hit with a kind of fearful feeling as well. I always end up playing again and usually I have a better game and I'm OK but I really want to investigate these feelings I have because it's such a strong feeling. I get these feelings in lots of different realms as I do try a lot of things. Another one is with dating, like sometimes it can really hit me hard if I had a bad night talking to women or a date doesn't go that well. I don't know if it's a kind of perfectionism, I'm generally laid back and even these feelings I don't really tell people about, so most likely people don't think I'm easily bothered. Anyway can anyone relate or have advice on this?

Yeah thats very interesting and like you, athletes mindsets do fascinate me. I came across this quote from Jordan recently - "I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." Which makes you realise that to be successfully you really have to fail more than anyone else and so your relationship to failure has to be one where it will never stop you trying. Which is the case with Kobe as well, but its amazing that they can do it at such a high level on a big stage where so many eyes on you, the mindset you must have for that is incredible. Im struggling with just a local league where no ones watching lol. I get what your saying this is something i need to actively work on as well as not being afraid to make mistakes, it is hyper unrealistic to expect to have 10/10 game every time i play

I appreciate the perspective, but I dont think its as far as what you say. As in I dont believe im lost in stories or constantly think about the past, I say this because it is something I did for a long time and have worked hard, therapy wise to overcome it. In fact, the context i added, i havent really thought about for a long time its only because im investigating these feelings that are coming up and so looking at where they may stem from. Same with the OCD, I now work with a charity to help others with OCD, theyve even asked me to work on their helpline, but im slightly reluctant because I find it increasingly difficult to relate to the mindset i had before. I do get where youre coming from though and i think its an important message. Yes I think this is more accurate, so I also noticed the converse, if I have a good game I feel amazing and I have to make an effort not to dwell on it and constantly think of it haha. Its so weird how the ego works, it takes credit when something goes well but then beats you up when it goes wrong. But i agree with you, a lot is the expectation to perform which is only put on by myself as there are obviously no scouts or managers watching anymore. This is a good way of looking at it, you can only control your effort. It is hard to let go of the 'ah i shouldve done this' feeling or 'i really fucked up' embarrassment, but i guess its just practice. I have experimented a bit with what you say though, so i noticed that when i feel like im not playing well, i tend to not want the ball and shy away from it, one game i said to myself 'no matter how youre playing, always show for the ball'. I think this is similar to what youre saying and something i just have to work at. Thanks for your input

Yeah I really like this, thanks for your reply. I do normally kinda have this gods will mentality or at least I'm trying to cultivate it. Thanks for the reminder. Yeah good points, thanks. I've done cbt before and it's similar to what you describe. The thing is we didn't even lose the game it was a draw, not that it's important, but it's more my mind kinda beating up for not performing. To add context I used to be very anxious when I was younger, I had ocd so I was very within myself. Even so I was still pretty good athletically but I put so much pressure on myself to perform that I couldn't perform or I'd be really hard on myself, my mind basically bullied. I have made huge strides since then, in fact this little soccer team, I'm the captain and I put it together, which is something I would've never done when I was younger. For the most part I enjoy it immensely but there seems to be this lingering fear or thoughts that creep in every now and then, they don't last long but I do notice them and it feels pretty bad. Thanks for the reply. Well I know what I'm capable of, so one week I could perform amazing and the next week I'm terrible, both of these assessments are in my mind and to do with how I feel. People in the game might say I was great when I didn't feel I was or even that I played bad when I felt I played good. So this isnt so much about me expecting to be good without training, its more a sports psychology issue. I added a bit more context in terms of when I was younger above. I guess it was more putting ridiculous expectations on myself. By the way i realise its a bit crazy a grown man putting such inprtance on football, i dont really but it does bring up a lot of feelings sometimes. But anyway when I was young I was basically in the pipeline to potentially go pro or get signed by a pro club at youth level, some of my school team mates did actually get signed and went on to be pros. So we would have scouts for Premier league clubs at some of our games. The amount of pressure I felt was insane, if I heard about the my mind would just go into overdrive, I already had ocd so it would just go round and round and I couldn't enjoy the game and as such would play really bad. It's a lot more cathartic now as I've got a handle on my ocd and I can enjoy it for the most part, but there must be some old remnants of that mindset from when I was young. I also didn't really have a parent coming to games and talking me through these feelings so I was just doing it myself mostly so that probably didn't help as well.

@Buck Edwards & @Princess Arabia Get a room you two

Could just do it with last year's predictions

It's hilarious that Putin said Tucker didnt ask hard enough questions

I never understood the point of bootcamps, at least at that price, if you have a couple wings to go out with you'd save so much money, it must be the same thing. I once saw Todd doing a bootcamp in Amsterdam, I kinda wanted to tag along just to see how it went but had my ex with me

@Someone here Taking it back to the op, i agree with a lot of it. What id slightly disagree with is that for men obviously looks are important, but I think that comes into play for short term dating. As in if a girls hot you want to bang her but you might not necessarily want to be with her long term if her personality is trash. So she might hook you with the sex but she would need more to keep you. Women it's opposite you'd need personality and something about you to hook her and then you will grow more attractive on her eyes.

@Karmadhi I will say that i respect your open to considering my points of view and also open to changing your mind, that is a great quality. So this issue i have is that your equating incidents that are not even close to comparable. This Benzema example is literally one conservative French Senator saying that Benzemas citizenship should be revoked, which it wasnt. Its one mans opinion that has no legal bearing, in fact it should even prove that freedom of speech is allowed in France because hes being allowed to say potentially anti-muslim things even with a fairly liberal government. This is in no way comparable to Putin has done for those speaking out. Freedom to protest and freedom of the press are not just nice things for a society to have, they are essential for a society. Reason being the press and protests can act as a mouthpiece for people, if both these outlets are shutdown the society is completely oppressed. In that situation they have no choice but to go along with their leader or leave the country. So im not presenting it as just a fun thing that you can say what you want freely, without it as a society you do not have individual liberty or even collective liberty. This means that your leader can send you to war for whatever reason he sees fit without any repercussions. You may say that the USA has invaded loads of countries in the past, which is true but for most of them there was heavy backlash which even contributed to presidents being voted out, this is not something that can happen in Russia. Basically freedom of speech and invading countries are not independent variables. But you can make the argument that Putin is a great leader which is fine, maybe some countries need a strongman leader, but you cant simultaneously make the argument that the people in Russia are more free than democratic countries.

Theres no absolute freedom of speech of course as a society couldnt really function but there are levels to it. If you speak up against the Ukraine war in Russia you will be sentanced to 15 years in prison, I dont think any country comes anywhere near that level of punishment. I live in the UK and have many muslim friends who post daily with extremely violent imagery against Israel and as far as i know none of them have had facebook or instagram accounts even banned let alone being prosecuted for it. There are near weekly marches and protests in support of palestine and nothing has happened. This is similar in other countries which is in fact why a lot of far right ideologies can even get in power in the first place or at least run for power. So i dont think Putins Russia equates with other countries shutting down free speech at all. They dont invade other countries and work with other nations. Theyre not perfect by any stretch and there are issues with human rights etc it helps that theyre very rich nations as well. But essentially they dont create problems with other nations, whereas Russia constantly does. You can post whatever you want, you might be mistaking social persecution for state persecution. Social just means people will disagree with you on social media maybe some acquaintances will judge you or something, but no ones going to come and arrest you because you say Ukraine should make peace. Whereas if you said Russia was wrong in Russia you would literally get arrested. Heres where there seems to be a blind spot, if i hate gay people and move to a country where they hate gay people and then talk about how i hate gay people and everyone in that country agrees with me, it doesnt mean that theres free speech it just means that everyone agrees with me. If i had the opinion gay people were great then i wouldnt feel comfortable to express that opinion. So in this case Russia definitely doesnt have more free speech, your friend just feels like that because he agrees with everything Putin says. The real test is if you say something against the government how would they react, in Russia you get 15 years in prison and in the west you may but probably wont get your facebook account restricted.

'Putting the oligarchs in order' actually means he imprisoned the ones that didnt side with him and empowered the ones that did side with him. The way you put it is as if he cleaned up the corruption of the rich, which is not true he just made sure they were loyal to him. Roman Abramovich for example was a multi billionaire up until the Ukraine war and was allowed to exist with many perks because he was cool with Putin. I dont think people were saying Russia was a hellhole, but its not a free country in that you cant credibly vote for an alternative and you cant speak out against Putin - "Russia clamped down harder Friday on news and free speech than at any time in President Vladimir V. Putin's 22 years in power, blocking access to Facebook and major foreign news outlets, and enacting a law to punish anyone spreading “false information” about its Ukraine invasion with up to 15 years in prison." - New York Times What im confused with is that you seem to be someone that would be for freedom of speech, during the pandemic a lot people complained that they werent allowed to share 'alternative science' however there was never anything close to a 15 year prison sentence threatened, the worst was being banned on facebook for a month or having a fact check under a post. So it doesnt quite square how some of the same people complaining about freedom of speech during the pandemic are actually agreeing with Putins methods.

The problem is this justification doesnt work when put onto other countries, it justifies pretty much every invasion. So Germany in 1939 could claim, and im sure they did, that they felt threatened by Europe and Jewish people so that justified invading Poland. Even now, USA and Europe can claim they feel threatened by Russia, North Korea, China and justify invading those countries, arguably there would be much more justification with at least Russia and North Korea than Russia had to invade Ukraine. One could say the reason for invasion was Putin felt threatened but to say its justified ill be curious to hear that argument.

Anything he can't control that can have an impact on the world will be threatening to him

Using your analogy it would be more like there is a strict father who lives on the street and doesnt want to be part of the neighbourhood alliance. He doesnt like the fact that his neighbour has joined the alliance. He keeps encroaching on his neighbours land and moving his fence further and further. When the neighbour complains he uses aggression toward the neighbour and threatens to take over his house. The rest of the street dont think its fair and demand the strict father stops doing what hes doing, but the strict father refuses because he doesnt like the alliance as he feels he should be able to treat his neighbour as he wishes. No one has a problem with most dictators or those with different beliefs running their countries, no ones trying to war with North Korea for example even though they are arguably worse. The issues come when they try and do stuff to other countries.The whole point of the EU, Nato etc is to protect these smaller countries, and its worked as there was the longest period without war in the EU, so should we just leave everyone to it to take over and war with each other, or would it make more sense to work together?

The obvious argument against this perspective is that in a democracy, young and speak out against those in power. There are numerous examples of protest and public opinion changing policy, in fact most democracies have to take into account what the majority are saying otherwise no one would even consider them for office. Or of course they have to at least spin it in a way where they are tackling policies the people want tackled. That being said of no system by itself is going to be perfect and as you say it's down to individuals within that system. In a dictatorship the people literally have no power and no right to speak out against those in power. As I said Putin has literally killed or imprisoned those that have spoken out against him and his regime. He can basically do bad shit and not be called on it, whereas those in power that do bad shit in democracies may not get another term or maybe impeached or whatever. I don't think you'll find any dictatorships throughout history or at present that would be less corrupt than democratic nations and where the people are better off.

Well said, i think the great trick authoritarians pull off or attempt to pull off, is that an authoritarian government with them in charge is a step forward. The reality is its a step back which is known by democracy because they've all been through it in their past.

From your comment Im not sure you understand what a democracy is vs a dictatorship, its not a pejorative against a country its just how state is organised. Russia is a dictatorship because Putin eliminates or silences all political rivals, critics and dissenters (sometimes through assassination), he has extended years in power(20 years+), he has absolute authority, this is a dictatorship, i dont think any person could credibly argue it was a democracy. Democracy is essentially the rule of the majority through elected officials and shared power amongst the people to vote in an elected representative. In most cases with a maximum of three terms. So this is nothing to do the west deciding its a democracy or dictatorship. The two notions are basically the opposite of each other, one is rule by one person and the other is rule by majority of the people, its pretty much as binary as you can get. So is your argument here that you get more freedom in a dictatorship? Or at least different freedoms. They dont really have freedom in the situation you proposed, they just have the will of the leader, so for example if the leader did want everyone to take vaccines he would have the power to force them to do so. If he doesnt and you happen to agree with him, thats not really freedom thats just luck that you agree with him, most likely if you live in a dictatorship you would just agree with everything they say anyway as thats how youve been raised. The reason why certain countries had the restrictions they did is because they are trying to look out for the majority which does show that its a democracy. Lets hypothetically say vaccines and stopping unvaccinated people going into public establishments was the right cause of action, Putin and other dictators chose not to do that for whatever reason and that couldve killed millions of people, he was the only one to decide that regardless of experts, its not like he took a vote. Brazils president who chose to do this for his people made Brazil the second worst country in the world affected by covid, in fact the leaders of individual states had to rebel against him and bring in safety measures themselves for their states. So no youre not gonna be more free in a dictatorship.

Interesting article on why Russia isnt a democracy - https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/30/russia-democracy-putin-soviet-union-cold-war/