• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mr_engineer

  1. And what if this rubric contains elements which would have direct consequences for your quality of life, when you're in relationship with her?
  2. This is the type of predicament that Albert Einstein found himself in, as an American scientist working on atom bombs during the WWII, because Werner Heisenberg decided to do that for Germany. The predicament was that 'If world-class scientists of other countries are working on this high-leverage weapon, the world-class scientist of my country (me) has to work on it for my country!' You're not Einstein or Heisenberg, though. There are already enough big-wigs working on missile-technology and stuff like that. Morality is a much simpler decision for you. It's more about what you want to do with your life and what your value-system is. Never forget that AI is on the rise and that one day, what you build won't belong to humanity - it'll belong to AI. Precisely because geopolitics will become so complicated that the bureaucratic responsibilities will be entrusted to AI, including the operation of high-tech weapons. There are a lot of interesting technical challenges in a lot of other areas. Please, do some good work with your time and energy. Make a positive contribution to the world.
  3. No problem if it's legal. You know that I only care about what's legal and not about people's opinions, right?!
  4. I don't stand for it in my personal life, it's a no-no for me. I don't want to date girls who drink.
  5. Offer a drink, maybe?! I'm not sure, I've never paid for booze cuz I don't drink myself. I've heard friends tell me that it works.
  6. A suggestion to develop state - focus on what you have to offer to them.
  7. YOU MISOGYNISTIC CREEP!!! ARRRRR!!! Don't misgender yourself!!
  8. I mean, romance-novels and rom-coms are based on some truth about what women want, right?! They cater to a primarily female audience.
  9. @something_else Let's put you in the shoes of a woman who's a 9. How many beta-orbiters/PUAs does she have at any given moment?! At least 10. Those, she doesn't give a fuck about. How many capable guys (8s) does she have, willing to commit to her at any given point? 4-5. Those are who she's dating on and off, depending on her mood. When it comes to 9s and 10s, in order to get into that group of 4-5 guys, you have to make up your mind about her. You have to get to know her and make up your mind as to whether you would commit to her or not. (That is if you have the ability to do so.) Then, if you want to commit, here's how you stand out from the other 4 guys she's seeing - you show your romantic side and you tell her what you want. If it's something other than 'me want to fuck', you can get her! Most women see men as narcissists who think with their dicks. Some of them are capable enough to commit, some of them aren't. So, she sees it as her job to reject those who aren't capable and to sexually manipulate those who are capable, to commit. Now, if you showed a genuine desire to commit, you would be the exception!
  10. Ah, so we're doing it like that. Why don't we unban and un-taboo the use of the N-word too, while we're at it?! Sounds like a fun society to live in! The goal here is to have working relationships. So, if you're feeling uncomfortable around other people who aren't outright disrespecting you, that's a you-problem. If the goal were to atomize the society and make everyone lonely, then it makes sense to blame the guy for even existing in her vicinity. Then, we can encourage all disrespectful behavior, including the use of the word 'creepy'.
  11. As someone who does take responsibility for how I feel about it, I propose banning the use of this word from dating-discourse. I think it's fine to expect others to treat you with respect, right?! It's disrespectful to call someone 'creepy' (which is another word for 'unlovable') and we should not tolerate the use of this word towards us.
  12. Either they're illegal, or they're not. There are also many crimes that are not predicated by what you're calling 'creepy behavior'. It really just boils down to how the woman is feeling, which can be very different from objective reality. Either you are providing and protecting, or you're not. If you are, you're masculine. And, if you're using this fact to justify toxic behavior, it's not the 'masculinity' in and of itself that's 'toxic', it's the behavior that it's being used to justify! I meant 'imbalance'.
  13. @Understander In that case, the 'toxicity' associated with masculinity has nothing to do with masculinity in and of itself. Anyone can come up with a hateful ideology and be abusive towards others as a result of it, irrespective of the power-balance.
  14. The first three are illegal. The first one is 'stalking', the second one is 'ogling', the third one is 'sexual assault'. And, the fourth one is not illegal but it's not advisable because it comes across as 'narcissistic' and 'objectifying'. So, I would prefer to not use the word 'creepy' for it, I'd rather say 'objectifying'. This is because of the cultural definition of 'masculinity', which is exclusively about 'conquest' and 'achievement'. That's not the reality of what masculinity is about! In reality, masculinity is about providing and protecting.
  15. Is having the power in and of itself 'misogynistic'/'toxic'? Or, is the abuse of this power a product of a 'misogynistic' ideology? Is the problem that men have power, or is it that men are abusing it?
  16. 'Creepy' has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with how the other person feels about it. If the other person feels 'creeped out' by your behavior, you could smile at them and they'll still call you 'creepy'. And, 'toxic' behavior (that's legal) includes: Sexism, 'women belong in the kitchen' type rhetoric, Overtly controlling and disrespectful behavior, Aggressive and threatening behavior, lacking impulse-control (pointing fingers, shouting, fist-clenching) This need not be threatening to the other person, that's illegal, it could just be displaying uncontrolled aggression towards anything in front of women/children. Swearing in inappropriate settings Abusing power, hypocrisy Again, it's not the men themselves who are toxic, it's the behavior. You have to correct the behavior, not call 'men' or 'masculinity' toxic.
  17. If you could define what 'toxic behavior' meant in a convincing manner, yeah, I would agree to ban it. In order to ban it, though, you do have to define what 'toxic' means first, in practice. If you're staying in the realm of theory, that word is too ambiguous. It's a catch-all term that can be thrown at anyone. That's why I want to ban the word. This is what I want to ban. 'Speaking against men'. Speak against toxic behavior, but why are you against men?! Why 'empower' ('enable' is the actual word) women to 'speak against men' and hurt men?
  18. Do you agree with banning/tabooing the usage of these words?
  19. Yeah, but you can't actually call someone the N-word, right? You will be penalized for that, right?! I mean, saying that 'don't unrightfully call men toxic and creepy' isn't going to do much, cuz everyone who uses these words is already being self-righteous. I prefer banning the words altogether, so that they have to come up with more constructive terms to talk about their issues. I don't want to fight anything/anyone. The words themselves are the wokeist illusion. So, if we ban the words, the illusion will break!
  20. That's why you make your own life easier, by banning the words yourself. There is no point in calling someone 'creepy' or 'unlovable' or 'toxic'. Men have to unite against the usage of these words, we have to taboo them. They should be seen as the equivalent to the 'N-word' for Black people, because they are.
  21. But calling them 'creeps' and 'toxic men' doesn't solve anything, right? You have to get to the bottom of why you felt 'creeped out' or what 'toxic behavior' the person (not 'man', person) was doing, so that you can solve something.
  22. If this is not a personal attack, I don't know what is. You don't know jack shit about me and you're telling me that I'm being 'socially inadequate'. I don't trust you people to help me 'develop myself'. That's a lot of power I don't wish to give you people, because of the assumptions and personal-attacks. Right now, the point of discussion is about the ground-rules of dating-discourse. What I'm saying is that because 'creep' is an ad-hominem attack in bad faith, it shouldn't be a part of dating-discourse. What do you think of that?!
  23. The reason I'm having this conversation is that I want to make a suggestion. And here it goes - If we just ban the words 'creep/creepy' and 'toxic masculinity' from dating-discourse, everyone's lives will be better. What do you think of this suggestion?
  24. The fact that all of you resorted to personally attacking me, saying that 'I'm not going out and talking to women' or 'I'm not getting laid' or 'I'm giving my power away to women' or 'I'm socially inadequate' or 'I'm complaining', already tells me that I've won the argument. You people are saying any nonsense about me, just to deflect from the main points I'm making. I don't need your 'help', I never asked for it. Why should I trust what you have to say, when you're making these assumptions about me?! Why should I assume that you're being objective about other things, if you can't even be objective about me?! The reality is that you don't know ANYTHING about me. ANYTHING. I'm fully anonymous on here. Everything you're saying about me is assumed.