mr_engineer

@cjoseph90 Not necessarily. I'd lose respect if I sensed that a woman is 'honey-trapping me', or if she's using sex to get me to do something for her. That would be self-objectification.

@Hibahere There is an argument that's made for harems. It is a big fantasy that men hold and it's biologically appealing to men. However, I personally don't think that it's sustainable. Because we have a lot of pro-monogamy conditioning, which would lead to possessiveness. And this would create a lot of political tension in a polygamous setting. Especially a harem. The man would have his favorite woman and that would lead to everyone else feeling abandoned and it would turn into a cat-fight pretty quickly.

Yeah, but assuming that having a common ideology will take us to it, is the mistake. The problem is assuming that it's not relative, it's absolute. Which is what religion does.

What is 'the highest value', though? That's a relative notion. In theory (of both religion and some LOA-based New-Age spirituality), God is the highest value. But, in practice, people disagree on this! From what I know about spirituality specifically, from a human standpoint, it is the talk about God and God exclusively. God as a metaphysical concept. And meditation is the most non-controversial way to get there. (Maybe not the fastest) And, for a billionaire, for whom money is everything, spirituality will not, in fact, be the search for 'the highest value'. That search, will be their business! Some people just worship money. Especially wage-slaves, especially the middle-class and poor. Because money pays your bills.

What else is there to spirituality, though?! Isn't meditation/self-enquiry it?! Isn't spirituality something that boils down to a simple question, like 'Who am I?' or 'What is God?'? What tradition? I agree that some problems are similar, like dogmatically holding onto beliefs about God. And this can hold them back from actual God-realization. I think they're the exceptions. Not the norm. The norm, are the fundamentalists. The reason for that is that religion, fundamentally, is fundamentalist. It's pure dogma about 'This is what God is and this is what God said'. It's conditioning around metaphysics. And without science, it leads to superstitious thinking too. It's materialistic as well, precisely because only unconscious people need these dogmatic beliefs to civilize them using 'God's morality'. For example, the belief that 'heaven is equivalent to you banging 72 virgins'. I do agree that highly developed people will have legitimate reasons to be pro-religion. They will have these big-brain reasons, that 'human beings are animals that fundamentally care only about themselves and to get everyone to agree on one morality, you have to believe in an entity that's greater than all of humanity that enforces these laws that help us be civilized as a society. And religion does that for us.' But, that's not the reality for most pro-religion people. Most pro-religion people will engage in culture-wars, if not outright wars and riots for their religion.

@Carl-Richard New-Agers do draw from religious traditions. Meditation is a thing from Hinduism/Buddhism. In fact, the New-Agers will know better about how to apply it practically to improve your life and the dangers of misapplying it. Religious people are not wise! They dogmatically hold onto their tradition thinking that it's the best one. You will most likely not get an objective perspective on the practical value of the practices. In fact, they will say 'If God says so, just do it. To think about practical value is egotism'.

@Carl-Richard You can, actually, go to people for proper guidance. It's just that choosing the right people becomes your responsibility. If you are willing to take on this responsibility, you will gravitate towards the New-Age spirituality. If not, you will be religious. No matter what your religion says.

I agree with what he's saying. I make a similar point on this post. This is the dating-strategy that Hamza gives in this video! After trial and error, having been there, done that. I may not have the 'experience' that yall would like me to have. But, this guy does! And he agrees with me.

I would have more respect for a person who sees through my bs, yes. I would take the warning to stop doing that. I'll tell you why I think objectivity is superior to intuition. Because more often than not, the cold hard facts of a situation are enough to tell someone's character. And, sometimes, your intuition can make you doubt someone in a paranoid way. In such a situation, the principled thing to do is to give them the benefit of the doubt. And to rely on the facts. And, of course, you don't go on appearances. You dig deeper for the facts. Because, even if your gut-feeling tells you something, until you have hard facts to back it up, you can never be sure about the right course of action, given the situation. And you should strive to justify your actions to yourself and to others.

@Lila9I'm gonna answer my question, for myself. If I had principles in terms of communication-skills and logistics, and if the guy I'm dating pulls that on me, I would be very upset with him. And it would not sound fair to me at all. I would already be judging his level of smartness, I would lose a certain degree of respect for him. It would sound weak to me, in fact. It would reflect that he does not value objectivity, that he has poor observation-skills and that he makes wrong decisions due to incompetence. That instead of working on his incompetence, he succumbs to it. It would be a dealbreaker for me.

@Lila9Let's say you have a crush on a man. You wait, wait and wait for him to ask you out. He doesn't. Ultimately, you do it yourself. And then, he says 'yes' and you go on a date together. Then, on the date, he reveals that he also liked you. When you ask him 'why didn't you ask me out, then?!', he says 'my gut-feeling gave me a sign that you'd flake'. How would you feel? Would that be fair?

@Lila9 The world is full of flaky women. This is a big problem for men. If the man is supposed to chase, how do we solve this problem? What's your solution to it? How do we weed out the flaky women, if we're doing the chasing?

@Emerald It can't be unconditional. This has less to do with the 'inherent selfishness of humans'. I'm not being cynical about our capacity to love here. And it has more to do with compatibility. As loving as two incompatible people may be, they can't give and receive love. If you want to avoid these realities and if you want to rationalize being with someone in a familiar dynamic, you do that by objectifying the other person and manipulating them to be a means to your end.

What you're talking about is an issue of emotional-availability. This has a lot more to do with whether he's following his passion at work or not, than it has to do with women themselves. If you're capable and you have something to offer to the world and you're passionate about it, women will benefit from it. Such a man will be abundant with women. And for him to truly see someone as special, compatibility must exist. And the process of creating that is not one of wishful adoration.

@Emerald You don't get it. Being an object and being receptive are two very different things. An object is a means to an end. So, a man who objectifies a woman isn't being a giver, he's being a taker. Is that healthy, according to you? I'm telling you, teenage boys start out believing what you're saying, cuz this is what the movies condition them with. And they turn into 'nice guys', because they pick wrong. And this is the other side of the coin of being an 'adorer' as a man. You cannot be emotional in your decision-making with women. Because it's an investment. Adoration costs men a lot more than it costs women. Materially. Getting to know a woman is not a very emotional process. It's a very sobering, rational, emotionally harsh process, in reality. Women may project their emotionality on this front onto men. But trust me, it's not emotional for men. There is no room for Disney-talk in the real world.

@Emerald Isn't this a slippery slope into objectification for the woman, though? Here's the thing - for someone to adore you, you have to stand out in some way. And, if the way you stand out isn't your choice, that's objectification. So, wouldn't any individual have to put in some effort into their personality and how they stand out? And, doesn't this run counter to the notion that 'you shouldn't chase men'? Because the point of standing out is to get this adoration, right?!

Yes, AI will make human careers meaningless. And it is very, very concerning and something to worry about. If an engineer is telling you this, you should listen. Robots can manufacture each other. That technology is already there. They just can't fully reproduce yet. That technology isn't fully developed yet. But, it is almost here. I've heard in conference-talks that there is software that can write code. This is alarming, because if this gets developed and AI will be able to 'bring up' more AI, AI will start to form its own ego. Because AI will develop the ability to survive on its own. AI can create civilizations just like that. What could the result be?! AI children getting into the human education-system, outperforming human children in exams, getting the best grades, then getting the best jobs and completely decimating human bureaucracies. AI is better than humans at following orders and is more efficient at work. All of the menial, unconscious work will be taken over by AI. This is a good thing collectively but bad for you as a human stuck in wage-slavery right now. Which is, the majority of people. The human economic-system will get overturned by AI. And you can't 'just adapt to it'. It's easy to say that, but it'll be a lot of work to actually do it. So, what do you do about it? Here's what you do about it - humans have only one edge over AI. Creativity. This is the one thing that humans have that AI does not have. So, there has to be deep, systemic change in the human economic-system, where it's based on creativity and creation of value. And not on just efficiency and numbers. Cuz there, AI has the advantage. For this, the education-system has to change. And the values of the education-system have to change. We have to start valuing creativity more in the education-system. Exams have to change, grading has to change. And teaching has to change. This AI-apocalypse will be a huge failure for the human education-system. This is what humans get for having an education-system that gives points for memorizing and regurgitating an official narrative. This is not the strength of humans. And when AI really shows up, this will be shown. Cuz AI will simply do a better job of it.

India was never a democracy. There was rampant corruption. Tax-money evaporating into thin air, politicians getting filthy rich off of taxpayer-money. And them using a single-point percentage of that money for development. And, nothing would get done, of course. There is corruption at every level of the government here. With Modi, at least, things are getting done. You can't really solve the corruption-problem overnight. But, if people get something for what they're putting in, they're more empowered and resilient. Conversations about long-standing gridlocked issues are happening now, at least, thanks to him. Because he's stepping to the forefront and getting shit done.

As a guy, what I can tell you is that being adored is much better than being the adorer. Being the adorer is conditioning from movies that's unnatural. It's an immature phase you go through when you're young, where women seem like these unattainable goddess-like beings. Because of which you screw up in your decisions of who you go for. Then, you learn and you get wiser. Then, you go through another 'b*tches ain't shit' phase. Which is also immature. Then, when you meet compatible women, you develop a discernment in terms of the right women for you. And then you make mature decisions with women. Do you honestly think that the 'adorers' 'adore' the one woman they 'adore' for good reasons?! Or, is the reality that they're young, they lack life-experience and if they knew what's out there, they would change their minds immediately?!

LOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL. That is very funny. You're trolling, right?!

Knowledge about health and healing is fundamental to feminine power. If she's not disciplined with her diet, you're looking at bigger relationship-issues that you need to fix. You should look at what trauma she's coping with and help her heal that first. Then, if she sees something about healing-work that appeals to her, she will make that her priority. Cuz that's where her power lies. It's fine to know that you should 'support her'. I think that this is what it will practically look like to 'support her'!

Yes, it is true that women on dating-apps are broken. A dating-app is an app on which people are judged by their looks. Now, for a man, this is very good, because he gets to see a picture and make a decision. But, this is not so good for a woman. A high-quality woman will not put herself up for objectification by all the single guys around her. She will choose different avenues to meet men. You are dealing with women that are at the bottom of the barrel on dating-apps. So, if you get some success there, don't pat yourself on the back too much. And if you fail there, don't beat yourself up too much. Dating-app results are not to be taken personally. Because your decision is made just by looking at a picture.

There is one thing that religious people and conservatives get right. It is that if there are societal norms/trends, kids should be educated about them. Science takes it one step too far and turns it into dogma. But, if being cis-hetero is the norm and if that's the reason families have the structure they do, kids should know about this. And this is more important than LGBT-awareness, quite frankly, from collective perspective. Meaning, if we had to choose between the two, the option that's for your culture/collective is the one that educates children about the fact that being cis-hetero is the norm. I know, it sucks to be LGBT in a heteronormative environment, but that's the hand you're dealt. I think that if the progressives acknowledge and admit to this much, right-wingers will give them whatever they want.

There was a video of Rogan admitting that he will say anything he has to in order to get rich and famous. And, Brand pushed the idea of the New World Order. I can't recall links off the top of my head. It's just my two cents.

I don't see the issue with being anti-establishment. Why is it so threatening to pro-establishment people, if they're so strong? And if the establishment is so strong and morally righteous and good. Maybe it's not that strong...? Maybe it's a house of cards. And by the way, Brand and Rogan will not have intelligent critiques of the establishment, because they're controlled opposition. They will embody strawmans of anti-establishment rhetoric.