mr_engineer

If you're selling chocolate, yeah. You have to appeal to a lot of people. This is just not the case in dating! You have to appeal to one or maybe a handful of people. And, chocolate is a very simple product with one job - to sweeten your tastebuds. People are complicated and they have complicated roles in each other's lives. Making things work is just tricky even with the right person.

Compatibility-screening is not common knowledge, actually. Cuz most people don't know who they are or what they want. The way most people enter and exit relationships is based on feelings. In a world of such ignorance relative to relationships, redpill attempts to commodify people and paint them in a broad brush. And PUAs are mostly focused on sleeping with whoever they're sexually attracted to, without really knowing why they're attracted to that specific person to begin with! Then, things don't work and they ascribe that to 'bad game'. When, the reality is that because they're objectifying women, they don't get that different women are different individuals and you have to screen for compatibility if you want to make something work.

That's like asking me to define 'health'. No description of 'health' will do it justice. You can't really define 'health'. What you can do, is define 'disease'. And, define 'health' as the absence of disease! A similar logic can be applied to this talk about compatibility. You can identify and change your dating-strategy based on your understanding of who's incompatible and why. You can directly look at compatibility-issues and solve them by knowing the kind of person to go for in the next relationship. Now, will that person turn out to be 100% compatible? You don't really know. In fact, there really is no such thing as perfect compatibility, like there is no such thing as perfect health.

And advertisers will respond to the Karens the most. Cuz they want to please the public. So, it does boil down to the lowest common denominator of snowflake if Twitter doesn't have free speech, right?!

@Leo Gura Here's the thing, though - 'hate-speech' can be subjectively defined. And who gets to define that? Is it the lowest common denominator of snowflake who defines 'hate-speech'?

Depends on what you want. That's how your standards for 'good game' get defined. If what you want is love, sleeping with hundreds of hot narcissistic women doesn't count towards that end. You may develop bad habits in this process that hinder this goal of yours! But, finding and connecting with women who want connection, can.

@Tyler Robinson There are countless types of incompatibilities. A really fundamental one is the incompatibility in love-languages. I think this is something that PUAs grossly overlook when they're 'developing their game'.

@Tyler Robinson The main point I was trying to debunk was the idea of 'hypergamy'. That people aren't commodities that can be arranged in a hierarchy of low-value to high-value. And that compatibility plays a huge role in it. The point of me talking about this is that there are countless insecure young men struggling with pick-up not because their game is bad, but because their childhood-traumas are making them attracted to incompatible women. And redpill whitewashes this issue and makes everything a whole lot harder for men.

@something_else You were asking me what results I care about, right? The result I care about is, having better game. Through gaining a better understanding of women and what they want. That's what my opinions are geared towards. You can have 'dating-experience', slept with hundreds of women and still suck with women. You can be someone without 'dating-experience', so to speak (what if I don't want to follow your dating-norms, by the way) and still be good with women! And you are not entitled to proof from me. I don't care how much it annoys you. You don't get to invalidate my personal experiences. Is that clear?! @Tyler Robinson

It sees dating as a 'marketplace'. Which is fundamentally wrong. Because it commodifies people. This makes people disposable. And just one more option on a dating-app. And it feeds into people's egocentric view of 'other people being there to satisfy our needs'. This is a problem for making relationships work. Cuz to truly have a loving relationship, you can't be in your ego. Both sides have to be willing to set aside their own ego and focus on making the relationship itself work.

@something_else And, you people think you have a lot of results. You really don't. Not the ones I value. Checkmate.

I have 'deep connection'. We're talking about a theory here. Not 'achieving results'. The priority is the truth here, not 'results'. Whatever little experience I have, contradicts your opinions that come from a lot of experience, but very little observation. If you're right about redpill, this should not be happening. Just so you know.

You personally attack me again and I will report you. Learn the difference between a person and their opinion. There is such a thing as learning from observation. You don't have to burn your hand to know that fire is hot.

If you don't tell me which specific point you disagree with, you're trolling. Don't come here and tell me I have no experience with women. I do. Just not the kind that fits your bill. I don't play by your rules. And here are my opinions. Take it or leave it.

And, don't take away people's right to have opinions just because they don't have your definition of results. I have my definition of results. They're just not that materialistic.

I'm not presenting myself as an authority on anything. And, I have 'spoken to women'. I know what they want. I'm just not there yet. Redpill is very easy to debunk. The theory itself is BS. Talk to women, you'll find out.

Don't make this personal.

Which woman told you that you are disposable?! Cuz this is not the kind of rhetoric women have, as far as I can tell. Not directly, at least. I have 'spoken to women in the flesh' and they have shown me the opposite truth. Try being vulnerable in a circle where it's actually appropriate. Yes, they exist. There you'll see the real deal!

IDing people on social-media defeats the purpose of protecting them from getting cancelled, actually. Because they are the same authorities imposing the rules that make cancellation toxic! And, of course, this is not going to have freedom of speech be a thing on social-media. Cuz cancel-culture actually works for them. If it didn't, they would've done something about it. But, it does. It does help the authority's position when Karen comes to them with a complaint. It gives them more work!! The real solution is for Karens to take responsibility for solving the problems they blame others for. To see not just the one racist person, but racism as a whole. To detach themselves from this issue/cause itself and to focus on actual solutions. This is the message that Karens need to hear, mainly. And, if you want to do your Karen-thing, don't talk in terms of statements, such as 'That's racist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.' and instead to talk in terms of questions, in which you're actually exploring the other person's perspective. You would have to disidentify from your idealistic morality, though, to do that.

A point about the critique of libertarianism - the reasons the anti-freedom people are saying that freedom is bad, is because they look at other anti-freedom people abusing freedom! When you abuse your freedom, you are anti-freedom. You cannot truly be pro-freedom until the day you are ready for all of its ramifications. Until that day, don't claim to understand libertarianism, cuz you don't. The first step to seeing this, is to see that criminals are also human beings. With opinions. And those opinions matter and they shape a lot of our society. A lot of our policing and governing. And that criminals are not pro-freedom! They want their own freedom and not other people's freedom, cuz they're low in consciousness. Whereas the actual libertarians want freedom for everyone and then, let the chips fall where they may. Cuz they truly believe that in the final battle, the good side will win. Whereas, the anti-freedom people believe that the bad side will win. That's the difference.

In theory, you are right. But, in practice, the people doing the cancelling aren't doing it as an expression of their own freedom. Because that would be hypocritical! What they're actively pushing for is a suppression of freedom of others. The height of selfishness is to say 'Freedom is bad, it's dumb, freedumb, blah blah blah' when you're for cancel-culture because you want to cancel Donald Trump, but when you're the target of cancellation because you propagated cancel-culture, to cry about your own freedom to cancel others. You lose the right to play the freedom card yourself when you're for cancel-culture. You are fundamentally anti-freedom. And then, when you play the freedom-card when it serves you, it is despicable. It shows an utter lack of principles, that you're not willing to respect other people's freedom, only other people should respect your own! You are the butt of the criticism of those who criticize libertarianism, when you play your freedom-card in this context. The point of playing the freedom-card is to free yourself and to help others escape from enslavement. It's not to defend hypocrisy. The way I see the people for cancel-culture, is that they are traitors to humanity. Snitches, essentially. Useful idiots who think they're morally self-righteous and have the right to take justice into their own hands. The Karen-meme fits that bill very neatly.

Do you people have any idea what's going on in right-wing media cuz of this censorship?! They're calling this a 'communist takeover'. That played out during and after COVID. And if this keeps going, it won't be long before some of them will declare revolution. If you guys care so much about 'right-wing extremism and violence', own your responsibility in creating that. You can't just keep living in your little bubble of la-la land and expect that it will never be broken if you don't look outside of it. Having free-speech is so important to solve the problem of echo-chambers. You guys can call them 'safe-spaces' if you want, but that's what they really are. Echo-chambers.

Banning dissenting opinions is one of the weakest, most pathetic, most cowardly b*tch-moves I've ever seen. It's the move of someone who can't have a civil debate, so we storm out of the room. And we don't admit to the way we've abused the public. In fact, this is the only way they get to stay in their little bubble of la-la land, where everything's perfect. The lockdowns are perfect, the jab-enforcements are perfect, the sanctions are perfect, the wars are perfect. The moment they let in public opinion, their voice (rightfully so) gets drowned out! There is a section of people that is particularly furious about the social-media censorship. Censorship of people losing their jobs/businesses cuz of the lockdowns, losing their lives cuz of the jab, Ukrainian soldiers complaining about the bad American gear, the drowning out of the big protests in Europe against climate-change moves, etc. And if Elon didn't make the free-speech move, even if only in name, something bad would've happened.

About this whole 'hate-speech' thing - we like to believe that our side isn't engaging in hate-speech. That 'it's only the other side that does this, we never do it'. By this point, it's very obvious to me that the mainstream hates the straight, cis, white guy. Will Leftist Twitter ban the haters of this group? No! We like to be 'against hate-speech', but we will apply that selectively. The worst problem with the Left right now, is that they're making 'freedom' a bad word. And compliance and blind obedience and submission to authority, a good thing. That's 'socialism' in a nutshell, essentially. Use the government to do everything. And 'free speech' is a very bad thing! How will we get a word in if you get to speak?! So, what we have to do, is silence you. (Because we're full of shit. And when the truth has its day, our bullshit gets drowned out. Bad for us.) This prevents a civil, level-headed discourse relative to social-issues. And it furthers the separation between the Left and the Right. Favoring the elites, of course. Cuz their job hinges on you being divided. If the world becomes peaceful and free, government isn't needed anymore!! Authority isn't needed anymore.

Or, they could deliberately push hate-speech to make free speech sound like a bad thing. To censor people further so that in future agendas, more NPCs will oppose free speech. And they can silence legitimate dissent that way. Twitter was already pretty bad with the censorship.