eos_nyxia

Member
  • Content count

    615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eos_nyxia

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

8,229 profile views
  1. @Jannes Great perspective, you can't coerce, "should", guilt or shame someone into wanting to live. Not truly and authentically. Platitudes and trying to enforce positive thinking onto someone is just not an effective strategy.
  2. Complete derailment of the topic: I thought the lady on the top left still was Gina Rodriguez (an actress) without the glam, and got hella confused.
  3. It looks like this is not officially available in Canada?
  4. Are people still coming to this type of conclusion based on reading "The Singularly is Near"? (Or something adjacent and well-known that's more recent) IDK, I feel like it takes a special type of human to truly, completely, and unironically commit to the transhuman philosophy and techno-utopianism, to believe that problems of inner self-image and management plus the cure to all our existential woes will be wholly resolved and released from yet another form of externalization. This most often seems to be what's at the heart of the spirit of techno-utopianism... though arguably, -true believers- believe in the spirit of the machine in their own way. It's actually not so far from religious/ spiritual fervour. There is an extreme, childlike naivety to this tendency though. As for everyone else, I get the sense that they grew up watching too much sci-fi and cyberpunk media: whether it's books, movies, tv shows, etc. It's good to think about WHY certain cultural narratives are either chronically dystopian or utopian, and what that says about yourself and your culture, and not to look for the truth of the future in these narratives, when it is near-impossible to focus with eyes-wide-open because you can only see what is projected from the emotional root of said narratives. Though if there was a use, this would be more on par, prob: We've barely explored the capacities of the human mind unaided though, for what it's worth. At times, technology has been a huge, unavoidable distraction. We'll never get the best of our selves through directly via externalization technologies and processes, and therefore are limiting what is possible with technology because of said limitations in our beingness.
  5. Is there actually any major culture where this isn't crammed down young girls' and women's throats? Without even necessarily being super direct about it with words, though some cultures and places are super direct about it, still... the message is read loudly and clearly. It's evident enough through people's actions and what is sexualized most easily and availably in culture and media. Alternative cultures and reactionary cultures are just that. Anyone who has read a book involving history or folklore from the past (including fairy tales) or grew up watching Disney movies surely will have gotten the message on one level or another. Try even younger than 30 or 25 in mainland East Asian culture, though maybe it's shifted somewhat. Like my mom is Chinese, "18" is THE age, and East Asian people look young by a lot of other culture's standards too, lol. Though...whatever women might hypothetically have to gain materially and from """high value men""" from that type of thinking is paid back many times in the form of self-hating brainwashing and displacing yourself from your own sovereignty. Like literally... you have to live with yourself either way, and then be in denial most of the time in order to live somewhat peacefully with yourself. Whether you win materially, or you don't. It's an actual lose-lose situation for women. You still have the rest of your life to live... why bother disowning yourself? What did you expect? Living with the cope sprinkles itself freely across all genders and all cultures... I'm sure some would just agree with you and call it a day though.
  6. Always on the money. Add to that list all the other things a man could use a woman for. I'd also add to that list: men who are not emotionally present or who literally do not show up in other ways. Like if they want to be there, they will be THERE. You will be their priority. Everything else is just excuses. And for myself, as much as my teenaged self was rough around the edges emotionally, I always had deadly accurate instincts about who was serious, and how much, and intuitively, what the conditions were. Violating my own intuition and instincts about men came at my own absolute peril.
  7. Yes, that's generally how it goes. You've dealt with all the nuts and bolts of the English language which native speakers take for granted. Likewise, I find that I'm usually way more efficient and direct when I've written in other languages because it's far easier to ensure clarity and general grammatical correctness when you keep things simple. And it's easier to train yourself to write and think simply and directly than it is to account for the number of mistakes you could be making in a foreign language when you make things convoluted. In English, I have the privilege to get away with being as sloppy as shit if I want to be, and still know if it literally means what I intend it to mean and generally falls within the range of acceptable usage and grammar. Though this is done on my own time and terms, obviously. Yes. Communication is generally a compromise of sorts, or meeting people part way. Give or take. There are varying connotations to specific words, many of which are highly context-sensitive. Generally speaking, most of the words you pull out of a thesaurus are not viable at all for specific use, if you consider both literal accuracy and style. Or you can use them and they'll be technically correct by the base dictionary definition of the word, but it will be off to anyone who has any sense of nuance in their native language. Let's just say as an example, often I find words in the thesaurus that have about 30-50% viability in both accuracy and stylistic feel (if I were to quantify something which most often has a moderate degree of subjective interpretation), so I would never select them for specific uses. There are often words that are very simple and broad in their connotations, and there are many words which are much more specific and nuanced in their use. Usually, it's harder to use these less direct and simple words well, and many people consider it stylistically superfluous anyway. So it's not like you're alone with preferring simple, direct language. Really, at a certain point, it's an individual judgment call about "good taste" and communicability. This is the stuff that's often out of reach for non-native speakers unless you spend a ton of time studying and using words in specific contexts: for example, scientific language, editorial language, languages specific to one academic field or another. Word creatives such as novelists, especially the more experimental variety, often have a more novel approach to language and the context (the creative medium) and the reader is expected to adjust their expectations, to a degree. Just like how poetry has different rules and conventions that don't apply to plain English. Some people write the way they do to keep outsiders out. It's a human thing.
  8. You're looking at neurotypical/ mainstream dating places. You're not neurotypical. The odds are extremely stacked against you in your environment. ANY woman? Please. There is no such thing as someone who is good for everyone. This is a fantasy. You're not dating women as a whole category, you're dating individuals who may or may not have various things in common. This is how it's supposed to go; we sever connections with people when our goals are not fundamentally aligned. IMO it's better to get this thing out in the open ASAP and not be sneaky about it so people don't waste their time and energy. The truth is that a lot of people either do not care about these things, or it does not translate into something valued by the other person in and of itself.
  9. Why are you zeroing in on the most dysfunctional, visible dynamics? There's some element of trauma involved in that... why focus straight on the lowest common denominator? Strength of character gives one the power to choose be vulnerable in a way that's meaningful to people. Generally, that's what's attractive. Maybe "most women" and neuronormals are not your type? If I had to do conventional online dating, I'd probably never have dated at all, lol. It's not for everyone. It's cold, superficial, and impersonal by the nature of it.
  10. Yikes. Isn't it better for women to be alone and at least have some kind of peace of mind rather than to settle for someone so clearly settling for you? (Which again goes against RP rhetoric which acts like a bad relationship for women is better than no relationship at all. But then again, who are they fooling except for the very young, naive, and insecure?) How utterly dehumanizing though. But then, dehumanizers dehumanize themselves first.
  11. Out of the many things I could point out in this thread, not all women who look conventionally attractive are showy extroverts, you know. (And some who are, are masking or constantly putting on a performance.) Though maybe that's what people's eyes often gravitate toward; it's understandable. Late bloomers are a thing too. Not everyone actually peaks in high school or college, man or woman. (Despite RP cope propaganda lol.)
  12. I can't believe anyone here remembers all of this. What a trainwreck that was. A lot of the original people who were here either got booted or left of their own accord anyway.
  13. Both Jesus and the Buddha are very... mid-tier? They got the name, the image, and the reputation... that's it. There's probably at least 1000 nameless who do not parade around advertising themselves, who know how to not be seen, as their chosen purpose isn't to ""help people"" IRL, where you'd have to nerf yourself anyway. It's barely worth it. Not to mention that both of them were very much capped by the time periods that they were living in. More powerful, more perceptive, more radiant examples of human beings existed going back in time, also mostly nameless.
  14. Personally, I think this is acceptable as "thriftiness" rather than "cheapness" (the latter being a generosity issue). I grew up with thrifty parents, and it's something I'm more likely to suggest rather than my husband, lol. Not a big deal. Here is another issue. If he's not going to help you, is he at least going to explain how to do something "properly" in a non-condescending way? (Probably not, if he was going out of your way to criticize you for something which I assume has no real net-negative.) So then... he's just a critical person because he is. Is this good enough for you? Clearly, you can see that all dudes are this non-generous. Even if it's just helping some random woman with no likely direct benefit. Hell, I open the door for random people all the time. Men, elders, children, etc. Just curious, what are his best points, from your perspective?