gambler

The ego on some modern day women has been inflated in my perception. Not all modern day women are insufferable. Probably most aren't. I regret using hyperbole.

Okay. I refuse to look at any gender as a collective when it comes to viewing them as a tribe. At that point, I disagree and hence, am interested in individuals instead. For instance, just because I'm a man doesn't make men my in-group. Outside of making them into a tribe and then praising them as a collective who somehow might have more in common with one another than people outside their "group", there is still something useful in generalizing people off gender. Like you can say women care about their looks. Men care about strength. Western woman care about freedom. Middle Eastern men care about honor. Etc.

My point exactly. That's why I won't.

Women are not amazing gifts. Neither are men. Neither are white people. Nor black people. Or any people in between. There are only good individuals. Amazing individuals. These people are the gifts. So as a man, when it comes to females, the only amazing gifts are my aunties, my mommy, my cousins, etc. Just like my uncles, my pops, my cousins, etc. I refuse to look at a gender as if they are a collective. They are not. My mom for instance has nothing to do with any woman on here. As if a middle eastern ultra-conservative mom has anything shared with any female here. She has more in common with me, she forms my in-group. So no, I don't agree with internalizing this mantra. And I'll resist looking at any collective that way. This is fetishization, and a form of worship. No thanks, I don't want that bias within me anymore. God forbid I play my role in inflating the already insufferable ego's of the modern day woman.

Of course. Everyone is drunk.

I have been to one. The atmosphere is off the chains. It's bananas. Best event I've ever been to, I highly recommend man. I wish I could attend all events to be honest. It's really that good.

dani-o, spaghetti-o, off the flow, here we go, not your average joe, still unknown, I got a ways to go. before I blow, please let them know, that I'm spiritual, looking to know, what's underneath it all, or I might just, uncover nothing at all, I'm off the wall, I was born to fall, if I fall, sit me back on the wall, I'm humpty dumpty, I cant even pretend, I wont be whole again, I resent the king's men, when's my turn, to be the kingpin? ruining lives, that's when I'm alive, danio's my guy, let's go outside, kill em on the inside, overtake their side, leave em with a couple of knives, bleeding, seething, i hate them like they heathen, got a body without a heart, i'm heartless, chain this, with darkness, if you find me at the end of your path, I'll swallow you whole like the Loch Ness, im about this, believe me, it's easy, i was born a hot head, like a volcano, in fiji, wipe you up like a squeegee, vouched by danio, my oh-gee, and im the knees of the bees, the king of the fleas, the arbitrator of me's, death to all my enemies, spawn me some mini-me's, recognize my seeds, in the face of our swords, flat on their spinal cords, executed in the cold, as it was foretold, in my humble abode, harmonized with every note, I'm the fawking goat, and I'll gloat, till they choke, but until then, like a feminist, screw these men, transcend your zen, leave me under the tent, shepherd's path, heaven sent, so praises to the most High, until the day I die, and forever more after, you know I'm that guy.

You don't resonate with western sexuality and that's fine. If your baseline is something that is more akin to asexuality, then so be it. You don't need to corrupt that baseline since it's actually a blessing. You have the ability to not be possessed by primal urges and there's a lot of benefit to that. For one, if I was a female looking for a monogamous relationship, I would trust and bet on you. This is good. The people saying this is judgment, and therefore a negative thing to espouse, aren't saying anything. Don't conform and be like everyone else. Preserve your gift. Also it's not a matter of control, I know where you're coming from. You have a baseline sex drive that you can fall back on if you choose to.

I agree but it can't always be the fault of the man. Anyways, this is all under the assumption that it's true that people mostly think it's the man who is the reason for a divorce.

Maybe we feel sorry for the woman because they invoke in us the same emotions as when we look upon a child. Children look innocent because of their soft features. Woman too, have soft features. So we have this bias that they are innocent little angels. And obviously, the elephant in the room is feminist training. It's so ingrained in our society and culture that I don't even know how to step out of the brainwashing and unpack it. Which nevertheless has made us feel like we are bias if we have compassion for men and their problems. Thing is, it was probably true when the west was traditional that a lot of men abused their role when it came to their wives. And I guess, we still haven't realized we are no longer in those times, so to approach it with this same preconceived belief is underwhelming to say the least.

hardstuck stage blue so beautiful and true they never gave you a fair shake wont understand that youre great dignified and ennobled us the endower of honor and plus without you its just misery with the guards down deceived, on some witchery prone to shame cant fool me again gotta find you again my sweet baby blue let me have a child with you let me have a child with you oh lord please, let me have a child with blue.

trump loves porn

So to my understanding, Peterson would have a problem with gigantism if the Catholic church were to reach that point again. I mean he is a classical liberal, and has bemoaned many times the lack of division of political power and religion when it comes to Islamic governance. He is for the separation of church and state. So I don't understand this point. I feel like Peterson should've just said, yea gigantism when it comes to the church would be a problem too. Instead what he was seemingly alluding to was that the state of the church today, and tomorrow, doesn't hold that level of power anymore. And he is right on that. But that doesn't mean that Peterson is pro gigantism when it comes to the church and anti gigantism when it comes to other institutions. The gigantism of the Catholic church was problematic and hence why the separation of church and state happened. The example of the catholic church ironically bolsters his argument against gigantism.

Going to the gym would boost my mood. It was beneficial to my mental health. Improving your health feels productive. And it was more fun than shooting a basketball all by yourself which is fun to do too. So it's was a great pastime for me. Again, can't emphasize just how much my health improved from lifting weights. But, initially, I got into weight lifting because I was insecure about my body. I have Klinefelter syndrome, so after puberty I was left with a feminine body, with breasts and an hour glass figure to be specific. As a man, this isn't something that you want. But weight lifting made my body look much more masculine, and I'm forever grateful to lady iron for helping me out.

I can't get her to go anti-clock wise for the life of me

Well said.

"Beta men" have no backbone. This is why other men in general dislike them. They maintain the status quo that men need to conform to the women. And if you deviate from this prescribed mold, then you are insecure, not a real man, a weak man, and so on and so forth. There is this invisible pressure to accept a woman for who she is, whereas men cannot demand the same but instead need to change and accommodate the woman, and "beta men" perpetuate this gender imbalance. Furthermore, the "beta male" reinforces gender expectations that dictate that men need to be submissive or passive to please the woman. Yet when it's the other way around, this is seen as sexist and misogynistic. The "beta male" believes he is secure since he feels he does not need to assert any needs or desires. A women however, is allowed to be confident and assert her desires. Therefore the "beta male" perpetuates a dynamic where women can be vocal and assertive in this regard, whereas men need to prioritize a women's desires or even withhold their own; reinforcing the idea that the woman naturally has precedence. This dynamic also makes it where men are more likely to be afraid or hesitant to voice their preferences or opinions, especially to the contrary. The "beta male" also reinforces the idea that men should derive fulfilment from how well they acclimate to a woman's desires before their own intrinsic set of values. The "beta male" does not care for what men inherently value, only women. Seemingly, the "beta male" reduces the concept of masculinity to how well a man can cater to a woman. (a shoutout to chatgpt for helping me articulate this).

lmfao. omg man, that was a good one

True, a person stuck in dogma is delusional. I guess when I think of dogma, I think of deeply held principles that can be, but not always, associated with anxiety if challenged. I don't know that if Saddam was truly challenged that he would feel anxiety from the thought that his assumptions are in fact false. I think rather than operating from a set of principles, he was just operating from a false belief of his own greatness or skills. I don't know. This is how I interpret language and use of words. Maybe I'm wrong. And I could also be wrong about Saddam too.

Edit: don't care to carry on the conversation anymore. edited out my reply as a result.

Yes I used the word ancestor so I know that you have an ancestor somewhere down the line who was from there. I don't know why you repeated what I wrote. And it was one of your ancestors' homeland, it wasn't yours to return to. You were never there during the exile.

I don't think Saddam's problem stemmed from being a dogmatic person. He was a psychopath who wanted to be worshipped as a God. Is there any chance you might be mistaking incompetence and detachment for dogma? While it could be seen as him being rigid, it's probably that he was just incompetent due to being outdated and detached from reality in part because of his delusions of grandeur. He was more a delusional person rather than a dogmatic person.

The indigenousness of a population shouldn't even matter realistically-speaking. It's absurd that after 2000 years people can lay 'claim' to the past and hold others hostage to it. It's ancient history. Like what's more absurd than that?

Who is we? You are not your ancestor. You did not get kicked out by anyone, you weren't even born yet.

this is the dumbest shit i've read all week