numbersinarow

Slowly I realize I'm above normies, so I don't care to wonder.

It's surely very interesting why people like Tesla and Turing are practically superhuman compared to others. Why isn't the average person a genius? If they became that, why not an extraordinary genius? I get that you're pointing to a real life example and we can't point to a real life example of someone being above an extraordinary genius, but obviously it would still be possible for nature to make better things than extraordinary geniuses. We don't know enough about evolution to give a truly satisfying answer to this question.

Does a female just want sex, love and everything that comes with attention from the male she is with? No, she also wants to torture other males by letting them know that they are fundamentally unable to get her, no matter how superior they become. It is the most natural extension imaginable that some females become cult leaders who can apparently do no wrong. Even if they stalk and harass men who they believe to have autism or are emotionally vulnerable in some way (because they think those are the easiest people to make commit suicide) their followers will justify the behavior.

The alternative is verbal aggression, the saddest and most pitiful form of it, which you will constantly observe in Christians, Self-help zombies, non-dualist fundamentalists and especially females.

I submit that egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul, I mean the unalterable belief that to a being such as "we," other beings must naturally be in subjection, and have to sacrifice themselves. The noble soul accepts the fact of his egoism without question, and also without consciousness of harshness, constraint, or arbitrariness therein, but rather as something that may have its basis in the primary law of things:—if he sought a designation for it he would say: "It is justice itself." - Nietzsche

Whether a theory works in practice or not takes intelligence to understand. China = authoritarian capitalism. Pointing to North Korea which is literally not meant to "develop" in the way that we're talking about, but is meant to just bring the good to the people at the top, is not actually an example of why marxism failed. North Korea is not marxist in the first place by any stretch of the imagination, even if you can argue that there are elements of marxism in it. What about the Soviet Union, which skyrocketed immensely due to marxism? (Good implementation or not.) Feudalism was actually way more stable than capitalism is right now in the US, does that mean that capitalists should question their worldview based on this? Not in general, I'm saying based on this. And the answer is no, we don't actually know anything based on just the fact that feudalism was more stable. Why is "Communism failed so we shouldn't try." a bad argument? It's far from just the fact that it's pointing to authoritarian communism to say anarcho communism will fail. So now we can see flaws in saying "There's serious internal problems with marxism." by seeing the flaws in that argument. What failed in the past doesn't have to fail in the future. It really, really wasn't true marxism. And I'm not a marxist but I easily concede this. It failed due to the authoritarian people and regimes around it, not because of itself. There can be libertarianism with elements of marxism. So if someone understands, easily and rightfully, that "Communism failed when it was tried so it's bad." is a bad argument, which is honestly obvious, then we can see that "problems with the implementation of a theory" don't exist in general.

The core reason why you think everything you know being destroyed, including your life, is so scary, is because after all humans are destroyed, there will be no veil left, there will be only the thing that lies just behind maya, and it's more powerful and scarier than anything you can imagine. There might be aliens, but the part of the universe that humans inhabited will collapse fully. Nuclear war, obviously, would just destroy america, europe and russia, not all of humanity. But it would be close enough for you to feel the primal fear of the entity pulling the strings of humanity. How do I know this entity exists? Supernatural experiments and occurrences which can't be explained by siddhis. When someone who is 175 on the hawkins scale and is spiral dynamics stage red is confirmed to have supernatural luck (You yourself shouldn't have that much trouble finding examples of this if you know what to look for.), we know there is much more to supernatural occurrences than any religion, any spiritual teacher, any esoteric or occult tradition has ever let on.

You really shouldn't respect mr emerald mine tho.

"Not being able to get along with people in the same platform shows you are a huge ego who only cares about power." - Guy using the word "naive" for the millionth time on his own forum and making passive aggressive comments towards people with a differing view for the millionth time.

I can't get behind this because why would someone change a universal rule because "Well now this side has gotten worse, so now I'm taking sides and breaking a universal rule." And what precisely is the circumstance which means that we need an immediate bucket, and not analysis? Trump is the best example of this mentality. "Hamas wants peace and Israel wants to keep going." Just a complete detachment from the context of the fact that Hamas is explicitly genocidal and that Gazans salute Hitler. A complete detachment from the fact that Hamas wants to manipulate the public image because that's the #1 point of terrorism. And this ultimately amounts to saying that a certain race of people or a certain country shouldn't be able to defend itself, or at the very least deserves to be more shamed for minor moral failings during it's defense, than people who throw LGBTQ members off buildings or salute hitler. All 3 of these attitudes are below SD tier 2. They'd all qualify for examples of how stage blue thinks.

What Harris says is blue. Timestamped.

We went from this to "There is a conflict and Israel has to admit they are wrong."

https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1843309335155196209

Unless you want to become one of the biggest utilitarian heroes in human history? Did you come to this conclusion on your own or did the mainstream, popular understanding of "morality" and your parents extremely, extremely influence your decision to say this?

Wish I could relate, but all I do is observe the most alienating opportunity-less world imaginable.

"So you have to be insane to think a muslim adult in the west is harmless?" That's outside of the context of war.

The problem is, when you bring the context of "Israel is based on genocide and ethnic cleansing and this is denied by it's supporters." but not the context of "Literally the entire Islamic world believes in a holy book which tells them they go to heaven if they kill infidels. Most of the civilians in Gaza support what Hamas did, in between freely choosing to salute Hitler. Leftists will go ahead and overlook this while harping on the most minor of moral failings on Israel's part." When watching a video by someone like GoodEmpanada, ask yourself "Is he actually covering the response of the adults on the other side, or just talking about the only side that is required to accept the reality on the ground?" Bonus: If someone claims a military age man who believes in a totalitarian holy book is harmless, that person is either nuts or a grifter.

The life of a small town Japanese incel, not experiencing anything good out of life, no future, no prospects, health problems, the only thing approximating a female mate being stopping a girl on the street to ask her to be your gf which would lead to humiliation and arrest.

Wow... Try to re-read my comment and see how it relates to Leo's comment over and over until you get it.

This is the most valueless comment I've seen on any forum. Re-read what I've said in relation to what Leo has said. Pretending that I need to be hyper-specific in order to make more of a statement than what I have is insane and could be done to literally any statement at all. What is more true is that we tend to experience our own beliefs and convictions? How about no, because you can experience what is true for everyone and know what is true for everyone, so I'm going to completely drag out a conversation trying to make you clarify what you mean. No offense but I can't stop myself from wondering what happened to make a presumably previously healthy mind to turn this hostile and have this many problems with men. The perfect example of what I am talking about. Can't argue? Just spout generic NPC nonsense at someone interpreting something in the only way that a sane human would.

Imagine someone turning that around and saying "Women who get physically hurt by men are weak." "Domestic abuse victims are weak." "Rape victims are weak."

You just admitted women do use them, and considering how generalized my claim was, anyone can see that even a strong opponent could be tricked by these tactics. Using these tactics, or, what is the focus of discussion AKA having double standards, is on the other hand most certainly a surefire sign of personal weakness.

The decisive moment: How will Putin and Xi react?

My claim: To successfully use these tactics, you have to be cold and calculating.

Females have evolved to work around the emotions of men and have their own strategies that don't evolve being as blunt or being as physical. To successfully use these tactics, you have to be cold and calculating. Emotions must come into play there as little as possible, maybe even not at all. It's not that they're the emotional one and you're pushing their buttons to get something, it's that you're dealing with a cold and incredibly calculated system of discrimination, in which the other party is fully aware that their supply is rare and that your level of demand for it is high.