Emerald

No. Just start socializing in groups with men and women in them. (school, hobby groups, or any other place that you frequent) Make friends and acquaintances with the men and the women in the group. And over time, if you are authentic, a small but sizable percentage of women in the group will be interested in you.... and you can spark up something when you sense chemistry.

There are many issues that could lead to this... the most of which is probably having to do with many social interactions (including dating) happening online. And that just doesn't allow for real organic connection to form over time. But one thing that holds people back from finding a partner is what I call "checkbox mentality." It's like trying to choose partners with your mind so that the person has to have all the qualities on the list. And it over-intellectualizes the entire process, which is heart-centered when it's done correctly. But even if they do find someone who checks off every box on their list, that isn't the thing that enables connection. Connection comes from the heart and from a deepening of intimacy. It's about getting out the mind and into the body. A person who can do that and develop deep intimacy with friends and partners will have a much much easier time finding a partner. Also, a person who does most of their dating in person (and not on dating apps) will be able to develop this intimacy much more easily.

Thank you! I have a YouTube channel and I've been making videos for 10 years. So, that probably has something to do with it. But I don't think that future generations will look back at meat eaters in the same light as slave owners. There might carry some stigma once society switches to lab meat and adopts a Vegan philosophy, but nowhere near on the same level as the stigma towards slave owners... as meat-eating is a more indirect evil. Plus, animals will NEVER be able to speak out about past mistreatment in the way that marginalized human groups can. So, I doubt that the taboo against eating meat in a hypothetical future post-factory-farming world would ever grow very strong, as animals can't call us out on our bs. Also eating meat and dairy isn't exactly analogous to owning slaves... as the former is a more passive consumption and the violence happens inside factory farms that the consumer never needs to think of, while slave ownership must use an active threat of violence to maintain an ever-present power imbalance day in and day out. Eating meat and dairy today is more equivalent to purchasing products from companies that employ human slaves back then... and like we still do with buying clothing from sweatshops. To make it truly analogous, owning a personal farm and slaughtering one's own animals for personal consumption OR owning a factory farm that slaughters animals for profit would be what's actually analogous to slave ownership. And most meat eaters don't slaughter the animals themselves. They just give their money to companies that slaughter animals. So, in the same way that people who purchased items from companies that employed slaves aren't highly stigmatized in the way slave owners are... I don't think people who purchase animal products will be stigmatized but that family farm and factory farm owners will be.

In case there was any confusion, I'm not an atheist. But ethics isn't specifically the domain of religious people. There can be atheists that operate very ethically. And there can be religious people who operate unethically. So, the intellectual belief in God is ethically neutral... even if morality tends to be a component within religious schools of thought. But ethics is a consideration that every single person must make to stay in integrity with their own ethical compass. And those who don't consider the question of ethics will inevitably breech their own ethical boundaries. And this makes them have to hide these boundary breeches from themselves and make them unconscious to maintain the status quo of their worldview and self-concept... as ethical boundary breeches (even unconscious ones) tend to disturb a universally held human identity of being "the good one" or "the right one". So, operating outside the bounds of one's ethical compass requires oneself to go unconscious and go into cognitive dissonance to hide one's own ethical boundary breaches from one's self... in order to protect the identity of rightness. And at that point, one must twist their mind into all kinds of pretzels and knots to justify their own actions to themselves.... which gives a strong incentive to build a very shoddy clunker of an epistemology. So, tuning out from our ethical compass incentivizes us to build a very weak intellectual framework. That is why you find such mental gymnastics around the topic of Veganism... and it's even more intense with non-Vegan Stage Green types. These non-Vegan Stage Green types are very against exploitation... and are aware enough to recognize the exploitative nature of the relationship humans have with animals. And yet, they still partake in consuming animal products for pleasure. So, they have to twist their minds in knots to hide this ugly truth from themselves about their own oppressive, exploitative nature... and it ruins their epistemological integrity. And the stronger the indictment that non-Vegan Stage Green people have towards oppressors and the more they see oppressors as "the evil one" in other contexts, the stronger they will go into cognitive dissonance and fall into unconsciousness around the hand they play in oppression and exploitation of animals.

My experience is that you can mostly tell where the structural weaknesses are in someone's character upon the first 10-15 minutes of meeting them... no conscious or unconscious "shit tests" needed. You can tell someone's character, insecurities, coping strategies, and level of resilience by simply observing them and listening to their voice and watching their facial expressions and how they move their body... and the vibe they give off. You don't even need to interact with them. Like, if I am taking some kind of liberty (conscious or unconscious) to throw a man off, I already know intuitively that he can handle it... or I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't go trying that with a guy who I even slightly suspected couldn't handle it. Are you sure that women are unconsciously doing these "shit tests" with the unconscious intention of throwing a man off so that she can assess him? Or is it that men tend to get thrown off by how women generally operate and interpret it as a test that's being directed at him, when it's actually just women operating differently from how men generally operate? I notice that the tendency within a lot of male dating perspectives to want to internalize as much responsibility as possible in the context of dating to as maximizing responsibility also maximize powers and control over their dating lives. But this often leads to distortional narrativizing about women's nature in a way that puts the man at the center of the reason for a woman's behavior. And it frames the man as both cause and solution to women's behaviors.... which is empowering to believe but ultimately untrue. So, I could see this "shit test" thing as being about men feeling unsteadied by how a woman is operating differently from how he would tend to operate... and centering himself and interpreting it as a test that he must pass.

I personally hold the perspective that it's unethical to eat animal products if you don't need to consume animal products to survive, which is why I am Vegan. And I hold that it's okay to prioritize human life over animal life in cases of food insecurity and/or life and death survival. And that's not because I believe that humans are hierarchically more important than animals (as I reject the notion of human supremacy and the notion of a hierarchy of importance within nature). But I see it as ethically okay for every animal (including humans) to prioritize the survival of members of its own species. I apply the same standards to humans and animals alike, as I think humans believing themselves to be superior is responsible for so much disharmony humans have with nature. So, I see it as ethical to eat animals if that's all that's available, for the sake of survival. But I don't believe it's ethical to place human creature comforts or even cherished human folkways (no matter how cherished) over an animal's survival. So, even the idea that the importance of preserving human cultural practices trumps the importance of an animal's life comes from a human supremacist mindset where the suffering of animals is okay to inflict for the sake of maintaining something that's important to humans but isn't a life or death matter. I can sympathize that having cultural practices that one values which involve eating and using animal products makes it more difficult to go Vegan. It does make it more difficult. And I have no judgment of the person in question for not going Vegan, because most people aren't going Vegan anyway... but for simple creature comforts and pleasure-seeking, which is much less important that cultural practices. But I think it's important to be consistent with the ethical principle that 'while humans can prioritize other humans' survival over animals' survival as it is every type of animal's right to prioritize members of their own species, it's still unethical to harm/kill an animal for any other non-survival-based reason.' So, if a person is food insecure and they have to eat whatever food is available, I see that as consuming animal products to survive. And I don't see it as unethical. With food insecurity, the focus has to about eating... and not what is being eaten. I also think it's ethically fine if someone lives in an environment where the only food available to them is animal products. Like the Inuit people who live in the arctic mostly have access to whale and other sea creatures. But I can have empathy for people who choose not to go Vegan... even though I still see it as an unethical choice. I have empathy for what the woman described where, to her mom who was poor and couldn't afford to eat meat, that she decides that she's going to eat whatever she wants. In my opinion, it's still not ethical, as it causes unnecessary death and suffering for the animals for the sake of human creature comforts and prioritizes human comfort over animal lives. But I can understand why that would be a choice someone would make. And because most people aren't Vegan for much less important reasons, someone in that position wouldn't be a target audience for Vegan activism... if I were to engage in Vegan activism (which I don't). And as I mentioned before, it's also understandable that it might be extra difficult for someone to go Vegan if they have a cultural background that involves eating meat. I still think it's unethical because it is consuming animals for a reason that isn't survival. But it's also easy to empathize with, and they wouldn't be a primary target audience for my Vegan activism... if I were a Vegan activist. The actual target audience for my Vegan activism (if I were to be one), would be people who live in wealthier nations without strong cultural practices who have enough money to choose what they eat and who only eat animals for pleasure and out of habit. Vegans are currently 1% of the population... and a stretch goal would be to get that percentage to 2%. So, a Vegan activist needn't focus their attention on people who aren't Vegan because of their connection to animal product-based cultural practices. They could just focus solely on the 90%+ of non-Vegans who simply eat animal products for pleasure. And the 'problem' of "Veganism encroaching upon cultural practices" is solved. But beyond direct Vegan activism, ethical consistency is also important... and intellectual honesty is even more important because of all the cognitive dissonance surrounding meat and dairy consumption And I notice that the culture argument is often used as a cop out because people fundamentally don't want to see themselves as unethical or oppressive for eating animals products. They want to come up with some justification that makes those actions square with their own code of ethics... when they don't for many people. That's especially true for compassionate people who care about animals and who support causes that aim to end the oppression of marginalized groups. It would be really difficult for this type of person to look squarely at their meat-eating behavior and see the mindsets of the oppressor within themselves. And people get upset when Vegans compare the human oppression of animals to human-to-human oppression because people don't like to acknowledge their own oppressive ways... and the similarities in the mindsets of the oppressing parties. The stories human beings tell themselves about why they're superior to animals and entitled to exploit animals for their own gain are the same kinds of stories that human being have told themselves to justify the exploitation of other humans. So, instead of acknowledging one's own oppressive ways, it's easier to turn that guilt back around towards Vegans and be like, "I'm not a bad for exploiting animals. You're bad for comparing people who oppress/exploit animals to people who oppress/exploit humans." But that's too honest and wouldn't sufficiently quell the cognitive dissonance. So, they say, "Shame on you Vegans for comparing marginalized groups to animals!" So, culture is commonly used for people to try to invalidate Veganism as something oppressive... to make Veganism unethical and to make meat-eating ethical. It basically just becomes another defense to hide the ethical incongruence from themselves. But truthfully, most of the people who make the "Veganism encroaches upon culture" argument, don't even care about culture. Most belong to "people who eat meat for pleasure" group. It's just a cudgel to use to quell cognitive dissonance as it pertains to Veganism. I once heard this white lady arguing with Earthling Ed (a popular Vegan activist) making all sorts of cultural claims about indigenous hunting practices as a justification for why she eats meat and dairy that she purchases from the grocery store that were produced in factory farms. And it was just her bullshitting herself to quell the cognitive dissonance.... only using a cursory knowledge of a particular Native American tribe's cultural story to hide herself from herself. And he rightly called it out as appropriating another culture for the sake of justifying her own support of factory farming.

Women don't really do "shit-tests". That's just a Pick-Up/Red Pill idea, which paints an unrealistic idea of how women operate. The idea with pick-up and Red Pill is to logically map out "female psychology" so that men can "do the right things" to be more successful. But they really just make up a bunch of stuff that isn't true. So, they paint the idea that women are doing "shit tests" to present men with a made-up but clearly defined problem that the pick-up influencer can provide a made-up solution to.... in order to sell courses and things like that. It also perpetuates stereotypes that women are fundamentally manipulative... which presents another problem that "you need the pick-up influencers to solve. So, buy our course!" Now, women do generally have a strong intuition for if a guy is a right fit or not. So, it doesn't mean that women aren't assessing the man they're on a date with. But the idea that women are like, "I'm going to do a shit test on this guy" is just not a way that women generally operate.

I've been watching this YouTube channel here and there called Parkrose Permaculture, which gives practical advice about how to push back on authoritarianism. It's a refreshing change from most progressive channels, as it actually focuses on the question of "What can we practically do?" So, I wanted to share a video from her channel here...

That's incorrect logic you're working off of. It fundamentally misunderstands what Fascism does and how it operates.... and plays right into the hands of the movement towards Fascism. The way that Fascism work is on a "last hired, first fired" basis. So, as soon as you cede the ground on trans people, they go to take the rights away from gay people. And once they take the rights from gay people, they take the rights away from political opponents. And once they take the rights away from political opponents, they take the rights away from religious minorities. And once they take the rights away from religious minorities, they take the rights from ethnic minorities. And once they take the rights away from ethnic minorities, they take the rights from women. And once they take the rights away from women, they take the rights away from ALL people outside of the ruling class. So, if you're like "Let's toss trans people and trans rights under the bus to be more effective in the fight against Fascism", you have already given the Fascists a foothold. It turns a dissident movement into a collaboration with Fascism. Recall this poem... First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me Now add trans and gay people to that poem. And you will understand why your thought process is not helpful.

I typed in the same prompt you did. "if A woman is locked in a room and a man is locked in a room who will go crazy faster with data?" And I got a TOTALLY different answer. I also don't have a ChatGPT account, so it isn't trained on me or anything. This is just generic ChatGPT prompt. ChatGPT said: That’s an interesting question — but the answer isn’t as simple as choosing “man” or “woman.” If you mean who would psychologically deteriorate faster in isolation, research in psychology suggests that it depends much more on the individual than on gender alone. Here’s a summary of what data and studies tell us: 🧠 Key factors that influence mental decline in isolation Personality traits – People who are more extroverted or anxious tend to struggle more in isolation, regardless of gender. Coping skills and resilience – Individuals with stronger emotional regulation and stress-management skills fare better. Prior experience with solitude – People used to spending time alone (e.g., artists, researchers, monks) tend to adapt better. Social support perception – Feeling connected to others, even virtually or in memory, buffers against mental decline. Biological and hormonal factors – While some gender differences exist in stress responses (e.g., cortisol release patterns), these differences are small compared to psychological and environmental ones. 📊 What the data say Studies on solitary confinement and isolation experiments (e.g., polar expeditions, space simulation habitats) show both men and women experience anxiety, depression, and cognitive issues, but no consistent gender-based difference in the rate of decline. A few small studies suggest women may maintain social and emotional regulation slightly better due to stronger stress-buffering oxytocin responses, while men might show more behavioral agitation — but the data are mixed and context-dependent. 🧩 Conclusion There’s no strong scientific evidence that one gender “goes crazy faster” than the other when locked in a room. What matters most are individual psychological factors, coping strategies, and prior experience with isolation — not gender. Would you like me to show you specific research studies or statistics on isolation and mental health differences between men and women?

I'm stopping this conversation now. You're just pulling random nonsense out of your hat.

That women crack faster under solitary confinement than men do. He was saying you need to back up your claims rather than just making assumptions.

Like I said, because society is emotion-phobic and Femininity-phobic more Feminine expressions of emotions like crying is seen as crazy and unhinged... while anger gets re-categorized as a non-emotion and isn't seen as crazy and unhinged when a man is expressing it. But crying isn't crazy. It's just what humans do. Be careful not to repress your emotions. It's not healthy. And it's basic emotional release during times of grief, sadness, and distress... even sometimes joy. And it helps with emotional regulation.

Of course, all people will go crazy in solitary confinement. But it's an assumption based in sexism that women will go crazier faster than men. And it's not based in evidence... just your own sexist assumptions. It's been studied, and women biologically have a greater capacity for internal emotional regulation than men... and will tend to regulate by feeling emotions and crying. So, according to that study, women have a higher capacity for self-soothing. it's posited that women evolved a higher capacity for self-soothing because women are less aggressive and less strong than men. And it was safer for her to be able to self-sooth in dangerous and stressful situations rather than to try to fight back. But in the study, it showed that men tend to need to retaliate in order to regulate themselves. It required rage that led out to a desired change in the external world for men to get regulated. It's posited that men evolved this capacity because they needed to be able to respond to threats from animals and other humans with force and violence. That's why an upset man who is upset about something that doesn't have a concrete solution and that can't be solved through anger or retaliation might punch a hole in a wall. So, emotion and action tend to come simultaneously. And this can lead to men having more of a tendency towards taking more impulsive, chaotic, and risky actions than women do, on average. But a woman who is upset will tend to go through a quieter and more low-key process of feeling her emotions and crying. Then, she will seek solutions after the emotions have been sufficiently taken care of. So, emotional processing comes first... and then action comes from a calmer state once the emotions are taken care of. So, that leads to women have a greater capacity for self-soothing than men do. It's just that society is very emotion-phobic and fearful of Femininity. So, the act of crying was often seen as more of a sign of being weak or unhinged than aggressive anger and wall-punching and violence because the crying is understood as more Feminine than the wall-punching. So, if some crazy person tries to put a woman in an isolation room, she might cry and process emotions to try to adjust to the isolation room, seek solutions... then go crazy if she can't find any solutions. But if some crazy person tries to put a man in an isolation room, he's probably going to immediately rage out and tear the isolation room apart... which is useful if it's escapable but just frenzied chaotic rage if the room is inescapable. Then, he'll go crazy too.

My issue is that his words will influence people in a negative direction if he makes little short quippy statements that influence people into deeper levels of social isolation.

You literally were like, "If women are alone their inherent insanity starts to come out." It's just a rehashing of the "women are hysterical" stereotypes from the early 1900s where women were frequently institutionalized and even lobotomized because of diagnoses of "female hysteria." How can you say it isn't sexism... when it's one of the strongest historical examples of women's lives being destroyed by sexism? Back in the 50s all it took was for a husband to call up the institution and say, "My wife is being taken over by her womanly emotions. The other day I slapped her when she didn't have dinner ready when I got home. And instead of just taking it and improving her behavior, she let her female hysteria get the best of her and she shouted at me like a mad-woman." And she'd be carted off to the funny farm to have her frontal lobe scrambled by top-of-the-line medical experts to cure her of her hysteria.

Mostly, I'm talking about how he speaks about socialization on this forum. But relative to this video, impact-wise it doesn't matter if he caveats it in a video called "How Socialization Makes You Stupid". The message is still that "socialization makes you stupid" and that socializing is a foolish thing to do.

That's a really odd assumption. Have you ever interacted with women before? Personally, I've always a strong tendency towards finding relief in solitude because I feel more at peace alone... as being with other people is emotional labor because I tend to feel responsible for everyone. Like, I remember that when I was 11 (when I was first allowed to be at home alone), I was just overjoyed by it because I could really just be myself. And I have tended to polarize into that and be quite avoidant and self-contained because connection always came with emotional labor and showing up only partially. Mind you, this avoidant tendency isn't healthy at all. And I'm aware of that... which is why I push back on these ideas around solitude being better than community.

I could see that also being a strong motivator for many.

I am most certainly not exaggerating. You often talk about being above the need to socialize. And it doesn't matter if you say, "Go socialize with women" on the dating section of the forum. If you present yourself as "above it" and you say "once you get to a high enough level of development, you don't get anything from other people or social interactions" as you frequently do, people who look up to you will want to imitate that. And it is very dangerous to isolate yourself. Being a monk isn't too dangerous if you live in a monastery among other monks. The purpose of living in a monastery isn't social interaction, so that need is still something they're semi-foregoing... though meeting somewhat just by being in the same space as others. So, they still have a support system in a monastery, and they don't have to worry about survival because the institution takes care of them. There is a social support system built into monastic life. But being a monk that goes out in the wilderness and sits on a mountain is VERY dangerous. And cutting yourself off from human connection (if you're a house holder) is also very dangerous. There are serious consequences to foregoing basic human needs and spiritually bypassing them. That is why I see this glorification of transcending social needs in a similar vein to how Breatharians see themselves as transcendent of the need for food. They didn't really transcend those needs of course. They're either lying to themselves and others and still eating.... or they're not eating and in the process of eventually starving to death. Just like someone who claims to have transcended the need for human interaction. They're either lying to themselves and others and still socializing (like on this forum)... or they're not socializing and reaping the psychological (and physical) consequences of not having a social support system.

This is just doomerism, and it's not helpful and even counterproductive. The Trump administration is weak and foolish... and will certainly eventually destroy itself. The administration's approval is already VERY VERY low among the populace. It's under the water on all metrics... including the economy and immigration, which are usually the strongest metrics for Republicans. Also, ignorance helps the spread of Fascism.... but it doesn't cause it. Facism happens when conditions are stressful and a demagogue influences the populace in a way that causes people to collectively scapegoat certain groups of outsiders, and transfer all of their frustrations about life onto the group of outsiders. And it's not just ignorant people who are susceptible to this... though ignorance certainly helps this process. It comes from deeper psychological vulnerabilities and can happen to the educated and non-educated alike. In fact, educated people who have a higher intellect are more able to skillfully do mental gymnastics to rationally justify foolish Fascistic things when there is a deeper emotional motivation to adopt Fascist viewpoints.

That's the wrong way to think about the purpose of this protest... and protests in general. First off, it shows strength in numbers and that people aren't just going to stand down and allow the Trump administration to do what it wants. Secondly, the Trump administration is cracking down on the right to protest. You see, most authoritarian regimes don't need to take freedoms by force. The people willingly modify their behavior before they're forced to because they get intimidated by the authoritarian regime. What Trump hopes for is to crack down on some protesters so that people get afraid and stop protesting. So, it's important to use the right to protest... or we will certainly lose it. Third, it's a great networking event for grassroots political organization to get more average people pushing back in small ways.

Thank you for sharing your experience. My perception (from the outside looking in) is that many guys who get involved with pick-up tend to do so because they semi-consciously hold the illusion that attractive women hold the power to judge their existence as worthy or unworthy. It's sort of like, "A man has to be x, y, and z to be sufficiently Masculine and to be a man among men. And the 'objective' judges of whether he has x, y, and z values and is sufficiently Masculine are attractive women, with the most attractive women having the highest and most objective adjudicating power. So, a man must prove his worth through proving his Masculinity among other men. And the only way to prove his Masculinity among other men is to gain the sexual approval of very attractive women." (Note: women's attractions aren't objective of course. They're HIGHLY subjective. That's just a necessary part of the illusion so that the attractive women feel like their objective in their judgments.) So, there seems to be a lot of validation seeking through proving one's Masculinity to attractive women... as a means of getting away from shame. Of course, the only way to resolve shame is unconditional self-love. So, it doesn't work. And it often takes a decent amount of experience to realize that it doesn't actually do the work of resolving shame... as it's usually a mostly unconscious driver.

You have stated OFTEN that 'Once you get to a high enough level of development, interacting with people doesn't give you anything.' And you have called yourself "above it". It shows that you value solitude and isolation... and you don't value collaboration and community. And you position solitude and isolation as the thing that superior people "the adults in the room" do. So, even if you never say verbatim "Isolate yourself and never collaborate." there's plenty of young guys on this forum who look up to you that will go, "Leo has transcended his need for social connection and community. I want to reach the level he's at!" Then, they just convince themselves they don't have that need because they're trying to model themselves after you... and isolate themselves and put themselves in a more vulnerable position because of that where they're not getting those basic human needs met. And there's a lot of potential for further social stunting because this community echo chamber really glorifies social isolation and lauds being "above" the need for human connection. Most of these young guys are already nerdy guys who struggle to socialize. The last thing they need is someone to say, "The most developed people don't even value human connection and don't have need to socialize." They can simply be like, "Actually, I'm not a guy who struggles with social connection. I'm just like Leo... above and beyond the need for social connection, as other people are like children compared to me!" So, even if I take for granted that that's not what you're doing... (which I don't, as it's clear to me that connection is a basic human need. So, I see people who say they've "transcended" the need to socialize like I see Breatharians who have apparently "transcended" the need for food)... your anti-social self-back-patting will certainly influence a lot of guys in the direction of isolation.

This is just one of her videos. She posts several a day... many with practical solutions. This one was just a response to a comment where the person was under the impression that violent resistance is better than non-violent resistance and she was debunking that. But she shares on her videos more generally how to get organized and engaged in active resistance... just not on this specific video. I wanted to share it anyway because it's a useful message.