Emerald

@Buck Edwards Have you ever personally had a Vegan get onto you about eating chicken? Or is it just the way this video made you feel? The thing is, nobody likes to feel like they're being called out on doing something unethical. And no one likes to question the ethics of their behavior, especially when it's one as ingrained as eating. So, Vegans feel very threatening to people for that reason, because I'd wager that over half of people already had Vegan values. They just don't live in integrity with those values. So, the presence of Vegans in the world makes non-Vegans with Vegan values feel very defensive about their eating habits ad it draws attention to the cognitive dissonance of behaviors not matching up with values. As a Vegan, one of the most uncomfortable dynamics is going out to eat with an animal-loving omnivore friend. Then, telling the waiter that I'm Vegan for the purposes of food modification, and then the friend going into explaining themselves to me like they're on trial as to why they still eat meat. Always makes me feel super uncomfortable because I feel like they feel I'm judging them. But I'm really not. I ate meat and dairy for 27 years of my life. Then, even though most Vegans are pretty non-judgmental, there's this stereotype about all Vegans being in your face about it because that's what the mere existence of Vegans makes people feel. And you can find the odd example on the internet of the judge Vegan, so it puts a face to that feeling. I heard a statistic recently that there was a study done on people to rate how negatively they viewed different groups of people. And Vegans were the ones viewed most negatively at 74% of people having negative associations. I think that's precisely because people who agree with Vegans deep down feel uncomfortable around people that are walking the talk.

The reason why we're oriented towards social connection is because it's a inextricable need and instinct... not an addiction. And loneliness comes up if we lack human-to-human connection in the same way that thirst comes up when we're thirsty and hunger comes up when we're hungry. There's never been any time in the entirety human history (up until the past 100 years) that we haven't relied on a community of people to survive. So, it's wired right into our physiology. And the logic behind it is this... a human being alone in the wild is a dead human. So, it's wired right into you to seek connection with other human beings. Your entire biology is involved in the matter because community has always been how we meet the vast majority of our physiological, safety, and connection needs. And that's the 3 bottom levels of Maslow's Hierarchy.

That's a very specific high pressure hypothetical situation that is super cinematic and unrealistic. In most cases, it's just interacting with someone that gives off that vibe that "There's something about this person that feels a bit red flaggy." And in those cases, I just stay away and/or create distance. And it could be someone who's genuinely nice. There are plenty of nice people that give off red-flag vibes that their life might cause some drama.

That's a bit of straw man about the "defund the police" sentiment. Though I also know that some lefties are too lost in the sauce of their ideology and don't believe that the police are necessary at all. The idea that I've heard most often in lefty corners of the internet with regard to "defund the police" is to divert some of the money from overly-bloated police budgets that are used towards greater levels of militarization (like some police forces have a tank and military grade gear and weapons)... and instead to divert that spending towards other types of interventionists that are a better fit than the police in some cases. So, instead of it being the police that comes out in every single instance of public disturbance... if it's something like someone who's got mental health issues or someone is reporting a sexual assault case after the danger has passed to send a different kind of intervention team. It happens too often that the police end up swatting flies with cannons because they're handling cases that their MO doesn't fit very well within. And so, "defund the police" for many lefties is about diverting funds away from militarization and putting more funds towards a more multifaceted approach to intervention. Now, I'm not saying that that's the way I think about reforming the criminal justice system because I have some different ideas. But if you're thinking that most lefties don't recognize that crime happens and needs to be dealt with, you are uninformed.

I've seen how the bottom half of mankind lives. I know a lot of people from my hometown who have a very low level of standards for their own behavior. It was all pretty normalized in my hometown to not think very much about the ethical implications of things. And criminality-wise, I've known people who have been in and out of jail for a variety of petty crimes to more serious crimes. I even know someone who's in jail for life because he shot a convenient store clerk... and I have a friend from high school who recently got caught a couple years ago making kiddie porn with his 4 year old daughter. To my perception, you'd have to be living under a rock to not encounter people doing very dark and evil things. Maybe some people are sheltered from this, but I really don't understand how. It's right out in the open. Back when I was 20, I was technically homeless for a few months. And I was busking in the pedestrian area to make money. And there were tons of people who felt very comfortable showing me their evil side because I was downtrodden and young. So, I am quite aware that human beings are capable of so much darkness. And most people do behave in evil and stupid ways. But in my medicine journeys, I sat once as God and myself at once... with thick book of transparent pages sitting on my lap. And I could understand the life of each person that came to my mind by looking at the top of the transparent pages. And I could see the patterns of ignorance and pain that mangled the pure goodness into neurosis, foolishness, and evil. And in other journeys, I have recognized very clearly the inherent goodness that sits underneath all negative actions. And from that state, no judgment was possible. And so, I had temporarily resolved my own stupidity and evil during those experiences because I came into a deeper alignment with truth and love. And any claim that "humanity is evil" will put us into state of consciousness that's antithetical to truth and love. And it will cause us to over-focus on the symptom as "just part of our nature" and we will make no effort to resolve the root. But it is only because we are stupid and evil that we make this mistake. Humanity hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of our potential for goodness that sits as the foundation of our nature.

That's true. We do need more immediate solutions in terms of policy, institutions, and economy to manage the symptoms of what we have now and to shift to better systems. My point to the OP was not to discount the impact of greater degrees of psychological and emotional awareness over time. But that's never been the way I've conceptualized of the story of Jesus. I've never heard it framed as him taking God with him in any context. Maybe there could be some correlation there. But I've tended to see him more as a divine scapegoat figure to serve as the infinite in a finite body. And we individually don't need to bear the burdens of the infinite because he as already played the role of the finite who bears the infinite.

They either disliked it or were neutral about it. But I don't ever recall him saying that they hated it. They just didn't believe in any of the pageantry around it and saw through it. Though, lots of older folks had a hard time transitioning away from Communism because they'd gotten used to the way it worked. My sense is that, by the 80s, all the Soviet stuff had become background noise in Hungary.

I do have quite a lot of hope that human beings will create a lot of great macrocosmic shifts through deeper levels of psychological and somatic understanding... as well as deeper understandings of how to utilize emotions properly and how to have better relationships. Think about all the trauma that's coursing through our species. And most people have no idea how to handle that trauma, so it manifests individually and collectively in negative ways. And this impacts our institutions and structures and the way that human beings relate to them. So, my sense is that over the course of centuries there will be a lot more collective psychological understanding and more consciousness when it comes to raising children. And from the collective trauma healing, improved child rearing paradigms, and the rise of new technologies, better systems will be possible that far exceed any currently proposed solutions. That said, this will likely take 3+ generations to really start seeing the effects of our more trauma conscious and emotionally intelligent 10% of people leading the charge. But that ripple effect will keep rippling out more and more and will work itself out in subsequent generations. If you want something more immediate, then other solutions would be necessary. In our lifetime, people will be mostly at the same level we are now. But I do see this very new psychological and emotional awareness as VERY promising for the systems and institutions that we will create in the future. The old frontier was outer world. And now we're just starting to explore the inner world.

Yeah, it's a common pattern that most women experience fairly early on in their dating life. And it mostly comes from guys who are attached to the self-identification with niceness and never consider that they could be perceived as not so nice. And I think it has to do with the societal and pop-cultural association of shame and self-deprecation with being a humble nice person. But shame doesn't actually translate to nice behavior. Shame often gets expressed as bitterness and vengeance towards the perceived aggressor (in this case women). Like, I've never heard an actually nice guy complaining about how women don't give him the time of day because he's nice. But it's one of those common gender patterns that make people jerks without realizing it. Like, most women go through a "not like the other girls" phase where they want to conceptualize themselves as "more like the guys because guys are less drama" and therefore different and superior to other girls. I used to be like this when I was between the ages of 10 and 13, and had no idea that I was being a jerk because this was a popular trope in movies and shows at the time for female protagonists. And most men go through a "women don't like me because I'm nice" phase where they go into victim's mentality about how women only like assholes. And they start going on about how they're a victim to women friend zoning them. And a big part of it comes from misunderstanding what it means to actually be nice. And also thinking too logically and transactionally about relationship and thinking niceness is or should be the currency that buys relationship. These patterns were around when I was in middle school... and I'm sure before then too.

My husband is from Hungary which was under Soviet rule when he was born. He was born in 1977, so he experienced growing up under Soviet rule until he was 12 or 13. He said that the Soviets were already pretty weak by the time the 80s rolled around. And he says that everyone knew it was bullshit. He didn't know anyone who was idealogical in their allegiance to the Soviet Union. But they had parades and Soviet rituals stuff in school. Everyone complied but no one really took it seriously. The thing with the Soviet Union is that there was a lot of top-down force to pressure people into being patriotic. And less so in the later days. And so, it didn't quite take hold of people. It was just the government that was enforcing the allegiance. At least that was evident from his perspective... which may have been limited since he was a kid when all the Soviet stuff was happening. He moved to America in the year 2000, and he was really shocked at how nationalistic we are with every other house having an American flag out front because he wasn't used to people being patriotic by choice. And he thinks that America is a far more effective in its nationalist propaganda in that sense.

When I have that feeling, I just stay away or create more distance. People give off vibes. And you can sense important things about their potential tendencies through those vibes. That said, you'd also want to consider that you could be projecting onto them. So, it's worth questioning. But if someone's vibe is making you feel uncomfortable and you aren't sure if it's a projection or not, a little bit of distance would still be wise... just paired with some contemplation.

I notice that you didn't tag me in your reply to my post, which is something I find quite interesting. If you're not going to tell me what happened, then what reason do I have to believe what you said at face value? Your claim is that you have been denied education, internships, and jobs because you are a white male. And that is the core evidence that you've provided to show why you're critical of wokeness. And yet, you won't tell me about the education and work opportunities that you lost because you were a white male. I find that quite telling that you don't have any concrete stories about that.

This is just more victim's mentality and blaming the other to shift the burden of responsibility for your own desires and life onto others. And that's what's repellent to women... and men alike. Stop caring about what other people have going on, and focus on building your life in the way you want it. There are tons of toxic men and women out there. But I don't worry about them and what they're doing because they're not going to affect anything in my own life as long as I have healthy boundaries and I proactively build relationships with people that feel good to be around.

I understand that you don't like what I said. But you should be aware that that's the way you come off with your victim narratives. People will not interpret you as nice. They'll interpret you as a potential emotional and physical danger because of your victim's mentality. People who identify as victim's see others as villains. And then, they try to become the hero that defeats those villains. And that's what makes them end up playing the villain role. So, people will stay away from people who are in victim's mentality for that reason. People with victim's mentality can be dangerous because they don't see the vulnerabilities of the other... only their own vulnerability. I recommend really pondering into this dynamic. It's a bitter pill. But it's true.

My experiences are that guys who go "I'm too nice, I need to be an asshole." are usually already giving off some 'not so nice' tendencies. And they come across as desperate and needy... and potentially emotionally and/or physically dangerous because of that. And Narcissists often go underneath people's radar because people are susceptible to being seduced and charmed. And Narcissists are more detached. So, people don't catch on unless they have really developed that kind of radar. With the "Self-Identified Nice Guys", they're usually not as smooth socially and they're attached. And they believe their lack of assertiveness and self-deprecation makes them nice. It's kind of like awkward everyman male protagonist syndrome, where they define neutral qualities as nice. And so, they operate from a place of bitterness. And people can tell both before and after they decide to "become an asshole" that they're not very nice.

Okay, I thought you meant literally.

Why frame it as such an extreme rarity? It's probably more like 30% of people (men and women both) are capable of having a functional relationship. And the only reason why that number is low is because the general populace has a lot more to learn about relationships, emotions, trauma, and authenticity in interdependent relationships.

I'm just going to give it to you straight because it would do you a disservice otherwise. You don't really give off the vibes of a good man. And you don't come across as kind or nice. I'm not saying you come across as bad or evil... but you come across as self-deprecating and having the potential to be quite toxic because of your victim narratives. And that makes you a potential emotional and physical danger from a woman's perspective because you see women as more powerful than you and are very attached to how women think about you... and you won't be attuned to the fact that you actually have more power than them physically.

I'm just telling you what I've experienced. When guys conceptualize themselves as a "nice guy" and get upset that "Only the jerks are getting laid. I'm going to be a jerk", they tend to express with more repellent behavior when they try. I've been not he receiving end of it before. But of course, people are not very conscious. Women are included in that. And I've seen plenty of women in my hometown go for violent domestic abusers who ruin their lives. But the preference really comes down to this... "At least in the short-term, narcissists are frequently perceived as charming, popular, socially confident and entertaining." The issue is that a lot of women see through rose-colored glasses and only see the charming, popular, and socially confident side. But if I think about my friend Randy (who is a super popular and warmhearted Masculine guy... and whose been with his partner for like a decade now), he was always super popular with his female peers because he was charming, popular, confident, and entertaining. And he was even a bit edgy. And girls were very taken with him. So, I take it more as a case of correlation and not causation. Women like confident men with an edge who push the envelope. And a lot of narcissists are confident men with an edge who push the envelope... but will also make life hell.

Nine times out of ten, masturbation is better in terms of the intensity of the physical pleasure. But sex is better emotionally and body-chemistry-wise even if the physical sensations themselves aren't quite as pleasurable. With for former, it's very linear and the pleasure comes from the loins and is very intense and localized. But with the latter it's more relaxing to the full body, and the pleasurable sensations come mostly from the center of the chest. And I rarely desire the former, but often desire the latter.

Definitely insane. And I've encountered a lot of men in this nice guy/bad boy delusion when I was in my teens and early 20s. And the issue in the first place is that they perceived themselves as nice guys when they were just ashamed and self-deprecating because of their shame, which doesn't have anything to do with being nice or pleasant to be around. But it tends to be the way good guy everyman main characters are written in movies to show that they are the good guy. So, they believe that being unassuming and self-critical makes them come off as nice and kind. But they were already exuding red flag vibes that scare women away. They just weren't aware of it. But it comes through in the vibe. And then, they think, "I guess women just like assholes. I need to become an asshole to get women to like me." But they were unconscious to the fact that they already were giving off asshole vibes. And then, they become aggressive and the red flags become more overt and scare women away even more. But they keep doubling down because they thought the issue was that they were a nice guy when they were never actually nice. And they will come to the conclusion, "I guess I wasn't enough of a bad boy to get sex. Let me triple down." And the cycle repeats.

A bit of victim's mentality, eh?

I'm not sure that women in Vegas are actually super materialistic. I think you're mixing up the imagery associated with the city with the people. Vegas is often associated with the imagery of show girls and wheeler/dealer gambler types. And Leo himself isn't a wheeler/dealer gambler type, yet lives in Vegas. The nature of the paradigm lock that Leo has that I'm referring to is that he tends to overlook humanity's communal filial nature and tries to boil human beings down to a Social Darwinian-esque paradigm.... which means seeing human dating/relationship dynamics as an objective hierarchical value exchange. It's sort of like stripping the humanity out of humanity... and believing that this kind of Darwinian reductionism will produce better insights about how human beings operate. Rather than actually observing the less-simple, less-sexy, and less-fetishizable but more accurate ways that we actually do operate. It seems to me that he believes that our communal nature is just a veneer that conceals and masks our true nature. And it will produce simpler insights to look from that angle that can help to get a sense of what women in the aggregate find valuable in a hierarchical sense... but will also create a false worldview if the practical good that is produced by that worldview is mistakenly seen as evidence of truth. And operating through the Social Darwinian lens of objective heirarchal value exchange and believing that it is truth will create anti-social ways of operating and fears for men of not being able to be loved for who they are as a person. So, there's a lot of ways that I observe these narratives backfiring... especially when men are convinced the narratives are the absolute truth.

This post isn't actually about attracting women. So, pickup advice isn't going to help in this case. In fact, many of the posts on this section of the forum can't be helped with generic pickup advice. But there are plenty of practical techniques that men can use to attract women, which can be used without extrapolating skewed narratives about women to go along with them. But what tends to happen is that Leo and others find what works and want to weave that together with a certain ideological understanding of gender to create a narrative of certainty. They are trying to have the illusion that they "know thy enemy" better than the enemy knows themselves. So, they become blinkered and attached. And my issue has never been about the practical techniques. I never once said to abstain from doing what works. People get onto me about that. But it's just that what I'm saying is challenging comforting but false narratives, so the strawman of my perspective is that I'm against what's practical. And they can use that to say to themselves that my that my perspective is nonsense and that I'm out of touch. But it's all about maintaining the comfort of certainty and simplicity that the false narratives give the illusion of providing. That way they can keep looking to what works practically as evidence that they should continue believing their ideological narratives as absolute truth. So, my issue with it is myopia and paradigm lock... and the fact that men get really brainwashed into these narratives to where they aren't open to understanding anything new. And they become wrapped up in their own story so much that they lose sight of what's real and how human dynamics really operate. And this ends up biting them in ways that they don't consciously perceive yet suffer great from.

I do agree with that, but I don't negate the things that Leo's saying about the practicalities of approaching women. It's just the narratives that go along with those practical steps that I have the biggest issue with, because that's where the misrepresentation comes into play. So, I see my perspective as integrating his practical perspective and easily reconciled with it... as long as the false narratives aren't woven around it. I'd probably suggest for men to do similar things practically. I just wouldn't frame it through these skewed narratives. I even talked about the two phases of the relationship myself... attraction phase vs relationship phase.