Emerald

But guys who approach women randomly as a frequent habit are really easy to spot out. You can always tell when a guy has studied pick-up and does it frequently. And many women will sort them from consideration straight away, simply on the basis of being a stranger who approached randomly with a romantic intention. And cold approachers come across as spammy to lots of women, if the pick-up is done outside of a nightclub kind of environment where the etiquette is more conducive to flirting with strangers. Cold approach is very similar to cold marketing in that way. The majority of people will see any kind of cold marketing outreach as spam, whether it's done well or done poorly. They will opt for more familiar goods and services from companies that they know, like, and trust... and will ignore the cold emails and cold calls. But 0.5% to 2% of people who are cold marketed to will actually buy the goods or services that the cold marketer is offering. Many customers will require warm marketing to close. But some customers, you will be able to close with cold marketing. The upside to cold marketing is that you can do A LOT more volume. So, you can actually run a very successful business form cold marketing alone. But a warm audience helps A LOT. Everything that I just said about cold marketing is the same as cold approach... as you are trying to market yourself to a cold audience. And the close rate will be similar because most women will sort you from consideration as spam. But 0.5% to 2% of women will say yes... while 98%-99.5% will say no. And many of the "nos" you get, are saying no because they perceive you as spam. Probably 10%+ of those "nos" you get in cold approach would be "yeses" if you were in the same social circle as them.

No doubt it is the product of the nation-state. Any world that sees itself as divided into in-groups and out-groups from other people, will always beget these kinds of unfair outcomes. It has to be the case for the world to operate in its current state. And that arbitrary human-to-human division happens on the level of the nationstate... but also happens/happened before with smaller groups that have understood themselves as separate. And it's arbitrary, of course. If we take the United States as an example, it's a LOT of people stretched over a huge chunk of land that all identify the same way under the abstract idea of the nation-state. But you could also have a situation where there is a village that defines itself as a totally different group from another village that lives a mile away. But the delineations... and having an arbitrary in-group and out-group is what must happen now for the world to operate. And that creates so much suffering. My point was that we must figure out a way to holistically transcend the nation-state, so that we can line up with the possibility of living in a more fair world. And this will require many shifts... technologically, ideologically, and psychologically.

Yes, I definitely think so.

To be fair, those screenshots are from several years ago... perhaps 3 or more years ago.

He's setting your expectations, so that you don't interpret your first 50 "nos" as a sign that you should stop approaching. And he's encouraging you to do a lot of volume. (In any kind cold marketing, more volume equals more sales) But that 3000 number is not realistic, even for cold approach.... unless you're doing something VERY ineffectively. And if you're a beginner to approaching women, you very well might be doing something VERY ineffectively. That's why he's setting your expectations at such a high volume. Number one, it gives you practice through volume. Number two, it sets your expectations very low, so that you don't get discouraged. In cold approach, you will likely have a close rate of about 0.5% to 2%. That's industry standard for any kind of cold marketing. So, you may need to cold approach 50-200 women to get one yes. And cold approach will take you longer to find a willing woman, because many women have standards to automatically sort out random guys that approach as most will see it as spam attention. It's the difference between cold sales and warm sales, business-wise or dating-wise. Cold sales will be much harder... because the "customer" doesn't know, like, or trust you. What I was recommending, however, was to get involved in a social circle. In a social circle, your numbers will be much better as you will have fewer leads... but warmer leads. They will come to know, like, and trust you... and you will be read as a more valuable partner. If you are looking for a girlfriend, social circle and building warm connections with female friends and acquaintances is the superior strategy. It requires fewer skills, and you will find more discerning partners who like you for your personality. Plus, it will meet your needs for community. If you are looking for a bunch of sexual variety and hook-ups and to have exciting sexual experiences, cold approach is the way to go.

It's a good idea... if done prior to the first time having sex or even if the guy just isn't in the mood. It's a major green flag actually. It tends to communicate that a man is more stable, mature, and experienced... and he isn't super desperate for sex and has the ability to withhold his sexual energy for the sake of making sure that things feel aligned and "right" for himself. And he makes that decision because that's what feels good to him. It communicates he has his own sexual boundaries... and higher standards for how he expresses his sexual energy. And it communicates that he's not desperate for sex. He is capable of leaving it, if he's not in the mood that night or if the dynamic isn't yet aligned. This also indicates that he will be more likely to be faithful because he can control himself sexually/emotionally and isn't just trying to have sex with whoever he can and whenever he can. It shows that he's able to wield his sexual energy and feelings with a high degree of discipline and mental strength. But it's better if this is done from a place of genuinely wanting to wait... and not as a performance that a man puts on to manipulate a certain reaction in the woman. Coming from that place of trying to evoke a reaction of woman, those decisions won't be sovereign decisions... and will still be coming from a needy and desperate "do what the woman wants" place. And a great many women will pick up on that. It won't pass the smell test. If you want to do it from a genuine place, you can do it from the perspective of, "I will enjoy the sex a lot more if I take actions to make sure she's really yearning for it." instead of, "How can I please her? I know, I'll wait and she'll like me more because I waited." Those are coming from very different places... and the intention behind the action will be felt. The main trick is to developing this orientation to sex in a genuine way is to recognize that sex really isn't scarce... and to recognize that you do have many many options. And you must also disambiguate sex from your sense of self-worth... and to disambiguate sex from any kind of Masculine identity you might be trying to construct. That will put you in a space where you can feel content in a space where you feel detached from sex relative to identity and physical urges... to where you can easily wait several more dates before something happens.

Yes, but that situation exists because wealthier nations have their boots on the necks of poorer countries... through regime change and the installation of dictators, exploitation of a cheap labor force, and extraction of natural resources. That's the nature of imperialism. The imperial powers maintain their power by dominating smaller countries. It's very unfair, of course. But it's how those who live in the imperial core maintain a higher standard of living than those who live outside of it. That's why everyone wants to move to the imperial core. It is the ultimate privilege. Everyone prefers to be the boot... and not the neck that the boot is stepping on. That's why immigration needs to be regulated, as there must be friction for people expatriating from neck locations and immigrating to boot locations. Otherwise, everyone would come to the boot locations... and the boot location would have no one to exploit. My point is that the system as it is needs reform. And the immigration issue won't be solved until we figure out a structure for society that is fair for everyone. Until then, the best we can do is to create a challenging but surmountable level of friction in the form of a path to citizenship for those relocating from the neck to the boot. Also, the current US system requires a cheap labor force in the form of immigrant labor to continue operating. If there were no illegal immigrants, the US economy would fall apart. So, the immigration "problem" with illegal immigration is not actually a bug... it's a feature that enables the economy to keep running. And if the immigration "problem" was solved, it would tank the economy. This is another example of why the system must change. Not only is it EXTREMELY unfair... it requires immigration laws to be bent and broken for the economy to keep functioning. It's these things that people don't understand about the issue with immigration. But an intelligent conversation about immigration can't be had without considering these facts about how the system works in reality.

But the vast majority of people who currently exist, prefer existence over non-existence... even if suffering is involved. So, we can logically assume that the currently existing majority's preference for existence would remain in all future-born people. So, the question is "Why are you trying to impose a moral philosophy that most people don't agree with, that would cause people who would most likely want to exist to not exist against their own preference for existence?" And you might say, "They don't exist yet to have a preference for existence. So, it's against their consent to bring them into existence." But then I would say, "Likewise, they don't exist yet to prefer non-existence. And non-existent people definitionally cannot consent to things because existence is required for consent. Yet, if we look at currently existing people, most of them value their lives and want to exist." That's why the philosophy of antinatalism is a moot point. Not only is it unrealistic and unpopular as a philosophy (which is an issue because antinatalism requires unanimous support and participation to achieve its stated aims of eradicating human suffering through eradicating human existence)... it's also (based on its own faulty logic of the lack of consent of non-existent people) forcing the non-existence decision onto non-existent people that the non-existent people didn't consent to. The idea of non-existent people consenting or not consenting is a silly notion to begin with, because they can't consent. But if they can't consent to existence... they also can't consent to non-existence. But it's truly a moot point because you're talking about the preferences of people who don't exist yet... and the non-consent of people who don't exist yet. So, in the same way that non-existent people can't deny consent and say "no" to existence... non-existent people also can't consent and say "yes" to existence. So, you are assuming a preference for non-existence in people who can't yet speak for themselves. And you're foisting the current and historical less popular option (non-existence) onto every would-be person who doesn't get to be because society listened to the antinatalists.

That's a slightly different issue. I think it would be good if our population drops gradually to about half of what it is now over the next 10-15 generations or so, as that would be better for the planet. That more gradual drop is already happening because of birth control, family planning, women's rights and bodily autonomy, and lifestyle differences in a post-industrial world. In fact, it's happening a little bit too fast to avoid the difficulties associated with population drop... especially in places like South Korea. But I think it will be manageable in most countries at this rate. But antinatalism plays no role in this drop. These kinds of ebbs and flows of birth rates come from more organic, non-ideological feedback loops within human nature and nature more generally. It's how the feedback loops of nature play out through human lifestyles and technological shifts. We just don't think of it as nature, but it is. That's why it happens in such a widespread way in post-industrial nations. Nature says... once humans are post-industrial that means the population has exploded. And in post-industrial societies people choose to have smaller families or opt not to have kids altogether. Nature is intelligent like that. Within the flow, there is a seed of the ebb. Within the ebb, is the seed of the flow. And having our population gradually drop requires us to eventually transcend the Capitalist system for a system that doesn't rely on the principle of infinite expansion... which will also eventually not work (just like Antinatalism and Libertarianism). What goes up must come down. But a steep drop in birth rates is not the way to do it. You have to taper it over many generations. And if (hypothetically) antinatalism gets adopted in the most maximal way that's realistically possible, that steep drop in birth rates would lead to a lot of human suffering. There would still be humans coming into existence, because most people aren't ideological about having kids. But the birth rate would put undue suffering onto those new people to take care of the massive aging population.

But the purported aim of antinatalism is to reduce/eliminate suffering. That is the aim of the ideology... to reduce/eliminate the suffering of sentient beings through non-existence. So, if the practical outcomes of people adopting an antinatalist ideology (in the most 'successful' realistic application of antinatalism, from an antinatalist perspective) is that it creates more suffering... then the philosophy is moot. It means that the philosophy is unrealistic and doesn't do what it intends to do. And if you aren't evaluating a philosophy based on its practical application within reality, you're just doing mental masturbation. It's similar to Libertarianism. The idea is, "If everyone abides the nonaggression principle, we could run the government and society like this." But the problem is that people don't abide the nonaggression principle. And people will never universally adopt and practice the nonaggression principle. So, Libertarianism can never practically work. With the antinatalist ideology, the best possible realistic scenario (from an antinatalist perspective) is a steeper drop in birth rates. And the effect of a steeper drop in birth rates, is that people will suffer. So, the ideology ends up practically doing the opposite of what it intends to do. That is why it is a moot ideology.

It rings hollow because most people don't agree with the idea the idea that procreating is unethical. And everyone has variations to their ethical compass. I see having children as ethically neutral and in the realm of personal sovereignty. And some people see not having children as unethical. And even if someone does theoretically agree that having children is unethical, the desire to have children is so meaningful to people that they'd absolutely be willing to break from that abstract idea that "procreation is unethical" in order to have kids. Like, if you really wanted to have kids, you would drop antinatalism like a hot potato. Not to mention the fact that having children comes from having sex... and people like to have sex. And there are tons of "oops!" babies that come into existence even though they weren't explicitly planned on. So, even if everyone got on board with the antinatalist ideology and was in agreement that having kids is unethical and defied their own deep desire to have children to be "ethical" in that way... there would still be "Oops!" babies. The only way to actually enact an antinatalist ideology would be to forcibly sterilize everyone against their will... which would bring us into eugenics territory But here are my counter-arguments... 1. Every decision you make... including the decision to donate to charity... is one that you make because it feels right to you or makes you feel good. There is no such thing as a selfless decision. And having children is no different. But that doesn't mean that you see your children as a mere tool of your happiness. Good parenting is a one-way street where you give care and they receive it to grow into themselves as people. The benefit that I get is that my children are really cool people to be around and it's amazing to watch them grow... and I'm glad to know them as people and to have them as my family. They are very much wanted by me... but their existence doesn't belong to me. 2. You don't know that the person you bring into this world won't value their life tremendously either. And you rob so many of them a chance to live and exist and experience if (hypothetically) society adopts an anti-natalist ideology. I am glad that my parents procreated and had me. I'm quite sure that my kids are also glad that I procreated and had them... as they don't wish not to exist. Most people prefer to live and want to continue existing... even if they encounter suffering in their lives. Most people do not attempt suicide or commit suicide. So, you are setting up a situation where people who would want to exist are disallowed from existence for the sake of an ideology. 3. A non-existent person cannot consent to existence (if we look from an Earthly perspective). So, that is a moot point. You have to exist to consent. Consenting only happens in the domain of existence. So, you cannot consent to existence. Therefore, you are simply acting as the ultimate authority and assume that everyone who exists is non-consenting... and you project your own ideas onto them and rescind consent for them. You assume their no... when perhaps they wanted to give an enthusiastic yes to life. Instead, you project an unpopular ideology onto them that assumes that they are forced to exist against their will. It's like stealing something precious from a sentient being by assuming that that sentient being doesn't want to exist. Now, of course, there are plenty of potential people who don't get born into existence. And I see that as being the sovereign prerogative of a given person as to whether or not they want to bring life into the world. But because you are saying, "Let's not bring people into this world because they might not want to exist.", my rebuttal is "What about the majority of people who do want to exist? Maybe 5% of people who are brought into existence, don't want to exist. But why deny the 95% of people who do want to exist for the sake of the 5%?" But ultimately, antinatalism rings hollow because the only people who agree with it are people who are looking for a post hoc justification for not having kids. The people who believe it's unethical to not have children tend to lord their perceived moral superiority over those who choose not to have kids... and badger them about "being selfish" and hounding them to have kids. So, as a rebuttal, those who don't want to have children use the antinatalist ideology to be like, "Actually, I'm the morally superior one... and you're being selfish for having kids." Almost no one else agrees with antinatalism. And even if they do, if having kids is meaningful to them, they will still have kids.

My point is that it's a fringe ideology that won't be adopted universally or by anyone who would actually want to have kids. So, the ideology of antinatalism is only adopted by people who already didn't want to have kids as a post hoc justification for not having kids in a world that pressures and pesters them to have kids. Literally no one who wants to have children is stopping themselves from procreating because of antinatalism or because of some abstract notion that "procreating is unethical"... which is something the majority of people don't agree with. So, the idea that human beings are all going to adopt the ideology of antinatalism and stop reproducing until there are no humans is a moot point, as it would never happen. If hypothetically (and this probably wouldn't happen either, as I don't think literally anyone who wants children would be swayed by antinatalist rhetoric towards not having them), a sizable minority of people started to adopt an antinatalist philosophy and stopped having kids, what would happen is that our birth rates would fall and it would cause a lot of suffering over the coming generations because we'd have an aging population with fewer younger people to prop the economy up. That's the most realistic result of this ideology. So, if the attempt at switching to an antinatalist ideology succeeds as best it possibly can, it would just lead to a lower birth rate... and not the human race dying out entirely. And having a steep decline in the birth rate would lead to a lot of suffering. So, it's a moot point.

Good luck getting people who want to have children on board with that. First off, antinatalism is a pretty extreme ideology that would have dire consequences for the human race if it were adopted on a broader scale. We're already trending towards lower birth rates, and that could lead to some really difficult living circumstances for the humans who are already alive. It's something we should try to pump the brakes on slightly, if we can. We don't want to end up like South Korea will be in a generation or two. But beyond that, people who want to have children just aren't going to adopt antinatalism. The only people who agree with antinatalism are a percentage of people who didn't want to have kids anyway. And they adopted antinatalism as an ideological justification for that decision long after they knew they didn't want children. It would be a very rare person indeed who really wants to have a child but decides not to because they heard the antinatalist philosophy. The rhetoric rings quite hollow unless you're looking for ways to feel better about your decision not to have kids by framing it as morally superior to others' decision to have them. I can see it really appeal to people who don't want to have children (especially women who don't want to have children) because people are always harassing them about having kids... and saying bullshit like, "people who choose not to have kids are selfish" and other things like that. So, I see antinatalism as something that the childfree people who get harassed by breeders adopt as a way to push back and say, "Actually, you're selfish for having kids because life is suffering!"

In the U.S., it's statistically proven that immigrants (legal and illegal) commit fewer crimes per capita than U.S. born citizens. And chances are, if someone is worldly enough to immigrate to another place, they probably have a good bit of Orange and above in regards to spiral dynamics. Immigrants are generally very ambitious people who are focused on achieving upward social mobility. It's a very Orange thing to do. But if you want to know why it's necessary for immigration to be regulated, it's because of how countries with imperial power use that power to disenfranchise other countries... which creates a 'haves and have nots' situation where there's a huge disparity in standard of living between countries. So, the wealthiest places on the planet are in the imperial core, where all the power is concentrated. And if given the option to, most people would move to the imperial core... as they are places where conditions are better and human rights are more of a guarantee. But we can't have all the people in the world piling into a handful of powerful imperial nations. And if all people did that, the empire wouldn't have enough people outside of the imperial core to legally exploit for cheap labor to make the imperial core livable. That level of exploitation is reserved for countries outside of the imperial core because of laxer human rights laws in less powerful countries. To give an analogy, let's say there's a big open field. And a few spots in the field are really nice... but the rest of the field is covered in ant piles and the ants will bite you if you're in those spots. So, of course, the people who are standing in the spots with the ants will try to move to a spot with no ants. But then, everyone will be crammed into the non-ant-ridden spaces. That's what's happening globally... only with poverty and human rights abuses instead of ants. So, we need immigration regulated to maintain the order of what we currently have... or it will all fall apart as there will be no have nots to exploit to make the haves lives better. You need have nots in the current system for there to be haves. Ultimately, this problem will only get solved when the countries where most immigrants expatriate from become more safe, stable, and comfortable places to live, with more upward mobility and more human rights. Then, you'll probably see immigration numbers drop by half or more.

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.