Reflecting on my relationship to this forum...

[integral]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I didn't say anything like that.

Just that both sexes do what you what you claim is attributed to women. Tis not isolated to sex. Nothing I said denied biological difference. Just that in this case there is miss-attribution.

The motivation is not the same. Everyone on the surface is trying to "win". The intention is different.

[integral]

Emerald is showing what masculine adaptation looks like in woman, the unhealthy distortion it takes to survive in a achievers world with feminine biology.

Women are under more pressure then men in this world because its less suited for there nature. They have to fight the grain more.

Edited 10 hours ago by integral

[Human Mint]

On 11/16/2025 at 5:09 PM, Emerald said:

• I must remain intellectually honest
• I must not use ad hominem attacks
• I must not grand-stand or posture in empty ways (i.e. "You just don't get it the way that I do." or "Well, you're Stage Blue/Red? Green, so..." or (posturing myself like the authority who knows something the other person doesn't) "That's for you to figure out on your own."
• I must genuinely try to help the other person understand
• I must not use logical fallacies
• I must state the source of where my insight is deriving from so as to give my explanation the proper amount of authority in the eyes of the reader (i.e. a scientific study, an insight that I got, what makes logical sense to me, my friend experienced this, etc.)
• I must clean up what I've written to take off any personalized harsh edges... and keep my edginess purely in the intellectual dismantling of the topic at hand.

Actually the way you learn is by not following those points, making the mistakes, and facing the limitation of not following those points. Nothing is mandatory.

[integral]

5 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Actually the way you learn is by not following those points, making the mistakes, and facing the limitation of not following those points. Nothing is mandatory.

You need to care about truth. That's all that it.

When your top value is emotions and how things make you feel then you're gonna engage in all of this survival behavior and you're gonna have to set rules for yourself not to commit these acts.

Edited 9 hours ago by integral

[Human Mint]

29 minutes ago, integral said:

You need to care about truth. That's all that it.

When your top value is emotions and how things make you feel then you're gonna engage in all of this survival behavior and you're gonna have to set rules for yourself not to commit these acts.

Yup. If you feel puzzled and don't know quite good the right move then you're on a good path to actual understanding.

[Elliott]

"Women. 🍻 "

 "We're not sexist, we're just right! 🍻"

 

Every woman should get her daily dose of mansplaining, they'd wander into traffic or something otherwise.

/s

Edited 7 hours ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, integral said:

Of course I need to buffer this by explaining I don't mean 100% of the population. I don't mean we are all 100% UN-EQUAL, I do not mean there isn't diversity. I do not mean genders don't exist or masculine and feminine polarity doesn't exist. I don't mean any of this. Thank you lol.

I'm pointing to biological expression of how a mind is created through the female biology and through the male biology and the divergent trend.

That's why bringing up "woman are x" on this forum is tone deaf (and by consequence, sexist) because most women who like to engage with the forum (a male dominated space) probably aren't like most women in certain key ways in the first place. So your generalization doesn't land, at all, and hence forcing the generalization is exceedingly sexist.

I "dated" this girl once (had one meeting with her lol), 8 years older than me, extremely intelligent, extremely confrontational but with finesse (a bit like some people on here 👀). She would obliterate this forum, and she would be nothing like "women just like to be right". She would put you down in a logical chokehold or absolutely not care. (She coincidentally said she grew up with only boys until high school).

But even the generalization itself is up for dispute (such generalizations in themselves can be quite sexist because they land for relatively few people that the generalization describes). That said, I often make such generalizations, but I won't spend time arguing for them like it's some divine insight into reality. They're the most general of generalizations. It's something you have one thought about and then you proceed to something more relevant and insightful.

That you want to spend any more than one second on it, and that any confrontation of your point is met with "it's obviously true; but yes, it's just a generalization, but why are you trying to argue against it? — see what I'm talking about?", could be indicating that you just want to win.

Edited 8 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, integral said:

The motivation is not the same. Everyone on the surface is trying to "win". The intention is different.

I prompt you to assess the assumption made here, surrounding possible intent. I think it will be an area of growth for you 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, integral said:

Emerald is showing what masculine adaptation looks like in woman, the unhealthy distortion it takes to survive in a achievers world with feminine biology.

Women are under more pressure then men in this world because its less suited for there nature. They have to fight the grain more.

Do you how weird it would be if I came up to every single topic you made and said "well, you see, men are like this and men are like that"?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do you how weird it would be if I came up to every single topic you made and said "well, you see, men are like this and men are like that"?

I would probably ask what happened to Carl, and where did he go?  🤪

[Elliott]

It's not just sexist either, in this context it's gaslighting too.

 

Sadly, I think this is the kind of thing Emerald identified as the root to her suppressing anger.

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[integral]

If you're going to misrepresent my position without steel Manning, that's your problem, I can't bend over backwards playing these games.

What I said has nothing to do with anything black pill or red pill or any garbage like that.

 

Apply yourselves next time. Does anyone realize how little you all care about truth? Social games you're playing? She just made an entire confession about all she cares about is winning. Please spare me the psychoanalysis.

 

What insight do you think I'm gonna have reading this topic?, "a woman explains how she became obsessed with winning socially to protect herself"

Please write a book about it.

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[Elliott]

On 11/16/2025 at 3:09 PM, Emerald said:

 

 

So, I built lots of filtering mechanisms that have made my anger and disgust even unconscious to myself.

 

Quote

 

But on this forum, there's actually space for this disowned part of me that is sadistic, angry, and cruel... and who delights in defeating others.

 

So, what I do is that I channel my sadism, anger, and cruelty and I hook it up to my intellect... which is an effective weapon, and not futile like my childhood expressions of anger.

 

Then, I have certain rules for dueling that both cloak my sadistic tendencies and mitigate the harm of them, which are...

 

• I must remain intellectually honest

 

 

But in cases where the person has a cruel or ignorant perspective that muddies the water around or enables the plebeian cruelty that endemic in this world, I really take the gloves off. 

 

@integral

I think you're dealing with some displaced resentment. I don't read what she's saying as "I come here to win".

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[integral]

@Elliott

Quote

Adaptation to Social Environment for Protection

"When I was a child, I discovered that anytime I ever tried to stand up for myself it was futile and just made things worse... And eventually, I developed this coping strategy of remaining stoic and unemotional in the face of boundary violations"

"as a pre-teen, when I decided towards a stance of never getting angry and never showing anger, it was like this shield where people didn't mess with me as much"

"So, it was a powerful stance to disengage and have a perpetual poker-face in combination with coming across as cool and laid back."

Becoming Obsessed With Winning

"So, this forum is like a big intellectual dick-measuring contest... and I have a really big one. And I like to win."

"And I know that I can out-do most of them because of my fealty to intellectual honesty and reconciliation of many perspectives."

"But in cases where the person has a cruel or ignorant perspective that muddies the water around or enables the plebeian cruelty that endemic in this world, I really take the gloves off."

"But in this setting, I can just dismantle it... and defeat their perspective."

"But the sadism piece of this is also present, as there is a desire to cause some pain to those who have a more cruel perspective"

"And it's like I can keep running through the process that I needed to happen when I was a child... to have my anger actually win me the fight that I was in the right about."

I know from the many debates I've had with her that she will never fully represent a person's position, truthfully (steel manning). By doing so this fuels conversations to go on forever until the person gives up.

Because of this need to win distorting everything the people she engages with feels wronged so they continuing engaging, when you misrepresent someone they want clarity they want closure and she will never give that to them.

---

If I have any emotions towards this, is this dominatrix kind of mindset is the exact opposite of how I think about everything. The feeling of winning makes me feel bad and the idea that i will intellectually outperformed someone and win over them makes me feel bad. I have no interest in any of this. I want to raise people up to the highest level and nothing else matters. I have no interest in winning to gratify myself. I get absolutely no gratification socializing.

So when she debates with me and pulls this stonewall games waisting my time, and now she confesses of how much she enjoys winning.

It screams female empowerment games.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[integral]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

But even the generalization itself is up for dispute (such generalizations in themselves can be quite sexist because they land for relatively few people that the generalization describes). That said, I often make such generalizations, but I won't spend time arguing for them like it's some divine insight into reality. They're the most general of generalizations. It's something you have one thought about and then you proceed to something more relevant and insightful.

I don't agree. I only went "on" and "on" because I was attacked.

I went on and on because what i said was taken out of context and set on fire.

Do you know how many times someone has told me I was sexist in my life, zero.

The whole idea that I've made one basic statement and then I'm being attacked for being sexist, overgeneralizing and people are telling me I need to self reflect.

Guys... stop the games.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, integral said:

@Elliott

 

It screams female empowerment games.

 

20 hours ago, integral said:

Most women have the problem where they engage in a conversation to win, 

 

These are the only things I'm pointing to. I think your criticisms of Emerald specifically are fair. I think it's gaslighting to write her off with "most women have the problem....", and I think the generalizations are inaccurate using "most women" therefore they seem obviously sexist to me.

Some people, a lot of women, get defensive if they just want to be heard but then you try to solve their problem, the defensiveness can look like wanting to win, they actually just want to be heard.

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, integral said:

I don't agree. I only went "on" and "on" because I was attacked.

I went on and on because what i said was taken out of context and set on fire.

Do you know how many times someone has told me I was sexist in my life, zero.

The whole idea that I've made one basic statement and then I'm being attacked for being sexist, overgeneralizing and people are telling me I need to self reflect.

Guys... stop the games.

Such a man thing to deny all wrongdoing 😒

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

A tray cart full of cookies and milk is being delivered to all the valiant heroes defending the honour of women in this thread and on this forum, I hope they'll taste good

Edited 3 hours ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@integral You might be reacting to a loaded context you have pre-existing regarding your interactions with @Emerald

Reading per post again in isolation I think you may be reacting in an emotionally charged manner to just one line of the entire post. Thus missing the point.

I do think it might be worth exploring why you feel so triggered at being called sexist in attitude.

Usually when we are confident and assured there isn't even a need to defend.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Carl-Richard]

I think there is like a cognitive schema that is activated for many people when they see women say something on this forum. It's like because they are a clear minority and their woman status is more visible, any explanation for what they say must be "hua- whell, that's because you're a whoamen".

But this is a logical fallacy. Being a woman is such an extremely general category, and just because they're the minority in a situation, doesn't mean their behavior is suddenly more explainable by that extremely general category. It's just a heuristic that your mind jumps to because that is what is available to work with.

And how can I prove this? Well, if we were to say "whell, that's because you're maan" just as much we say "that's because you're womon", that would be hella weird. Somehow we don't do it, because it's, guess what — not a very good explanation.

To insist on a bad explanation (not just because it's hyper-general but also that it might even be statistically bogus), when that explanation also puts the women in question down, tries to make them seem inferior, and doing this virtually only for women and not for men, is pretty describable as "sexist".

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard