Gen Z Women Prefer Gay Men Over Straight Men

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

@Emerald
My attacks were missile specific, while he calls us unexceptional, dodges specifics, and claims he is the one with an exceptional life. 

How you read this conversation the way you did is beyond me.

Nobody is disputing LordFalls advice.

That does not change that it is unsolicited and being used to dodge actual questions.

Also, @Inliytened1 and I have got so heated, in a similar topic, that I at least discussed the conversation with Leo. We both have faults.

But the fact that we’re agreeing on this should say something.

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads.

But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like...

"What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made.

Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place.

It just made you guys look silly and unserious.

So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads.

But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like...

"What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made.

Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place.

It just made you guys look silly and unserious.

So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

I called him out and he lied.  He hasn't slept with 50 girls.

[Inliytened1]

@Emerald we just called him out on his bullshit  You know how you can spot a bullshit artist? Look in the mirror.

Edited September 12 by Inliytened1

[yetineti]

The drunk allegations may continue 😂

I think you’re just excited but I don’t know nothing

[yetineti]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Maybe I missed some context from previous discussions you guys had in other threads.

But my point still stands that I don't like arguments that involve empty grandstanding and ad hominems like...

"What a bleak, self centered life." and "Ego, folks." - to comments that he made where he was just matter-of-factly rebutting previous arguments that you made.

Plus a bunch of other things Inliytened said competing with him about his bodycount... when he was only mentioning the number of women he's slept with because Inliytened brought it up in the first place.

It just made you guys look silly and unserious.

So, if Lordfall was also arguing dishonestly, I didn't see that on this thread.

@Emerald

You’re right. If I’m accusing him of a pattern, the burden is on me to actually show it. And yes, “bleak, self-centered life” and “Ego, folks” were cheap shots. I don’t need to defend them.

Here is probably the cleanest example from this thread.

I wrote:

“That is the central problem. Every criticism becomes projection, cowardice or insufficient competence.”

His next response called my objections a “romanticization of mediocrity disguised as Zen philosophy,” said I must not like being competent, and contrasted his preferred women with an “Amish girl” or an “unambitious woman” who might suit me.

When I pointed out that he had just done exactly what I described, he responded by calling us Stage Green, bitter and passive-aggressive, suggested I was seeking validation and “weaselling out,” and later said my arguments came from a “victim mindset instead of agency and abundance.”

That is the pattern I meant. I questioned the tradeoffs within his framework, and the framework was repeatedly used to explain what must be deficient about me for questioning it. Whether he does that deliberately or sincerely believes those descriptions, it still replaces engagement with categorization.

My cheap shots did not prove my argument, and I’ll own that. But they also did not create the pattern, and his responses were not simply matter-of-fact rebuttals.

Edited September 12 by yetineti

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

The drunk allegations may continue 😂

I think you’re just excited but I don’t know nothing

Weapons are down.  Light sabers safely tucked away.  I am still waiting for @Monster Energy to get in the ring.

[Inliytened1]

@LordFall you got 50? Well hot damn. 

[yetineti]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Weapons are down.  Light sabers safely tucked away.  I am still waiting for @Monster Energy to get in the ring.

Was I not supposed to be fighting with my Schwartz?

Edited September 12 by yetineti

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

Was I not supposed to be fighting with my Schwartz?

Hilarious.  Looks like he's trying to hold his dick.

[yetineti]

@Inliytened1 Bro—have you never seen ‘Spaceballs,’ the Star Wars spoof?!

1987?! They’re coming out with a new one. It will probably suck. Enjoy the original while you can.

Edited September 12 by yetineti

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

@Inliytened1 Bro—have you never seen ‘Spaceballs,’ the Star Wars spoof?!

1987?! They’re coming out with a new one. It will probably suck. Enjoy the original while you can.

Thats one of the gems I missed. But now that you mentioned it I'm gonna go back and watch the one from 1987.

[yetineti]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Thats one of the gems I missed. But now that you mentioned it I'm gonna go back and watch the one from 1987.

Wow. I’m actually excited for you.

Assuming, you like slapstick parody and Mel Brooks.

It is stupid like ‘Dumb and Dumber’ is stupid. But also it is its own thing.

You have acted silly enough and mentioned Star Wars enough to make me think you’d get a kick out of it.

 

[yetineti]

Shhhhii—I might go watch it too. Everyone meet back here in two and a half with this to bond over.

[Joshe]

43 minutes ago, yetineti said:

His next response called my objections a “romanticization of mediocrity disguised as Zen philosophy,” said I must not like being competent, and contrasted his preferred women with an “Amish girl” or an “unambitious woman” who might suit me.

When I pointed out that he had just done exactly what I described, he responded by calling us Stage Green, bitter and passive-aggressive, suggested I was seeking validation and “weaselling out,” and later said my arguments came from a “victim mindset instead of agency and abundance.”

That is the pattern I meant. I questioned the tradeoffs within his framework, and the framework was repeatedly used to explain what must be deficient about me for questioning it. Whether he does that deliberately or sincerely believes those descriptions, it still replaces engagement with categorization.

Edited September 12 by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

So, when you have a worldview or frame that acts to discount any falsifiability - the model is self sealing. Exchanges will then repeatedly function to discount the phenomenological information supplied by anyone - the frame is being used to reduce other people to NPC's. If you don't agree - you are "lower", "not conscious enough", "projecting", "need to do shadow work", "not sufficiently intellectually developed". Any objections to the framework are explained away. The model acquires a built-in defence against falsification. 

This is how you get stuck in paradigms.

It also has the rather nasty side effect of reducing the person down to some mechanism and can potentially induce a dehumanizing feeling in others (they are just NPC's the model explains, not real people with individual meaning, experience, values that genuinely differ).

What is worse - is when the model (or frame) is then used to pathologise some part of your view in a further attempt to reduce, discount and discard any genuine points being raised against it.

"Your argument is mistaken because your psychology is defective."

[Inliytened1]

50 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Wow. I’m actually excited for you.

Assuming, you like slapstick parody and Mel Brooks.

It is stupid like ‘Dumb and Dumber’ is stupid. But also it is its own thing.

You have acted silly enough and mentioned Star Wars enough to make me think you’d get a kick out of it.

 

Yeah honestly I don't know how i missed it.

[eos_nyxia]

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

When I pointed out that he had just done exactly what I described, he responded by calling us Stage Green, bitter and passive-aggressive, suggested I was seeking validation and “weaselling out,” and later said my arguments came from a “victim mindset instead of agency and abundance.”

This forum has had an issue with people weaponizing spiral dynamics for years. I don't think it's very constructive for anyone involved. 

[yetineti]

29 minutes ago, Joshe said:

 

6 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

So, when you have a worldview or frame that acts to discount any falsifiability - the model is self sealing. Exchanges will then repeatedly function to discount the phenomenological information supplied by anyone - the frame is being used to reduce other people to NPC's. If you don't agree - you are "lower", "not conscious enough", "projecting", "need to do shadow work", "not sufficiently intellectually developed". Any objections to the framework are explained away. The model acquires a built-in defence against falsification. 

This is how you get stuck in paradigms.

It also has the rather nasty side effect of reducing the person down to some mechanism and can potentially induce a dehumanizing feeling in others (they are just NPC's the model explains, not real people with individual meaning, experience, values that genuinely differ).

What is worse - is when the model (or frame) is then used to pathologise some part of your view in a further attempt to reduce, discount and discard any genuine points being raised against it.

"Your argument is mistaken because your psychology is defective."

@Joshe

“What if this is just fascination + identity + seriousness being inflated into universal importance?”

@Natasha Tori Maru

“Your argument is mistaken because your psychology is defective.”

Exactly. These two posts are why I held my ground.

Joshe names the inflation. Natasha names the mechanism.

Once someone’s fascination, identity and seriousness are inflated into universal importance, and the framework becomes self-sealing, ordinary disagreement stops working.

Every objection becomes further evidence that the person objecting is mediocre, projecting, victim-minded, Stage Green, insufficiently competent, or whatever else the model can absorb.

You are no longer being answered. You are being explained away.

That is where public prodding can have value. Not because a pile-on establishes truth, and not because I was trying to bait LordFall.

You name the mechanism, keep it in view, and let people watch it repeat until it becomes visible outside the framework.

I became too combative at points, and some of my insults weakened the presentation. I own that. But that explains why I should have communicated the pressure better, not why the pressure itself was unnecessary.

It is difficult not to react when the framework you are challenging is simultaneously being used to invalidate your perspective and characterize you as a person.

This also was not happening in a vacuum. LordFall has explicitly refused to acknowledge me in a previous exchange.

 

[Inliytened1]

@Natasha Tori Maru so how's the aussie tonight? 😉

[LordFall]

@Emerald Appreciate your grounding and perspective on how arguments actually function versus performative noise.

@Natasha Tori Maru The practical distinction here is context. I’m not proposing a universal metaphysical truth that works for anyone under any circumstances; I’m outlining the mechanics of building leverage in your life and in your dating life in this context. 

@Joshe I think this says more about your psychology than mine. I don't generally tend to put people down for their desired lifestyles, I just call out the logical inconsistencies in the arguments they're making.

If someone says "Kyle what I really want is to spend the next 20 years in the forest and date no one. I've had relationships before and I've built a career and business and now i'm satisfied and want to explore a new stage of my life in the forest. If I change my mind I have other options I can take, I'm in no danger and I'm excited about my new quest!" I would simply say that's so interesting, have fun and report back on how it went.

If someone says "Building a high quality dating life is impossible, society is stacked against you so I will be single and alone for the next 20 years!" Then I will break down their points because it that example their thoughts seem based more on limiting beliefs and lack of strategy as opposed to the truth of our civilization.

I tend to value impact and scale because that's how you start living in a life in a way that gives you real agency in the world as opposed to being stuck in the already established system. If someone is afraid of that mindset then I will push back on it but I don't recall ever ridiculing someone for having modest ambitions.

I do think the average person on this forum is stage green and falls into obvious pitfalls of that stage being that they reject the competence and materialistic aspect of stage orange. They also have the easy cognitive bias of defaulting to lazy stereotypes which makes it easy for me to deconstruct their points. I consider myself pretty solidly stage yellow and understand the world both from their perspective and my own but also bake into my arguments the systems that regulate our society and I don't fall prey to using my feelings first in arguments which would leave me inherently biased. 

@yetineti My reluctance to go deeper into your points was due to your bad faith nature entering the post. I don't think there is much value in engaging antagonistic people as it will turn to mud slinging which I enjoy if theres a gentlemanly duel nature to it but when it becomes purely about evasion and and ego battles then I lose interest. Since you have taken accountability already we can move past that and engage in a more good-faith discussion. To take accountability as well, I did grey rock method you in the previous 'where have you had sex thread' so I do understand you feeling some resentment towards me in entering this one. 

I addressed your points generally and broke down my thoughts on how my dating strategy deals with the general ideals that you've presented. When you made a list of 10+ of them I addressed the one that was most flagrant to me. I generalized your points as being based in victim mindset and identifying with mediocrity because they weren't very precise and tended to take a moral grandstanding approach. Mediocrity just means being average and identifying with average concerns. I try to bake in that I will work extra hard to overcome the limitations of the average man so I can build an extraordinary life for myself. 

"• Freedom: Travel without financial independence becomes slavery and “blue balling” yourself rather than an experience worth having on its own terms"

I don't know what you want me to say, if you enjoy it then have fun. I have travelled enough to experience the world on a shallow level and to really dig deeper I think I will have to host events in other countries and get involved directly in joint ventures with people there or just do it in a luxury travel style to enjoy the best of what it has to offer.

"• Equality: You describe status as “winner takes all,” with the top man getting nearly everything while everyone else becomes irrelevant or fights for scraps."

That's not really my point. I described building a community and helping people problem solve their issues in life and posting it on social media so you scale. Thankfully the average person seems quite lazy or too wrapped up with their psyche to be able to do that so they end up irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as a result. That's what I mean by my "insults" are definitions.

If you are only relevant to the people close to you(Dunbar's number of 150 connections in a base tribe comes to mind) then you are irrelevant to other humans in the world. If you are hosting events or post content across your country and the world as a whole then you gain more relevancy. You can be relevant in a good way as in you help solve problems for humans globally or you can be infamous like I'm sure there are celebrities you dislike that you've never met. 

There are just the ones that jump out to me but if you want to make a more cohesive point against what I say then feel free. Streams of thoughts are hard to engage with as they require so much energy to address. Make it more like a thesis format and start with a sentence summarizing your strongest point. 

@Inliytened1 This is gonna sound harsh but I do mean it well, have you ever tried doing therapy? It seems that you go on these bizarre attack sprees that I can only imagine stem from your need to affirm status online or unloading negative emotions from events in your daily life. 

I have done therapy and it's helped me integrate my psyche and recognize when I was being passive-aggressive or blew up at people in an irrational way.

I think it will also help you understand why I believe in polyamory so strongly. I have addressed most of my shadows and my reactive emotional tendencies so I can generally engage with people in a more grounded approach without my subconscious flipping out or acting in counterproductive ways.

It doesn't make my model cold or unemotional, on the contrary it lets me build very deeply emotional relationships built on a secure attachment style that benefit all parties without being stuck in an anxious or avoidant pattern. 

Edited September 12 by LordFall