Last Post on the Forum

[Natasha Tori Maru]

52 minutes ago, integral said:

This place is like the epistemic holy grail in comparison to every other place on the internet. lmao

Where is she gonna go? There are many stage green communities that value Vibe over everything else, where they're epistemically blind to how important Vibe is to them in the writing style. It might be a nicer environment?

Don't conflate nice with honest and charitable (especially in this context - debate). I don't think it does anyone any service to try to argue (or frame in such a way) uncharitable tactics are acceptable.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[integral]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Don't conflate nice with honest and charitable (especially in this context - debate). I don't think it does anyone any service to try to argue uncharitable tactics are acceptable.

I'm not sure the full context here. Maybe Im miss reading

Did she recently have a debate with someone?

[Joshe]

The truth is these issues stem from AO largely being a community of gamma males. 

Gamma males gonna gamma male. You can't argue them out of it, and when you realize the implications of being part of a community largely comprised of gamma males, you eventually realize it's not sustainable and you leave. Emerald finally realized it. 

People are afraid to call them out because they want to maintain civility, but it's the elephant in the room that most people don't want to acknowledge. We all just converse like it isn't toxic af. 

When member's entire lives and identities are organized around compensatory superiority, how much good faith discussion can truly be had? 

If what I'm saying is accurate, how much good faith conversation should one expect from a community of gamma males? 

And of course, Leo is the top gamma male, which is why this place is doomed. People wonder why good people come and go. This is often the reason. 

Even @eos_nyxia's husband picked up on "incel vibes" from very limited data as an outsider. That's because incel is the closest term he could find to match the pattern. Had he known what a gamma male was, he could have called it right. 

So, keep ignoring the elephant in the room. Actually, it seems most people don't even perceive what I'm saying, so they can't even see the elephant. 

And people talking about Emerald being butt hurt. lol. Your entire life is organized around you being precisely that. It's a fucking joke and you need it smeared in your face if you're going to have any hope. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Joshe

[Vido]

Hmm...i interviewed couple people here and they all seem to be super chill normal people. I feel people are too honest and open here for obvious reasons, which makes it seem that way

 

I feel if you guys meet in a bar you'll have super different opinion of them i feel, including leo

Edited 3 hours ago by Vido

[integral]

@Joshe you're describing Nietzsche? lol

[integral]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

If what I'm saying is accurate, how much good faith conversation should one expect from a community of gamma males? 

I feel like there's a diverse number of people here and only a few people are similar to Leo.

[aurum]

I always liked Emerald.

She was one of the first users around here. And she had a thoughtful, unique mind. 

But this gender debate had been happening for years. There’s a lot of context to that recent thread newer users might not understand.

I think our perspectives diverged more over time. It did also feel to me that she respected this community less and less.

It’s a shame. I would have rather her stayed, but perhaps this is best.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

45 minutes ago, integral said:

I'm not sure the full context here. Maybe Im miss reading

Did she recently have a debate with someone?

Yep! I think your replies were based on previous interactions between yourself and Emerald. In those, there was a serious disagreement that had little to do with being uncharitable or slippery with rasing and countering points (from my perspective anyway). In most of your history with her you, she engaged in some serious mental jousting because you were approaching in good faith. And you have always been a charitable and good faith debater (from my observations).

Context for this thread:

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/116710-women-are-better-hunter-science-suggests/?page=1

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, integral said:

I'm not sure the full context here. Maybe Im miss reading

Did she recently have a debate with someone?

 

Yes. It was on my thread about human biology that Natasha shared. But that was only the drop that filled the glass. I think she was burned out by constant arguing with the users here. I personally do not spend lots of time here mainly because I met dishonest people here that make me lose interest in contributing. 

Male/female discussions made me spend a bit more time here and it is there I saw Emerald fighting hard.

Now idk, we have to keep a balance on the forum. Between masculinity and femininity. We cannot just give up truth seeking so everyone feels included. In that case, I am am outa here. We are not children playing in the sand. We are a philosophy forum.

But on the other hand, we cannot just let any asshole attack and insult people who diverge from the status quo. In that way we only will have some autistic circle jerkers who are dogpiling anyone who dare to critique those who dominate the Internal power dynamics. And in that case too, we can lose serious people.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Alexop

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

The truth is these issues stem from AO largely being a community of gamma males. 

Gamma males gonna gamma male. You can't argue them out of it, and when you realize the implications of being part of a community largely comprised of gamma males, you eventually realize it's not sustainable and you leave. Emerald finally realized it. 

People are afraid to call them out because they want to maintain civility, but it's the elephant in the room that most people don't want to acknowledge. We all just converse like it isn't toxic af. 

When member's entire lives and identities are organized around compensatory superiority, how much good faith discussion can truly be had? 

If what I'm saying is accurate, how much good faith conversation should one expect from a community of gamma males? 

And of course, Leo is the top gamma male, which is why this place is doomed. People wonder why good people come and go. This is often the reason. 

Even @eos_nyxia's husband picked up on "incel vibes" from very limited data as an outsider. That's because incel is the closest term he could find to match the pattern. Had he known what a gamma male was, he could have called it right. 

So, keep ignoring the elephant in the room. Actually, it seems most people don't even perceive what I'm saying, so they can't even see the elephant. 

And people talking about Emerald being butt hurt. lol. Your entire life is organized around you being precisely that. It's a fucking joke and you need it smeared in your face if you're going to have any hope. 

Interesting.  I see it more like Emerald was trying to have a really high-level rational discussion with people who didn't want to do that for whatever reason.

[Joseph Maynor]

Keep in mind that we have pre-rational, rational, and post-rational people here.  

[Jirh]

@Natasha Tori Maru Contemplating this issue makes me appreciate the ones who stay even more 🙏🏻❤️

[Ulax]

@Natasha Tori Maru You consistently engage in bad tactics yourself here lol

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@Natasha Tori Maru You consistently engage in bad tactics yourself here lol

I never claimed I didn't. I usually review and try to improve after my interactions. I always include myself in my analysis - which is, incidentally - where most of the conclusions come from (my own behaviour noticed first, then how that is seen in others). 

Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't mean truth isn't illustrated in what was raised. 

[Salvijus]

I just wanted to say that I forgive all of you. 

 

 

[Basman]

3 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

No, that's my exact point. When we say "obvious stuff," people are taking "obvious" and the notion of "normalcy" or "matter-of-factness" as truth. Leo has plenty of videos on this, and in general, we are aware that the notion of what is "normal" or "obvious" is an extremely fickle thing.

Same way a white person who's racist might say, "Okay, but it's obvious the white race is superior. Look around you!" Or a religious person might say, "Okay, but it's obvious there has to be a creator. It's just obvious. It's obvious Jesus is the way." You're using nuance for a bias, but this stuff is "obvious" to these people.

And to clarify about the hunting part. I'm completely okay with accepting that that's the truth, or not the truth; I don't have a bias there. Nor do I think Emerald or anyone in the conversation wanted to say, "Women and men are equal and equally strong and equally developed, and they do the same roles equally and equally efficiently with equal desire and preference, and all is the same." That's a silly takeaway.

If I remember correctly, what was discussed in the thread was the notions of femininity in modern times vs. previous times, and how a lot of the traits you'd see as masculine, you'd see in women as well, because that's what survival entails. The notion of what femininity is was questioned, as well as how it relates to masculinity, how the split developed, and so on. But then a lot of it turned into more rigid, simplistic, binary ways of seeing gender that are stereotypical and don't really question anything, and most of it was also very gender-war-esque, without proper argumentation. People made assumptions and argued very strongly in absolute terms: "This is 100% how we evolved. This is 100% what gender is."

I'd say that's one of my biggest critiques of some of these discussions.

It's completely fine to say, "It seems, based on research and evidence, that men, on average, are taller than women or have greater bone density, muscle mass, etc." But what you don't do is say, "Hence why men are generally more capable, femininity means being weak and dependent, and if you claim to be strong, you're not actually a woman. You are a masculine woman. You need to be fragile and frail; that's what true femininity is." Do you see how big that leap is?

It's fine to make generalizations when they are largely true. It's a bigger leap to make woke post-modern claims about women, which are clearly ideological.

If it's not obvious what a woman is you are probably overthinking it. Go outside more. Read how people actually live outside of modern standards of living. It's not some grand mystery. Your overstating the degree of harmful stereotyping in my opinion.

Edited 27 minutes ago by Basman

[OBEler]

@Emerald oh I really enjoyed your posts. If you come back sometime I would appreciate it, your perspectives on many topics are refreshing. 

But yeah can understand that here is not much feminine energy. I hope in the future this will change. We as men like confronting each other, we do not take it so seriously or mean. I hope you don't take things too seriously. 

Edited 24 minutes ago by OBEler

[AION]

When users say women are better at x, people like Emerald expect aplause but when we say the opposite she brings up her childhood trauma. That is not very honest conduct. I expected more maturity from her. I mean if she is a 18 year old girl or doesn't take the moral high ground all the time, and steps off her high horse, people would let her just be. But the combination of things make it just very distasteful. Especially because she said she came here to argue on this forum and when she gets it she brings up her childhood trauma as a defense. This forum is rapidly churning into a toxic social justice forum. Women are allowed to say everything. Mods and Leo are allowed to say misogynistic stuff and jokes but when normal users say something slightly edgy people get a warning or a ban. I'm starting to understand Nahm more and more who tried to fix things on this forum and was forced to do a failed coup. His forum is actually how things should be organized as. Leo has a bad taste for mods and they are ruining everything.

Edited 10 minutes ago by AION

[oOo]

Best wishes regardless as to what you decide in the future here concerning Emerald.

Standards need to be raised with humility.

Excellent decision as I said Emerald. 

We'll miss you regardless. 

I can't believe you even engaged as much as you did on the thread, I didn't read most replies of anyone though.

I can't believe the thread went on for that long without being locked. Overall, I think it was a very poor use of everyone's time, and just objectively, that's including yourself Emerald. 

At the very least standards need to be imposed on the quality of threads generated: straightforward thing to do [ minimum # ticked boxes ].

Older members shouldn't get away with low quality threads as they have been the last few months.

They don't realise how disrespectful it is to not necessarily other members themselves, but just other peoples growth in general. 

This is one of my biggest criticisms of the forum, other people simply do not give a fuck about other peoples growth.

This ruins any foundation a member has for wanting to stay on a forum that would otherwise involve mutual support for that growth.

The site needs to be better designed to create better funnels for better aligning there.

Stay strong within yourself @Emerald, you are a leader among other women here thus free accordingly. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Xonas Pitfall 

Quote

It's completely fine to say, "It seems, based on research and evidence, that men, on average, are taller than women or have greater bone density, muscle mass, etc." But what you don't do is say, "Hence why men are generally more capable, femininity means being weak and dependent, and if you claim to be strong, you're not actually a woman. You are a masculine woman. You need to be fragile and frail; that's what true femininity is." Do you see how big that leap is?

It's interesting because this reflects a lot of the types of thinking that I see prevelent in the manosphere, MGTOW and Red-pill and adjacent communities.

They are fantastic at identifying truths - especially truths many people don't want to hear.

Then they go and fuck it all up with obsessive compulsive evo-psych/mechanistic style hyper fixated explanations and insane methods to try to leverage them. The truths are the good bit. The hyper fixated behavioural psychology is crazy. Half the downstream advice from the conclusions of their explanations act to make the problems for them worse. 

The endless evo-psych explanations are a form of cope. Not the truth observations they originate from.