>>34394240
This thread is going to be us calling ourselves names and fighting between two opposite worldviews. Not sure if this could be profitable, since nobody else would come here and they won't even read the old thread's OP for context (they already didn't when there was the fucking Gio Scotti bait, this site is dead)

>>34394351
I started just writing a massive essay so I'll aim to keep it more specific

1 yes no more ad hominem because it's cluttering up the actual counter-arguments

>The whole community opinion. And also the woman preference, since no sane woman would like to be associated to that man
The whole community's opinion is an even more diluted opinion. That opinion would influence the family's opinion, but it wouldn't decide it entirely. The family would do a weighed calculation where the community's opinion (ie reputation), wealth, appearance, and whatever else would all be assessed, then all suitors compared and the most appropriate one selected. Perhaps even the woman's individual preference is included in that weighted calculation too. But in the end, family decides. Family's opinion = decision. If the family says no, then it's no. If they say yes, then it's yes. Compared to now, where it's woman's opinion (plus man's opinion) = decision. Within that opinion, family's opinion would contribute to the weighted calculation too, to a lesser extent.

Disclaimer, this is my impression of what those historical times were like, based on what I've heard scattered here and there, plus my logical deduction of human nature. That is to say, it's conjecture, and none of us know what actually happened during those times, at best we can look at what historians have to say.

Is it actually the woman's decision, or is it the family's decision, it actually doesn't matter. In the end, there is some weighted calculation happening where ax + by + cz + ... = Decision. And what I argue is that, in historical times (pre-modernity, let's say), the woman's opinion played a smaller part than it does now (when it comes to marriage).

>>34394802
You could say there are factors influencing the woman's opinion specifically, like perhaps the woman's opinion is itself a weighted equation. In that case? Women back then were probably a lot less entitled, not demanding 6 foot 6 fig 6 pack or whatever memes there are surrounding women's preferences and demands these days. They aren't expecting to live a rom-com or romance-slop perfect life, they just expect to continue living a life dedicated to family duties and passing down the torch and not living in too much material discomfort/poverty.

So then what would a woman's internal opinion, their weighted calculation, look like? Their own internal opinion is indeed likely more swayed by their family's opinion than it is now. But I'd still guess that appearance plays likely the number 1 factor. Whereas compare that to the family's opinion, where wealth likely plays the number 1 factor

Perhaps "reputation" played a bigger weighting in these equations, perhaps not. But that begs the question, what is the weighted calculation that decides one's reputation? What's the difference between how someone's reputation is calculated during historical times compared to now? What's the number 1 factor deciding someone's reputation back then, compared to now? I'd guess that career probably is the number 1 factor, for back then. What about now? What decides a person's reputation nowadays? Personality? Social clique? Social media clout? What?

... These new captchas freaked me out at first but they're fun

>>34394826
>because you imagine she'd reciprocate better
>No, I lime her more just because I like that vibe and I feel attracted to it. I never projected about her being somehow more receptive, and that's why I also didn't force myself in any way, to avoid her any discomfort
And what do you like about that vibe? Why are you so attracted to that vibe? Because you feel like she'd get along with you more than she'd get along with the "normies"/everyone else (because you think you're both "sperg", you think she's more similar to you than she is similar to everyone else), and so that means she'd like being around you above being around everyone else, and so that means she reciprocates with you better than she reciprocates with everyone else.

Ok then let's say, rather than "sperg" (too vague), she's more like "schizoid". She doesn't get along with everyone, period. To her, you are the same as everyone else, someone she doesn't get along with, period. Are you going to be the same level of obsessed as you would be if it were the previous scenario?

Why do you even think you would get along with her better than other people? Is it simply because you two are similar "sperg"? Then shouldn't it be the same for her getting along with you, because the reasoning is the same, the being "similar" "spergs"? Why does the condition suddenly stop holding when the direction is reversed?

>>34394872
>No, you can't. Gemitals are distracting because we cover them.
We cover genitals because they are distracting. That was my initial point. I don't get why you have to reverse the order, how is that supposed to change anything? Genitals are distracting because we cover them? Aren't you just saying the same thing? I thought you were trying to say something different with that hence I retorted but turns out you're not.

>If we were displaying them 24/7, they would be just a normal part of your body, like it is for tribal savages.
They are still sexual organs. Covering them doesn't change that fact. They are sexual organs with direct functions in sexual reproduction, whilst the rest of the body isn't (a breast is a secondary sexual characteristic, not a sexual organ).

>They don't react to a naked breast or a penis, because to them is an everyday sight.
Cool, I'd prefer if society didn't react so heavily to a naked breast or penis.

>So yeah, we cover because we feel ashamed, not to avoid distraction
Not me, I'm not ashamed. And I don't see why you're ashamed. Nothing you've pointed out presupposes feeling ashamed. Perhaps people cover their genitals for utilitarian purposes, as mentioned before, in how genitals being exposed can be distracting (when your purpose in the moment is not to have sex, which would most likely be the case if you're in public with businesses and dealings to tend) and making oneself more vulnerable to sexual attacks. One doesn't need to feel ashamed to decide that covering their genitals is the better choice.

>>34394951
>Heat could be a complete illusion if you go by that path.
But it's not, because you directly observed heat. That's an empirical finding. Your skin directly picked up an increase in temperature, sent the signal to your brain, your body adjusted to maintain its homeostasis required for continued functioning, yadda. The other option would be something in your body being faulty and not sensing temperature correctly (maybe you took MDMA or something and it actually does mess with your body's temperature regulation).

The point is, your analogy falters. You still need to test your assumptions for accuracy, if not by you then by others. An observation is just that, an observation. You make assumptions about the cause of the observation. Your assumptions are based off of correlations and not actual verified causation. A correlation is only a correlation, for it to be upgraded to "causation" then you need to have actually eliminated every other possible cause, which you haven't

>Relativism is useful to check faults in reality, but if you are extreme about it, it's the most retarded tale ever
Ok, and how exactly was my application of relativism too extreme to you?

>>34395060
>I'm saying compared to me, someone actually wielding technology correctly and effectively
>Yeah, I bet you're marter than Tesla and Isaac Newton compared because you can program shit. Retard
I'm smarter than them because I can be smarter than them in the fields they were smartest in, thanks to the knowledge in their fields (ie physics) being accessible (and a little more developed since their time). Not because I can program shit. If I really fucking wanted to then yes, I could dedicate all my time to physics and pick up from where they left off but I have more important things to do. Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, except also add that there was a character select screen in the beginning too

>I went looking for similar cases through history, to check if what I feel was unique (it's not). Your head is so stuck up your own ass that you can't get it
Never implied your case was unique. If omg I'm just like le famous man!!1! Makes you feel so hecking validated then uh ok. Doesn't change any of the other points that were made. Doesn't make you any less pathetic. Doesn't make Dante any less pathetic. Etc. If the only relevance Dante has to this thread is that you felt hecking similar to him, then my original point was correct, you simply want to latch onto some form of validation by associating with le famous man rather than having any actual point to make. Seriously. What the hell do you want to say about Dante that is actually relevant to the points that were made?

Recent history has plenty of similar cases. As mentioned earlier, Celeste Manno/Luay Sako is a close fit, Chris Chan is a more distant fit. And the millions of other times things similar to this happen which can be seen on this board (limerence, autism, incel, age gap, where can I find a virgin trad waifu, yadda all extremely common topics and sentiments)

>>34395131
>I don't have social competence, you fucking retard. That's why I don't act like a retard and avoid laughs and ruined reputations
So build it. And yes, the only way you can build it is to act like a retard and withstand a few "laughs" (what's so fucking bad about laughs anyway. At most someone laughs out of schadenfreude in which they laugh unfoundedly since you're actually working on improving your situation whereas they are likely stagnant and hence are needing to cope cheaply using schadenfreude. So they'll engage in these lowly time-wasting activities of fixating on other people's miseries instead of fixing their own misery directly. And so again, why on earth do you care about the opinions of these lowly runts). And again with ruined reputations. Reputation isn't fixed. Maybe you deserve a shit reputation in the current moment. Good. Live through the shit reputation then build it up. Better than no reputation and floating in non-existence for the rest of your life.

>>34395213
>At most you get fired
>Surely a nothingburger then.... holy delusional
I said that's the most severe consequence (and it's not even that bad. Get a new fucking job, are you married to your job or something? If people ask say you quit to take a break or were laid off. Far from the end of the world. You sound like your job is your whole life) and it's highly unlikely (seriously can we fucking stop talking about this extremely unlikely scenario (it's like worrying about stepping outside because a piano will fall from the sky and kill you. If it fucking bothers you that much then research the law and what is actually legal and illegal regarding this). No you're not going to get fired for asking someone out on a date. Or whatever you're even referring to. Just what are you referring to? What exact action/s are you claiming is going to get you fired?). And you can sue them (assuming it was undeserved). Unless you really were super retarded and then maybe you actually deserve to be fired. And I didn't say to go do shit in your workplace. I said find some other places other than le mandatory to trial and error. The world is a big ass place, please (for the love of god) get the hell out of your same 2 bubbles

>>34395224
>Just because you're retarded and you don't get them, it doesn't mean they're buzzwords. Use your superior tech savyy competence to search their meaning and stop showing how retarded you are please
I don't need to get them, I simply need to get them in the context of what point you're trying to convey. You do not explicitly logically link how your buzzword applies to my or your point, you simply yell the buzzword as if that suffices. That's why I question the relevance of it.

I directly questioned your buzzword-slop in the argument preceding, in which you ignored and simply answered with ad hominem, a "you're a nigger faggot animal"-esque response

>Because you're an illiterate who deosn't know what he's talking about. The deconstructionism shit is your attitude towards objective truth. Dante is a great poet? Nah, it must be a jerk and everyone liking him for venturies retards because they didn't use tiktok. See? This is deconstruction, because you're literally tearing apart culture to make it a pile of relativist steaming diarrhea
And how have I used "deconstructionism" towards "objective" truth? I don't give a fuck if Dante is a great poet or not, I can read his works and change my mind and think it was pretty good, but I have no desire to because it's a completely useless endeavour and completely irrelevant to my life and goals. I don't need to read retarded fictionslop to live my life, I already know what I have to do and I can use more targetted tools to get what I want than reading what some bozo in 1600's thought about girlfriend and boyfriend dynamics. I'll read something if it actually seems useful or interesting to me, and you've provided nothing to prove otherwise for Dante and his slop. And I said using modern tools effectively, not scrolling tiktok slop. All you've said is DANTE IS A GREAT POET!!1! why? BECAUSE OTHERS SAID SO!

>>34395269
If anything, you're the one reducing (or "deconstructing") my entire argument into "haha buzzwords" when I simply demanded an answer to your claim that I "deconstructionismed" (yes wow sooo many syllables soooo smart) "objective" "truth"

Then you started saying how Dante is "objectively" good and you're only argument is "because other people said so".

Like shut the fuck up. This is incredibly boring to talk about. If you're not going to provide an actual reason as to why Dante is wow so amazing or relevant, stop fucking using him as a red herring to deflect on the actual points being made

>>34395275
>You're a low IQ ape
>Nice projection animal
Nice second reductionisming (oh my god! The syllables!!) of my actual argument. I simply mirrored the exact same ad hominem that you spewed along with your point, whilst addressing your actual point. And now nice second buzzword you got there, what's next, gaslight girlboss gatekeep?

>>34395296
>Thinking doesn't stop feeling, they're comoletely different planes.
Wow ok so if you thought your mother died but it was actually a mistake and she's actually alive and you stop feeling sad as a result, apparently going from thinking your mother was dead to thinking she's alive again doesn't stop feeling, aye. Apparently the substance/contents/material of your thoughts don't change your feelings aye.

>Holy shit you're more autistic than me apparently
Proudly so.

>>34395312
(Even though autism is a fucking meme anyway that shouldn't be taken seriously)

Learn to weaponize your autism instead of using it as an excuse

>>34395317
>My honest thoughts are holding very good against your bullhsit tho.
Not really. It's basically 90% ad hominem and ignoring 80% of my actual counter arguments and genuine questioning of your positions/stances

>It's just I don't want to dhare them to the first motherfucker who can use them against me
Okay. So what are your honest thoughts, and how will a motherfucker use them against you?

>>34395370
>Oh yes, and every time they'll see you they'll get a chuckle. Idgaf about their lives, I care about the moments when they have to interact with me, and in those moments they'll think "this is the clown retard, I remember how clownish he acted". Reputation status: annihilated
Why do you care that they'll think this? They're lowly creatures who think irrationally, right? Their thoughts are invalid. Please don't say omg I'm gonna get fired!! Let's take this out of the workplace for once in your life
And man do I have to say it for the billionth time, your reputation is not a fixed thing, you can change how people think of you, my fucking god. So you acted like a clown retard once, does that change anything other than their secret thought? Does it actually change their behaviour towards you? Yes? Does it matter? Well they weren't your friend in the first place and now they're still not your friend, so what exactly did you lose? Who the hell are these people? Seriously why do you care so much what they think of you? What changes when your status goes from nobody to clown retard? You never engage with them on a non-mandatory basis, so the answer is, nothing. You do your mandatory dealings as usual, maybe some fake smiles are exchanged, and done. Zero difference in life quality, opportunities, outcomes, material wealth, yadda. You basically lost nothing (please don't say you lost your reputation, you had no reputation in the first place). Point to something you actually lost. An opportunity? You had no opportunities in the first place with your attitude of never risking anything. Point to something you'll actually lose in your current life, in your current state. Explain how it is lost.

>>34395374
>Yeah, subverted rules. Like being supposed to fuck 100000 girls before finding the "right one"... lmao
That's not a rule and you know it. Plenty of men have found "the right one" without fucking 100000 girls.

>Anon have you even heard of how they destroy the lives of someone who just said nigger in a private chat?
Why the fuck would you say nigger to anyone who would report that to HR in the first place. Do you really have such little impulse control that you can't just use a substitute word to convey the same exact shit. And for fuck sake, take this shit, out, of the workplace. I don't want to hear about some boring office drivel drama. Get a life outside of work. Fuck

>Actually, I'm sure he did to some extent, at least until he went completely mad
Ok and, the extent that he did was negligible compared to you. And he never went mad, he became demented from brain matter atrophy, essentially an Alzheimer's state. He still lived true to himself, said shit he wanted to say, wasn't scared of HR firing him or some gay low probability shit you're shitting your pants over, critiqued the status quo without giving a shit about his "reputation", then got put to sleep by his genetic disorder

>>34395404
>No, soenthing objectively good stays good forever
Firstly, if something is objectively good, it can very well only be objectively good within a brief window of time and not before or after that window. That is possibly. That is to say, something can be objectively good, that is to say good from every possible angle it can be measured, and only uphold that condition (the condition of being "objectively good") within that specific window of time - perhaps one particular angle/method of measurement is changed that causes it to go from good to bad, and that measurement is only changed upon a particular event in time, and prior to that event, the only measurement that can be used is the previous unchanged version. This would make an "objectively good" "thing" not stay good "forever".

But ignoring that, how can a thing even be objectively good? What on fucking earth makes the thing you claim to be objectively good (Dante), objectively good? Please don't say because other people said so. Holy fuck

What even makes something "objectively" good as opposed to good in some other form (what, subjectively? Isn't everything subjective since it is being perceived and assessed by another)?

Like holy fuck

You really have to just keep sucking this guy's cock, okay dude
Now he's "objectively" good
Yeah okay please explain how
Not only do you have to explain how he's good, but now you have to explain how this is objective reality
Yeah good luck

It's not even possible because to assign something as "good" or "bad" is already to stop being objective and start being "subjective". There is no good or bad. There is only good TO A PARTICULAR AGENDA/IDEAL/GOAL. Without that particular purpose, ie without that particular ends, then there is no means to an end. Something is only "good" if it is an means to an end. But the end IS PRE-DEFINED, it is an assumption made. Without that "end" defined, then neither can something be assigned as a "means" to it or "not a means" to it.

>>34395458
Everything is a model of something else. That something else is "objectivity". Everything else, ie the models? Subjective. Everything is an objective instance. Even models, even subjectivity. Subjectivity is an objective instance of subjectivity. Everything is an object. Even the relationships between objects.

Alright now I'm really fucking off tangent but whatever
I'll have to try and convey myself better some other time

>I know Diogenes. He was the stinky faggot living like a hobo inside a barrel who asked Alexander to fuck off because he was obstructing the sun.
Exactly

>Definitely the worst retard Greece ever produced
You mean the best, sure

>>34395468
I wouldn't call him a faggot though, I don't think he swings that way of gay
So maybe not so exactly

i love manic episodes!

>>34395627
Is it really manic if I address every point that comes before it

Anyway yeah I went off tangent so I've moved it to offline to try convey my point more clearly

>>34395642
It's manic but not in the pathologized sense. Perhaps it's "flow", perhaps it's just an obsessive compulsion in the base autism/OCD sense. Too many words to describe one thing, yet none of them seem to hit. I guess I'll define my own lexicon then

>>34394802
>If the family says no, then it's no. If they say yes, then it's yes
Mostly, but not everytime. There were plenty of people marrying against the family's will. To save honor, parents often they accepted the marriage anyway. It was an honor based society, and relationships weee marriage oriented. Now honor is just a joke (people don't care about twerking daughters sluts), and dating is just sex with 0 meaning, nobody looks for a stable relationship and marriage is some relict from the past that it's better to abolish. Of course I talk about society and what it's pushing, not single individuals. But we already accepted that individual will is often bent by society's expectations, and when these are healthy like in the past, happiness is more easily obtained.
>>34394802
>the woman's opinion played a smaller part than it does now
This is true, because family hadway more power. But ironically, women back then were happier on average (don't start with muh domestic violence, since that's the same in every age). It's instinctual for both men and especially women to crave a family, and the negation of that brings widespread mental illness (depressed women, incels etc etc)

>>34394826
>Women back then were probably a lot less entitled
Not only this, but they were more in peace with their true desires. Most women just want to start a family, and don't give a fuck about career. But they also naturally follow society's rules (because they're the first ones i terested in its preservation, anarchy is a death sentence for them). So they now have to follow these retarded expectations, focusing on stupid "career" wage slaving, instead of making the kids they desperately want. And I'm not saying that as a manosphere incel faggot, I genuinely love that side of women, it's what makes them special and most importantly a fundamental piece of mankind. Too bad that modernity tried to destroy that, going against nature. Btw, men naturally feel the urge to protect and provide for the women, because the male/female relationship should not be a war between sexes like subverters like to sell it, but a perfect combo.
>What decides a person's reputation nowadays?
Probably being the most obnoxious faggot on social media
>These new captchas freaked me out at first but they're fun
I hate them. How I'm supposed to know those japan capeshit manga bullcrap characters? I just type nigger or Hitler every time and go to the good old captchas

>>34394872
>And what do you like about that vibe?
Her demure nature. Her quintessential feminine vibe. A perfect mix of sweetness and stoic dignity. It's the same vibe you'll find in old, pre-1960s movies when they depicted women and wives. Just pick a random movie from that era and you'll get it. Nowadays, women act like men, they are not women anymore. That's of course caused by the same subversion I already mentioned. They wanted to "decontruct" the "patriarchal idea" of women by turning them into vulgar sluts and "biologically female troons". Literal definition of subversion against their true nature, the nature that triggers the before mentioned protection and provide instinct in men. The same feel I felt for that girl. That's what I liked about her, I didn't imagine her liling me in any special way. I just figured that having her nearby, since she doesn't like sociality and she's quiet, similar to me, would've been more enjoyable FOR ME. Her feelings towards me were never the point, since I perfectly know she may have been even disgusted by me (and that's the same reason I didn't act more boldly)

>>34394872
>Then shouldn't it be the same for her getting along with you, because the reasoning is the same, the being "similar" "spergs"? Why does the condition suddenly stop holding when the direction is reversed?
Because I'm not inside her brain, and I can only talk about my sensations, not someone else's

>>34394951
>Genitals are distracting because we cover them?
Precisely. We charged these body parts with taboo, because we feel shame of sex, since it's a low animal action (same as piss and poop, we lose control during these actions). Humans are inclined to hide while doing such actions. It's not a coincidence that EVERY major society around the globe developed the sexual taboo. It's part of mankind to realise we're not animals, even if we share the same basic functions with them.
>Cool, I'd prefer if society didn't react so heavily to a naked breast or penis
I know, because you also lime Diogenes and say we're equal to animals. But I can't agree on that. We are on two separete ontological planes on this, there's no middle ground to compromise
>when your purpose in the moment is not to have sex
If your purpose is not to have sex, they're not distracting in that moment. They just remind people they're physically animals, and they feel shame for that.
>One doesn't need to feel ashamed to decide that covering their genitals
But it's literally the common thing every society in the whole world developed, a feel of shame linked to low bodily functions. That's not a structure, it's human nature. Because we're not fully animals, unlike what you believe

>>34395060
>directly observed heat
Observed how? Through your senses, which are not error proof. Which brings us to :
>how exactly was my application of relativism too extreme to you?
If you're consistent with relativism (like you want to be, saying that Dante might be just a retard with everyone else in the past), you have to go to the end of it. What is real? Measures are just made up bullshit. Science actually doesn't prove anything, because it's a made up system based on measurements (which are just conventions. A meter doesn't exhist. You can zoom in or out forever, there are no borders, no sizes, everything is infinite). So we're at a crossroad now: be consistent and stop believing in anything, existence maybe is fake. Or, give some credit to your observations, have FAITH in something, otherwise nothing will ever be real. And if you have faith in something, you have to accept a Truth. And if you accept that Truth, you have to accept the False. And now, you're not a relativist anymore.

>>34395131
>smarter than them in the fields they were smartest in, thanks to the knowledge
Smart and knowledge are not the same thing. You can be dumb as a rock compared to an ancient Sumerian. And even considering knowledge, you have more potential than them, but you don't use it. Because they actually had that knowledge in their brains, while you have the external support of Ai, browsers or whatever and you don't need to actually learn it. So no, people in the past were largely more smart than we are. And the fact that zoomers are the most stupid low IQ generation in the last century is very telling. It's not we're just born stupid. It's that we never had to develop our brains because "we have muh tech". Your point is actually proving me right, since that attitude is literally what makes you retarded compared to your grandpa.
>Never implied your case was unique
You know, it's nice to hear about someone having your same experiences and knowing how they managed it, it's not that weird to look for similar accounts. Literature is useful for that, even if you think it's just a stupid waste of time. Maybe try to read some of it and you'll notice how it resonates with your own experiences, and you'll notice how people in the past were basically us, but more refined and less stupid

>>34395213
>why on earth do you care about the opinions of these lowly runts
Because I live in the real world amongst them, I'm not a dog living in a barrel like Diogenes

>>34395224
>You sound like your job is your whole life
My job is how I pay my basic needs, so yes, it's pretty important. More than having a gf actually, because she won't give me food out of her ass, and to have a gf you have to be alive, aka feeding yourself. Objective priorities
>get the hell out of your same 2 bubbles
You literally can't leave your bubbles. They're bubbles. Unless you suggest to drop everything and becoke a Diogenes-like hippie who lives like a dog with no roots. I'll pass on that, I feel sick at the mere idea of such a lowly being
>>34395269
>That's why I question the relevance of it.
It was quite obvious if you understand the word
>>34395269
>completely useless endeavour and completely irrelevant to my life and goals
Let's use your logic here. How do you know if you never read it? You're not basing your decisions on vague observations I hope? Because saying that a book you never read is useless is way worse than observing people from the near distance instead of directly talking to them, if we talk about assumptions

>>34395275
>only argument is "because other people said so".
No, that was just an hint for you to understand how ridiculous you are. I said he IS great, and to know why you have to read it. It's both about the form he writes in and the contents.

>>34395312
>and she's actually alive
That's a fact tho, not just thinking process. Faulty argument. Retry

>>34395370
>actual counter arguments
Like "I'm more smart than literally the guy who invented the shit I'm using because I can use it and he can't until he invented it"? Yeah, these "arguments" deserve insults at best

>>34395851
>Precisely. We charged these body parts with taboo, because we feel shame of sex, since it's a low animal action (same as piss and poop, we lose control during these actions). Humans are inclined to hide while doing such actions. It's not a coincidence that EVERY major society around the globe developed the sexual taboo. It's part of mankind to realise we're not animals, even if we share the same basic functions with them.
NTA but you're doing a whole lot of presumptive evo psyche to pull this narrative of yours together. I don't necessarily disagree with all of it in a vacuum but pretending like human attitudes around sex are purely genetic expressions or "human nature" independent of society is a wildly unserious take.

>>34395374
>Their thoughts are invalid.
Who cares about their validity when they affect your life? You know who had also a faulty opinion? The inquisition. But Galileo understood he had to live amongst them, and denied his own right theory in front of them, just to live in peace. Of course, you're so much more smart than Galileo fucking Galilei, so you'd probably just call him a coward faggot and that's it, because these are your average "arguments"
>you can change how people think of you,
Of course. You can improve it, or lower it. By going full clown in front of strangers, you're reaching the bottom (good luck raising from there)
>Does it actually change their behaviour towards you?
Yes
>Yes? Does it matter?
Yes
>Well they weren't your friend in the first place
Never wanted to be their friend, just a respected peer, which a clown isn't
>why do you care so much what they think of you?
Because you are what you're perceived to be. You only exist in other observer's eyes. If you act like a clown, you are a clown. If you retire in the woods and never let anyone see you till your death, you're inexistent, basically already dead.
>What changes when your status goes from nobody to clown retard?
You stop being a dignified nobody and start being a fucking clown, you literally said it...
>you had no reputation in the first place
Wrong, I have a reputation. Even if I'm not known, when a stranger looks at me they'll just think "a random average decent man" and not "that clown freak incel retard"

>>34395404
>That's not a rule and you know it
It's what society pushes. Single episodes are not the focus here, we're talking about how society expects you to behave. We're comparing the old one with the modern one, not particular individual cases which you'll find in every age during all history
>>34395404
>Do you really have such little impulse control that you can't just use a substitute word
Firstly, the nigger thing was just an example of how new inquisitors work. Secondly, I've said PRIVATE CHAT, they weren't supposed to show it to anyone (the notorious "honest thoughts" you want everyone to spill, lmao)
>Get a life outside of work
They didn't say nigger at work but the effects were still getting fired/ expelled from school. You can't show your real thoughts to everyone anon, I said it and I confirm it. Only an unfiltered naive retard would do that
>He still lived true to himself
Because he had the possibilities and the context to do so

>>34395458
There are some features that make something objectively good and something objectively bad. If you can write like Dantez you're a good writer, if you write like an illiterate nigger, you're bad. Because the very concept of literature is based on the rules moulded by the objectively good writers. Let's take Art for example now . Good art respects proportions, golden ratio, harmoby etc etc, and it's immediately recognized by the human eye with no need of previous preparation, it's just beautiful. Awful art is all about "deconstruction", "subverting expectatives" "punch the viewer in the face". That's not art, it's actually its opposite, and who makes that shit knows it well, in fact, they do it exactly to go against Art, calling it art as an extreme defilance

>>34395468
>Everything is a model of something else
Human nature, beauty, the math you see repeated in every part of the universe. That's objective. Every particular taste is subjective. A girl with beautifuk traits is objectively beautiful, because it's a matter of math and proportions. But it's not granted you'll like her. Maybe you'll prefer an uggo because SUBJECTIVE reasons. But the uggo is ugly, because the objective rule says so. If YOU like her or not is completely irrelevant, since it's subjective, aka not a common feature found in the vast majority of mankind/ written in nature

>>34395991
>There are some features that make something objectively good and something objectively bad.
Hard disagree. You're wandering into an area of philosophy that is incredibly unresolved and expansive. "Good" and "bad" are derived from inherently circular axioms that can't be justified in any objective way because there is no accessible source of ethics. "Good" and "bad" are also routinely used as linguistic proxies for what perceive as benefits or detriments to ourselves and/or society. Some call it antirealism but the fact remains that humans have no sense organs to analyze objective ethical information. "Good" and "bad" are entirely constructed to maximize utility.

>>34395627
Glad to see there's a spectator of this shitfest. Sit down and enjoy the show

>>34396002
>A girl with beautifuk traits is objectively beautiful, because it's a matter of math and proportions.
Hard disagree. Beauty in terms of human appearance is a measure of desirability. Desirability is a subjective human emotion driven largely by subconscious biological processes. Math and proportions can analyze what structures MOST people find desirable but in no way could you objectively quantify desire. If someone finds a pile of cow manure beautiful the testosterone and progesterone flowing through their veins would be identical to a different person desiring a super model. Its definitionally impossible to categorize what you're describing in objective terms especially considering that a large portion of human sexual/romantic desire is driven by non-visual stimuli.

>>34396024
You're confusing attraction with beauty. As I said, someone can find an objectively beautiful girl less attractive than an ugly one. But there is an objective, measurable beauty nontheless, and it's about math ratios. I suggest you to check Roger Scruton's "Why beauty matters?", it's a 40 minutes docu film about this concept, very well explained

>>34396041
>You're confusing attraction with beauty.
I'm not. Beauty is a word used as a proxy to describe a feeling that said beauty evokes. A feeling is subjective.

>But there is an objective, measurable beauty nontheless, and it's about math ratios
Incorrect. The measurements you are referring analyzes what properties appeal to the largest group of people. Its a matter of consensus, not objectivity. We measure what is beautiful based on what people say it beautiful, not their objective emotional response. There is no objective measurement of an emotion. Its like saying you can objectively measure "fun". Its not possible.

>>34396062
>Beauty is a word used as a proxy to describe a feeling that said beauty evokes. A feeling is subjective.
No, beauty is a word used to describe some particular features scientifically measurable, which happen to cause that sensation of bliss in the majority of people. But they exhist independently from the feeling. Nature is literally built over those golden ratios, geometry and fractals. Our brain, being part of nature itself, recognizes the beautiful pattern and feels good from that, but it's not creating the beauty, which is external and measurable
>Incorrect. The measurements you are referring analyzes what properties appeal to the largest group of people.
Actually they describe how universe is built. Galaxies and atoms, snowflakes, leaves, etc etc, all follow that same structure. Your brain likes it because it's recognizing the universal code in it, not vice versa
>Its a matter of consensus, not objectivity.
Wrong, just prived it
>We measure what is beautiful based on what people say it beautiful, not their objective emotional response.
Harmony, proportions, etc etc are just the conponents of beauty, and are all measurable.
>There is no objective measurement of an emotion.
In fact, beauty isn't an emotion at all, but a physical objective feature, a fact
>its like saying you can objectively measure "fun". Its not possible.
No, fun isn't a measurable feature of reality, so you can't measure it, of course. Again, if I'm not enough convincing, go watch that docu. Scruton is way better than me at explaining this basic concept

>>34396078
>No, beauty is a word used to describe some particular features scientifically measurable, which happen to cause that sensation of bliss in the majority of people
Absolutely not. I don't know where you got this from. There is no mathematical measurement of bliss.

>But they exhist independently from the feeling. Nature is literally built over those golden ratios, geometry and fractals
Beauty is not a term that is used to described perfect mathematic ratios. I really think you're mixing up a bunch of unrelated concepts here.

>Actually they describe how universe is built. Galaxies and atoms, snowflakes, leaves, etc etc, all follow that same structure. Your brain likes it because it's recognizing the universal code in it, not vice versa
This is great philosophy but you have nothing to base this on. This is just vibes. There is no consistent, objective and measurable collection of data that can quantify how much bliss someone feels about a thing.

>Harmony, proportions, etc etc are just the conponents of beauty, and are all measurable
These things can be beautiful for you, personally, but what you're describing isn't objectivity. You're describing the subjective feeling of bliss you find in mathematic perfection. Abstract art, freeform jazz and poetry - all of these things are the opposite of harmony.

>In fact, beauty isn't an emotion at all, but a physical objective feature, a fact
Its not. There is no objective source of a subjective human experience.

>No, fun isn't a measurable feature of reality, so you can't measure it, of course.
Fun is a subjective human experience like bliss or desire. its the same exact thing.

>>34396078
I'll demonstrate the flaw in your thinking. One person looks at a picture of a boulder and says "I find this picture beautiful". Another person looks at a picture of a blue dress and says "I think this picture is more beautiful". What is the objective scientific measurements you can employ to determine which person's subjective experience of bliss is more correct than the other? Additionally, even IF you could somehow find the formula for beauty and boil it down to empirical data of what relevance does that hold to the person's subjective experience? If I think a pile of mud is beautiful and you show me the formula that says "Actually science says this is not beautiful" does my subjective experience change? No. This is an example of how beauty is measured by our experience not the other way around. I like spirited debate but you're just wrong. There is no such thing as objective beauty. Like, tautologically, definitionally, there is no such thing.

>>34396099
>There is no mathematical measurement of bliss.
Bliss is just the effect we noticed it's caused by those measures, which are of course real and the very basic pattern of reality. Just google golden ratio you lazy ass
>>34396099
>Beauty is not a term that is used to described perfect mathematic ratios.
It is, you just don't know what Beauty is and mix it up with attractiveness or personal taste
>quantify how much bliss
Nobody need to measure that. We just measure Beauty, which is not a feeling, but a feature of reality, based on mathematical, objective facts
>all of these things are the opposite of harmony.
Those are not beautiful, they're disturbing, and made exactly to trigger you and be the opposite of beauty
>>34396099
>subjective human experience.
Which beauty id not, how hard is that to grasp for you? Beauty is not a feeling, it's a feature of reality
>>34396099
>Fun is a subjective human experience like bliss or desire. its the same exact thing.
Yes, and neither of these thibgs are beauty, which is a measurable feature, and NOT a fucking feeling
>>34396105
>"I find
>If I think
Yeah, that's personal taste. The thing is Beautiful or it's not, no matter how you "find" it. Google that fucking Scrutin film and try to understand how it works please, you're mixing up different conceptual categories
>>34396105
>you're just wrong
No, you just can't differentiate between beauty and feelings/taste. They're not the same thing, even if the average joe mix them up. We're talking about philosophical categories here, not inaccurate common speech that mixes everything up and uses feelings to define rational subjects

>>34396171
Btw how the fuck I ended up having a philosophical debate on grand theories? I jymust wanted to hear about other faggots falling in "love"/"limerence" whatever the fuck that is. Holy 4chan autismo.

Goodnight btw, see you tomorrow niggers

>>34395719
What was "honor" based on (in the past)? Even if it was a "safer" concept in the past (follow "honor" rather than, compared to today where it's less rules and more follow "whatever you want"), it still wasn't a perfected concept in the past (like family having to make compromise and put up with a suboptimal marriage to preserve "honour" instead of just reaching an agreement on who the optimal groom is based on other principles like class mobility/genetic mobility/social mobility). Basically, now we have less rules, making it so that people often follow their own set of "rules" rather than a strict or clearly laid out set of "external" rules. So then this sort of "individualism" is a double edged sword - some people use this to follow the old rules, some use this to follow other people's rules (people around them, zeitgeist, society, media) blindly, and some use this to actually create their own set of rules upon critically reflecting on all the available set of rules (everybody does this actually, but to differing degrees of intensity and accuracy, and hence, success). Essentially, there's more "freedom" than there is in the past, which then creates the "be careful what you wish for" dilemma, where given too much freedom and "trust" that people will use that freedom in a "rational" way, you've created a different sort of structure in society where, people actually go too far in one direction or the other and, perhaps short term they receive gratification but in the long term they are unhappier, and so they traded a larger amount of ->

>>34396317
happiness with a smaller (but quicker) amount, shooting themselves in the foot. It's like, what if you just left a kid to do whatever they wanted, and didn't guide them - most likely outcome is that the kid becomes addicted to all the "vices" available to them, which in these days is likely to do with screenshit like playing games, porn, hyper-stimulus, eating hyper-palatables etc. Only later on do they realise, wait, these things are a waste of time, when they realise long-term happiness is built by different things (having a family or home to sort of "exist in" and "prolong", ie a bunch of people who you care about and who care about you. This concept is "subverted" in the current age, where these things get outsourced to say virtual identities where you can "exist" through "larp", or external entities like doctors psychologists who are "paid" to "care" about you. People are less about building something long-term like a family then a community, and instead they'd rather just satiate themselves individually by purchasing or pursuing "instant gratification"). They don't have the foresight available to select a better route. Whereas in the historical era, people just had a limited selection in general, because most were so poor that finances outweigh everything else

>>34396396
So given our new context, what is the solution? For you, you'd rewind time and implement that "historical rules" thing, but I don't think that's the answer. All these things were just bubbling under the surface (the previous "over-repression" is what caused this counter-movement into the opposite direction, but overly so too. The move now is to find the right balance). Perhaps we can revive some of those historical concepts that actually had utility (focus on family, on long-term happiness), but we don't need to take EVERYTHING (shaming things in a way that causes people to have to live almost double identities when they could have just lived a singular and likely less extreme one as a result of being able to choose the "severity" you'd like to live at and eventually taper off, instead of becoming "obsessed" due to scarcity)

>>34395719
>This is true, because family hadway more power. But ironically, women back then were happier on average (don't start with muh domestic violence, since that's the same in every age). It's instinctual for both men and especially women to crave a family, and the negation of that brings widespread mental illness (depressed women, incels etc etc)
Ok, and who caused the negation of this? The people themselves. They could have chosen "family" but they decided to pursue other things instead, short term gratification perhaps. It's still their own fault for not doing what they could to secure a family. They weren't denied a family, they CHOSE to go non-family. A choice they'll regret in the future, and by that time it's too late. Yes, society in the past naturally "forces" people into families, whereas now, it's up to YOU to decide to pursue it. Is this a double edged sword? Yes. Some people find it easier to be "forced" into a family (depressed women who would otherwise just ride cock carousal or become wine aunt or whatever, and incels who can't find a single woman willing to create a family with them, although actually reproductive technologies exist so you could just purchase a surrogate to create a family). Others find it better because they have more selection when it comes to finding a partner to create a family. Others find this horrible because now they are being outcompeted and so their selection actually narrows instead of widens. Either way, the ->

>>34396436
option is not completely shut out for you to have a family, it's just that securing one is a different game. No longer are you simply presented with a bunch of suitors and you select from the few according to the family algorithm (although this actually can still happen, if you have a strong family network). Now it's mostly up to you to find "suitors"/"girls" yourself and select according to your OWN algorithm. Is it higher difficulty mode? Yes. But it's also higher reward if you're smart about it (having a wider selection to choose from)

Your issue it seems, is that you refuse to play entirely. You refuse to find the "suitors"/"girls", and even if you do (17 intern) happen to find them by luck, you do nothing to make your "selection" of them a reality. There's the other issue I was pointing out, which is that your own algorithm in selecting is faulty as well. It's extremely narrow in that it makes assumptions of other people (everyone around you is a slut somehow) before actually getting to know them. I honestly wonder what observations you've actually made of individuals without actually talking to them that makes you think you know them entirely inside out. And let me guess, it's just people in your workplace or something. Who have you "observed" so thoroughly that you can claim you understand them completely and dismiss them as whatever you're labelling them with? Like according to you, everyone is this demonic entity out to basically sabotage your life and nothing else

>>34396012
Lmao mate I don't think he's read a single sentence and he likely dipped immediately, so much for your desire to be spectated. I'd much prefer someone actually join in on the discussion with their own perspective

>>34395745
>Not only this, but they were more in peace with their true desires. Most women just want to start a family, and don't give a fuck about career. But they also naturally follow society's rules (because they're the first ones i terested in its preservation, anarchy is a death sentence for them). So they now have to follow these retarded expectations, focusing on stupid "career" wage slaving, instead of making the kids they desperately want. And I'm not saying that as a manosphere incel faggot, I genuinely love that side of women, it's what makes them special and most importantly a fundamental piece of mankind. Too bad that modernity tried to destroy that, going against nature. Btw, men naturally feel the urge to protect and provide for the women, because the male/female relationship should not be a war between sexes like subverters like to sell it, but a perfect combo.

Aren't men the same? They want to start a family too, and pretty much don't give a fuck about career other than using it as a means to reach the end ("a family"). Men also naturally follow society's rules. You talk as if men would happily focus on "career" wage slaving instead of making the kids "they desperately want". No. It's the same shit for everyone. Men would rather make the kids too than wage slave away. Pretty sure anybody would choose to freely make their kids and not have to answer to some boss or some market in hopes they have enough to sustain themselves and their family. But they have to, because society isn't giving free shit just yet.

>>34396493
>Btw, men naturally feel the urge to protect and provide for the women, because the male/female relationship should not be a war between sexes like subverters like to sell it, but a perfect combo.
Which leads to the infantilization of women. Both parents should feel the urge to protect and provide for their children, but be equals or complementary to each other, whether than means one is doing more of the providing whilst the other does more of the caretaking, or the reverse. None of this shit is baked in other than we should do what's conducive to the building and maintenance of the family, whether that means someone has to do the shitty wage slave work to survive in the modern economy whilst the other one does the childcare. Or outsourcing the childcare to beyond the family unit, and both parents working. Or both parents being loaded and so neither has to work. Point is, it's not about who's providing for who or who's protecting who, in the end it's about what's best for your kids. Kids happy equals you happy. Both parents holding their weight means kid happier.

You can also get the situation where you've secured the family unit but you're just betabuxx and get divorce-raped, is this providing and protecting the woman? Yes. Is this good for the kids themselves? Likely not, this drives a wedge between your relationship with them since now you're separated from them and so you can't pass down your positive influence and teachings onto them, it's entirely up to their mother to do that. And the mother? Probably isn't a good example to learn from, essentially promoting being a leech rather than upholding your end of the transaction in a mutually beneficial exchange, instead promoting sabotaging other people for your own selfish gain

>>34396502
>instead promoting sabotaging other people for your own selfish gain
Which is an inherently short term gratification at the price of long term stability sort of bargain, since by fucking over other people you create friction and potential for eventual counter-attack by others

>>34395745
>What decides a person's reputation nowadays?
>Probably being the most obnoxious faggot on social media
And how important is this in people's "weighted calculations" for deciding partners? Probably not that important. It would probably only start to sway the equation if someone is posting really wack shit (like there's something clearly internally wrong with them as gauged by their posts, so we deduct points) or if they have a huge amount of clout as a micro celebrity or something (in which, for some people who care about that shit because they're obsessed with status to compensate for their hollow selves, this would add points)

>>34395772
>Her demure nature. Her quintessential feminine vibe. A perfect mix of sweetness and stoic dignity. It's the same vibe you'll find in old, pre-1960s movies when they depicted women and wives. Just pick a random movie from that era and you'll get it.
Ok but this is just some trad waifu projection anyway that's based off of tropes rather than what it's actually like to be around someone and share your life with them. How do these traits make your life enhanced compared to someone without these traits? It just sounds like you have an obedient person, who simply obeys your commands but doesn't provide their own utility or anything innovative/irreplaceable. It's bland. Anyway, I don't think those features are all that rare either, a lot of people are sweet and quiet (surface level observation), calling them stoic or dignified is some extra projection from your larp. If they're stoic, then as opposed to what? Displaying their emotions? Why is it bad to display your emotions? Maybe it's good to communicate your emotions so that you can resolve an issue you've identified. Rather, what's "bad" is over-emotionality, where people cry and whine over tiny trivialities and throw tantrums instead of having the correct proportionality of emotional reaction to things/events. I'm not really saying your "ideal" is fully bad, it's a good baseline and it can suffice ie for your goals of simply having a stable family unit, but I don't think it's something that's highly rare or hard to achieve. It's not impressive

The only thing that makes you swoon is her top percentile in looks, causing massive halo effect. You even start saying she can be opposite and be shitty and start justifying it anyway thinking oh it's fine it's just naughty or whatever. It's like women going ew harassment if it's some ugly dude but then going haha yes please when it's some Chad looking dude. There's plenty of mid people who are modest, self-effacing, sweet, but that's the problem - they're mid.

>>34396879
>Nowadays, women act like men, they are not women anymore.
How? Wouldn't it be a good thing to be like men, or are men not a virtuous ideal to strive for? Or are they only like the "bad" parts about men? Men have large enough variance within their group that assigning one as a "manly" is too vague. What exact traits make the women "manly"?

>They wanted to "decontruct" the "patriarchal idea" of women by turning them into vulgar sluts and "biologically female troons".
Most women are not vulgar sluts or troons. What do you even mean biologically female troons, troons are by definition not biologically of a gender. I'm gonna assume you mean FtM troons. Again. Most women are not vulgar sluts or FtM troons. You've taken a loud minority and assumed them to be the majority. Can you count the number of women you've confirmed were vulgar sluts or FtM troons? And then count the number of women (modern era, so around your age or below) you've "assessed the natures of". Are the women in your workplace all vulgar sluts? How? That's why I say your data doesn't seem to be good quality because it sounds like what you've done is take internet memes then paste them to people rather than actually find out how they've lived/continue to live their lives. But why? What makes you paste the meme onto the person? How big of a logic leap is it? I'm curious

>Literal definition of subversion against their true nature, the nature that triggers the before mentioned protection and provide instinct in men. The same feel I felt for that girl.
I think it's natural to feel protective and giving (providing) towards someone you love. It's just that you've given your love away a bit cheaply, towards someone who might not even respect you. Dial it down and protect, provide and love someone once you've actually proven that they deserve it so you don't end up betabuxx swindled

>>34396949
>I didn't imagine her liling me in any special way. I just figured that having her nearby, since she doesn't like sociality and she's quiet, similar to me, would've been more enjoyable FOR ME. Her feelings towards me were never the point, since I perfectly know she may have been even disgusted by me (and that's the same reason I didn't act more boldly)
What, so you just want a partner who's silent? What's so enjoyable about that? Why would someone not liking sociality be an enjoyable trait? It's like saying, they hate apples, I enjoy that. Essentially, you hate apples too. What have you got against sociality? Do you think humans are meant to be disengaged with the people and this is meant to be constructive? Sociality is just a tool, it's not something demonic. Just depends on how you use that tool, whether you're using it effectively or not. You could also use asociality in a detrimental way, just scrolling Instagram or Tiktok endlessly and not doing anything other than that. None of these concepts are inherently good or bad, it depends on the context and usage

>>34395783
Yes but you used your cognitive empathy to assume what was going on in her brain. Why does that suddenly stop holding true when it comes to her getting along with you, when you've been applying it to the negative feelings produced by being "sperg"? Why suddenly the positive feelings not replicated, only the negative?

>>34395851
>We charged these body parts with taboo, because we feel shame of sex, since it's a low animal action (same as piss and poop, we lose control during these actions). Humans are inclined to hide while doing such actions. It's not a coincidence that EVERY major society around the globe developed the sexual taboo. It's part of mankind to realise we're not animals, even if we share the same basic functions with them.
Pissing pooping shouldn't be taboo. It's not a "lowly" action, it's simply a biological mechanism for animals to maintain homeostasis. Is eating also a lowly animal action that we should be ashamed of doing? We hide not because we are ashamed, but because it's practical to do so to cover the genitals as mentioned before because there's no use in others viewing them other than sex or inspection and having them out distracts from whatever tasks you have at hand plus makes you vulnerable to sexual attacks. No shame in that. It shouldn't be taboo and I don't see there being any valid reason it should be taboo and shameful. You should feel ashamed when you do something you weren't meant to do. Shitting when there's shit lodged in your rectum, pissing when you're bladders full, fucking when you both want to fuck or you want to reproduce, why should you feel ashamed when you're doing what you're meaning to do? The mechanism of the shame emotion is for you to avoid something because you feel social embarrassment. You should feel social embarrassment when you do something actually socially harmful, like diddling kids or something. So if you're a pedophile, and you feel shame for it, that's fine, even beneficial, since it's preventing you from going out there and actually harming people. Might even propel you to ->

>>34397085
get help for it to overcome and solve your pedo/sadistic/regressive urges. Shame is good in that scenario. I don't see how being ashamed of pooping pissing and fucking is supposed to help that person. If you're ashamed of sex then that sounds like a recipe for dying a virgin.

>It's part of mankind to realise we're not animals
We're mammals. All mammals are animals. Not all animals are mammals. We're animals. Why is that so hard to accept? What's so wrong about being an animal? Do you shame insects and fungi and bacteria for being creatures even lowlier and bigger simpletons than animals?

I'm getting bored of talking about this. If it's so shocking and shameful to you then man, your loss 2bh. Must suck having to walk on eggshells for all these tiny trivial-scale things. Well, whatever. Try, or don't. You miss all shots you don't take. That's pretty much it. Even if you have to face "shame" and "humiliation", for every shot that you take, you still miss all shots you don't take. To me, going through that shame and humiliation is well worth it for when you do hit a score. If it's not to you, then too bad I guess.

>>34395870
The meter exists, it's measuring is just limited to however we defined and designed it for our own uses. It's not absolute in its correctness, neither is it absolutely useless. It's a tool, basically, a means to end. You're attacking "relativism" rather whatever I actually said that was too "relativistic" for you

>>34395888
>Smart and knowledge are not the same thing.
Correction, fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence are not the same thing

>And even considering knowledge, you have more potential than them, but you don't use it.
>they actually had that knowledge in their brains, while you have the external support of Ai, browsers or whatever and you don't need to actually learn it.
And what if I use that "external support" to learn and put that knowledge into my brain.
Consider that a pen and paper are also "external support" and free space in the brain to think of more complex thoughts because one doesn't need to occupy their brain on memorising static things.

>zoomers are the most stupid low IQ generation in the last century is very telling
That's on them, I'm (built) different

>Your point is actually proving me right, since that attitude is literally what makes you retarded compared to your grandpa.
My point is that technology is a tool. Use it to gain and synthesise knowledge you can later apply, or use it to watch tiktok memes that won't be relevant beyond the few minutes of entertainment you received. Depends on the individual.

>>34395893
>Because I live in the real world amongst them, I'm not a dog living in a barrel like Diogenes
You can live amongst them and not care about their opinions. Why does living amongst them automatically make you care about their opinions. What's the worst their opinion is going to do to you? Throw you in jail? Then you probably deserve it for harming someone else. If you don't, advocate for yourself or get a lawyer to and reverse the jail sentence.

They can't tangibly do anything else with their opinions. Maybe exclude you from something but you already exclude yourself so, no difference.

The other is getting fired. Refer to jail route if that happens and apply the same steps.

Caring about their opinions can be a good thing, perhaps you learn something from their opinions you can use to improve yourself or manage yourself better. In that case, that will only happen if you actually get their opinions. Which you're too scared of getting.

Then there's the whole, people see you and internally think you're a retard. Ok but that doesn't really affect your life. You can't confirm what they're really thinking internally. And them internally thinking you are a retard does not change your life outcome in any tangible way. There was never anything you were gonna do that would require their opinion to not consist of thinking you're a retard (because you aren't going to require their opinion if you're never going to acquire their opinion anyway)

>>34397325
I maintain that the answer is to make a fool out of yourself and deal with the aftermath of it. The value is in working out how to deal with the aftermath, not the making a fool out of yourself part (although you can only have an aftermath to deal with by making a fool out of yourself in the first place). Once you realise that the aftermath is not so "permanent" or world-ending and that it's salvageable, you won't be so scared of making a fool out of yourself, and you'll do it more and more, until you basically never do it again because you're incapable of making a fool out of yourself (unless you do it intentionally)

>>34395916
>My job is how I pay my basic needs
And there are other jobs out there you can do to do this, not just the job you're currently in

>You literally can't leave your bubbles
I was talking about work and home. You can leave your work and home ie leave the bubbles
>Unless you suggest to drop everything
I didn't mean leave them permanently I meant leave them temporarily and enter place number 3

>Diogenes-like hippie who lives like a dog with no roots
Better than living like a dressed up dog with fraud roots

>It was quite obvious if you understand the word
You said DANTE IS OBJECTIVELY GOOD!!1! I said no he's not. You said YOU'RE DECONSTRUCTIONISMING OBJECTIVE TRUTH - I said how. Now apparently I'm just supposed to get it, even though I clearly understand that the word DECONSTRUCTIONISMING is meant to imply I'm reducing or defacing "the objective truth" or something. You just had to slap some fancy nominalized buzzword to deflect away from whatever I was actually trying to say. Answer the question. How am I DECONSTRUCTIONISMING the OBJECTIVE TRUTH?

>How do you know if you never read it? You're not basing your decisions on vague observations I hope? Because saying that a book you never read is useless is way worse than observing people from the near distance instead of directly talking to them, if we talk about assumptions
Because I've already read enough literature. Whilst you haven't actually talked to enough people candidly, if ever in your entire life.

>>34395922
>No, that was just an hint for you to understand how ridiculous you are. I said he IS great, and to know why you have to read it. It's both about the form he writes in and the contents.
In other words, you can't justify why he's great. Now you're saying the form he writes in and the contents are "great". How does this make him relevant to the discussion and topic. You initially were talking about him stalking Beatrice or whatever. How does him writing in "great form" or his "great content" influence whether he was "stalking Beatrice or not".

>That's a fact tho, not just thinking process. Faulty argument. Retry
Do thinking processes not comprise of facts? Then what do they comprise of?

>>34395930
>Like "I'm more smart than literally the guy who invented the shit I'm using because I can use it and he can't until he invented it"? Yeah, these "arguments" deserve insults at best
Why am I not allowed to be more smart than a guy who invented shit I'm using? Do I have to invent some unga bunga more impressive contraption to prove to some retards I'm "more smart"? The point is, smartness doesn't matter in the way you're using the word. I don't need to be smarter than some le Tesla Isaac Newton Einstein man to have smart thoughts. You started red herring discussion by inputting random le smart guys to deflect from the points I was actually making.

>>34397357
Smart is one of the most relative concepts there are. The only way you can "prove" you're smarter than someone else is if given all variables equal except your physical brain organs, one outperforms the other. Yeah, I don't see that being a useful endeavour. Get to the original point already, wherever the fuck it is. Stop fucking using authoritative bias in everything with zero justification.

Thirdly. Yes, I can become smarter than a guy because he didn't get the chance to use his inventions but I did. That hypothetical scenario IS possible. This entire discussion is really annoying and useless because you don't have a properly defined definition of "smart". There are different ways someone can be "smart". The most hard-ass one being what I said before of fix every variable except brain organs. The softie one (that I was using, because I'm being utilitarian here) being simply being able to apply better judgement than another.

>>34395950
Yeah, nothing is independent of society really. Every genetic or "natural" thing has a societal interpretation of it, multiple interpretations too. Everything is being perceived through a societal lens/a human's perspective. Only with recent scientific understanding can we even start separating the "societal interpretation" from the "how it actually, physically works"/anatomy. For some reason, OP insists on attaching shame and stigma to anatomic functions and biological processes

>same as piss and poop, we lose control during these actions
Actually, you can control your piss and poop using your pelvic muscles... You can piss harder and faster or you can hold your piss in like when you're busting...

>Who cares about their validity when they affect your life?
How do their thoughts affect your life? A 10/10 Trad waifu didn't drop out of the sky and fall into your lap because these random people didn't think wholesome thoughts about you

>The inquisition. But Galileo understood he had to live amongst them
>The inquisition
>Punishments: Penalties included penance, wearing a yellow cross, property confiscation, life imprisonment, or being turned over to secular authorities for execution by burning.
>You
>Punishments: Someone laughing at you for 3 seconds then moving on with their life

>You can improve it, or lower it. By going full clown in front of strangers, you're reaching the bottom (good luck raising from there)
>Strangers
Implying you had any reputation to lose when they are STRANGERS. Now you have an "irredeemably tainted" reputation amongst strangers you will never see again in your life. Wow, what a crazy sacrifice

>Does it actually change their behaviour towards you?
>Yes
How
>Yes? Does it matter?
>Yes
Why

>>34397411
>Never wanted to be their friend, just a respected peer, which a clown isn't
What's the difference between a friend and a respected peer? Are you currently a respected peer? You'll never become a respected peer if you insist on staying a nobody. At least by trying, you might be able to go from clown to actual "respected peer". Why do you even want to be a "respected peer" to them if they're all retarded extrovert party hard -400IQ normies you despise and look down on anyway

>Because you are what you're perceived to be.
No, you are you. What you are perceived to be by others is what you are perceived to be by others. Others can perceive something and be wrong about it. Maybe they "perceive" that you are crying and think you're sad when actually you were just chopping onions and your eyes are watering from it.

>You only exist in other observer's eyes.
No. You exist whether or not there is an external observer watching you exist. You can simultaneously exist without having been observed by someone else and their eyeballs.

>If you act like a clown, you are a clown. If you retire in the woods and never let anyone see you till your death, you're inexistent, basically already dead.
No, if your job is to be a clown (an entertainer who makes people laugh) and you do your job, you are a clown.
That's like saying if you act like an animal, you are an animal. Didn't you insist on saying that humans are not animals? Oh no then what do we categorise all these humans that be acting like animals?
You cannot into logic, you conflate the figurative with reality.

>You stop being a dignified nobody and start being a fucking clown, you literally said it...
How is being a nobody dignified?
What's wrong with being a clown?

>>34397438
>you had no reputation in the first place
>Wrong, I have a reputation. Even if I'm not known, when a stranger looks at me they'll just think "a random average decent man" and not "that clown freak incel retard"
A stranger who will never see you again. So basically, that's not a reputation. A reputation is sustained over more than one instance.

>Yeah, subverted rules. Like being supposed to fuck 100000 girls before finding the "right one"... lmao
>That's not a rule and you know it. Plenty of men have found "the right one" without fucking 100000 girls.
>It's what society pushes. Single episodes are not the focus here, we're talking about how society expects you to behave. We're comparing the old one with the modern one, not particular individual cases which you'll find in every age during all history
Society does not push "fucking 100000" girls before finding the "right one". Even if it did, you're free to not follow it. Society comprises of individuals. Please point out 1 person in your life that had the expectation that a man is meant to fuck 100000 girls before finding the right one. Now, intially I was saying there were rules you just have to figure them out. One example of a rule is that people are different and like different things. Shockingly, they might even LIKE YOU. They could even find your le awkward sperg boy shit cute and endearing. They might even invite you to things because they want to help you meet new people and make friends and even girls. Or it could indeed just go the opposite and they call you a nigger faggot retard ugly loser brain-dead creepy fuck. More likely they'll be polite but pretty indifferent. And you'll have to do more of the initiating and getting what you want rather than things being handed to you

>>34395980
>Firstly, the nigger thing was just an example of how new inquisitors work. Secondly, I've said PRIVATE CHAT, they weren't supposed to show it to anyone (the notorious "honest thoughts" you want everyone to spill, lmao)
Yeah, and I said why are you using the word nigger with someone who would report that to HR. The person reporting clearly had an agenda, like a vendetta or rivalry, that's not just some random stranger reporting because they felt traumatised by the word "nigger". You can have honest conversations with people without using the word nigger. And man let's get the fuck out of the workplace for once

>Because he had the possibilities and the context to do so
And you somehow don't because you will be burned alive at the stake if you give your opinion

>They didn't say nigger at work but the effects were still getting fired/ expelled from school. You can't show your real thoughts to everyone anon, I said it and I confirm it. Only an unfiltered naive retard would do that
Ok so one retard said nigger one time and got fired. So don't say nigger. Is it that hard? And I wasn't talking about online chatting. I was talking about face to face. And again get the fuck out of your mandatory work school setting.

>it's immediately recognized by the human eye with no need of previous preparation, it's just beautiful
Not always. Some art requires a fair bit of context and background knowledge to actually appreciate.

>"subverting expectatives"
Nothing wrong with subverting expectations. Ever heard of comedy?

>Because the very concept of literature is based on the rules moulded by the objectively good writers.
Not really. A bunch of dudes decided these books go in the Canon, and that's that. Not very objective. Based mostly on their subjective opinions. Not saying their opinions are right or wrong, just saying that they are based on their subjective experiences and pools of knowledge.

>>34394240
>IS THIS MY BEST WORK?? IS THIS THE BEST MY BLOODLINE CAN DO??!
>NO... I WILL BE A BETTER EMPLOYEE, I WILL BE A BETTER SON, I WILL BE A BETTER HUSBAND, I WILL CONSOOM THE GOYSLOP TO DISTRACT ME ENOUGH TO KEEP GOING, I WILL BE BETTER NO MATTER WHAT

fixed mindset:
>world goes way

>>34397520
I really can't be fucked arguing about these retarded semantics. The definition of objective is that it's independent of human opinion. It's just there. Being an object. A human doesn't change that fact. There is no variance in interpretation. It's there as is, beyond doubt, no ambiguity, no alarms and no surprises.

And I can't believe I'm still engaging this is extremely boring. Since you love cock-sucking writers so much, go read the love song of J Alfred prufrock. That's what you are. That's all you'll ever be. Hell, prufrock is better than you because at least he fucking knows he's a retard whereas you still think you're completely justified in your inaction and misrepresentation of reality

Haven't read that poem in a long ass while, lemme re-read it

Mm that's what you'll become if you don't change yourself

>>34396182
There are facts then there's the assigning of value onto things. The "objective" fact is that a face is in some particular configuration. Calling this particular configuration "beautiful" is assigning a value onto that fact. Somebody has to do an assigning of value onto the thing. The fact was subject to somebody's assessment.

Beauty is an assigning of value. It assigned value to a fact. It is essentially assigning a positive value to something. Even though it's initially for visuals, it can be applied more generally ie things outside of just visuals. But it essentially just means good visuals. To assign value is to put it on a scale of good to bad.

When something is "beautiful", it has to be perceived by something external to it and then assigned that value by that observer. That means it's beautiful only in relation to that observer.

There are still patterns to what is deemed "beautiful" by what "type" of observer. What makes something "beautiful" both depends on the (objective) configuration of the thing being observed (subject), and the configuration of the thing observing. The relationship between subject and observer is what determines the observer's value assignment onto subject. The relationship is what defines subjectivity - the fact that there are two entities involved, and one entity is observing (and assigning value) to the other entity (the other entity has become a subject). The relationship is the subjectivity. The entity itself (and its configuration), alone, is just an object. Its configuration is an objective feature. The entity's configuration is an objective feature. The observer's configuration is an objective feature. Together, they create a ->

>>34397631
relationship, one defined by the observer observing and assigning a value on the subject. This creation of a relationship is subjectivity. But the actual relationship itself (the observer, the subject, and the value of the subject as assigned by the observer), is also just another objective feature. But this INSTANCE itself, this relationship existing, this is subjectivity - that the observer turned the initially alone object into a subject by observing it and assigning a value onto it, this is subjectivity. But the observer, the subject, and the value assignment resulting from the observer observing the subject, all these things are objects.

Hence we sometimes like to call that value assignment "subjective". Even though it is as much an object as everything else in existence.

>>34397534
You forgot the most (and maybe only) important one... Being a better father -w- then maybe be a better son too which is like the reciprocal-ish anyway

Anyway, you're obviously some sort of history/lit nerd so GO FIND SOME IRL FRIENDS AND MAYBE EVEN SHOCK HORROR GIRLS (with those shared interests) TO GO SPERG AWAY ABOUT THIS SHIT now shoo

And also don't forget you can try new shit/interests too if you get sick of those history/lit faggots

>>34397635
Configuration of subject entity = object
Configuration of observer entity = object
Observer's value assignment onto subject = object. But, a "subjective" object, or at least, an object that depends on the 1 configuration of subject entity and 2 configuration of observer entity and 3 the relationship status that is number 2 observer entity observing number 1 subject entity and assigning a value to 1 subject entity. That is to say, it is subject to 1, 2 and 3

Configuration of subject entity = objective fact
Configuration of observer entity = objective fact
Observer's value assignment onto subject = "subjective opinion" or observer's subjective opinion on subject. In which, "observer's subjective opinion on subject" is an objective fact, but the subjective opinion alone is not

Example:
Configuration of temperature of lava = 99 degrees
Configuration of human = anything above 70 degrees feels way too hot to touch and burns and injures you
Human's value assignment onto lava = too fucking hot, by 29 degrees to be specific (the lava is "too" hot by 29 degrees - this is a subjective opinion. To the human, the lava is "too" hot by 29 degrees - this is an objective fact.)

>>34396396
>It's like, what if you just left a kid to do whatever they wanted, and didn't guide them - most likely outcome is that the kid becomes addicted to all the "vices" available to them,
Very spot on. I'd add that modern society acyually promotes those vices, it's not even just free for all. If a woman wants kids instead of a wagie career she's shamed as outdated, bigot, uncool, stupid etc. while obnoxious sluts are depicted as "empowering"
>most were so poor that finances outweigh everything else
As I said, those super poor fags were the least concerned by wealth, becaus ethey didn't have any in the first place. They more likely chose their mates based on actual preferences, while the higher aristocrats followed only material unions. The petit bourgeoisie was the correct middle ground, where the aristocratic ritual framework was still accelted, but personal preferences were also took into account.
>>34396398
>the previous "over-repression" is what caused this counter-movement into the opposite direction, but overly so too
I don't think they were over repressed back then, and definitely the "reaction" wasn't spontaneous, but planned and pushed by those marxist theorists who wanted to destroy western society (if you think this is schizo, just look what the Frankfurt School bitches theorized in their books, which were the 60s' sex revolution manifesto)
>but we don't need to take EVERYTHING (shaming things in a way that causes people to have to live almost double identities
Completely agree. We just need to restore the rules and let people be free to go against them (not punishing them, but not "empowering" them. They still should feel some pressure for their disgenic behaviours, under the form of disapproval. Want to fuck every guy you see and have multiple abortions? Go for it, you'll never be jailed for that, but you'll be known by everyone as the disgusting bitch you are, and not excused by some normalization cope promoted by ill willed subverters

>>34396436
>The people themselves
People are naive when we took them in group as a society (not individually). As you said, they're like a retarded kid. Traditional society was just a system developed through millennia to tell them they had to follow some boring rules, but it was for a greater good (that happiness that comes from fulfilling natural desires). When subverters told them they could not only misbehave, have plenty of candies, sleep whenever they wanted etc etc, but also be praised for it, the retarded kids didn't see it coming, not their fault. They just drank the literal goyslop and poisoned themselves
>Your issue it seems, is that you refuse to play entirely.
Yeah, that's what happens when you realise the game is rigged
>You refuse to find the "suitors"/"girls
Because the only way to "find" them is by bending to the disgusting perverted system they set up
>and even if you do (17 intern) happen to find them by luck, you do nothing to make your "selection" of them a reality.
Because they made it impossible to make so, criminalising the very concept of a stable relationship and all the acts that once led to it. It was in the plan btw, their "deconstruction" of traditional structures
>Who have you "observed" so thoroughly that you can claim you understand them completely and dismiss them as whatever you're labelling them with?
I don't need (and never claimed) to understand someone completely. When you observe certain (partial but consistent and real) features, you can very well dismiss someone. If he's acting lile a retard, I don't care why he is, he's just obnoxiously retarded to me. I don't really care if you're a slut because of daddy issues, you're actually a slut nontheless, and I don't want to get an std from you (both are just examples to clarify, don't take it literally please, focus on the concept)
>>34396457
Still good to know someone is opening this thread, maybe they'll contribute with something. I'm baffled by the lack of anons

>>34396493
>Aren't men the same? They want to start a family too, and pretty much don't give a fuck about career other than using it as a means to reach the end ("a family").
Completely agree
>Men also naturally follow society's rules.
Less than women. Revolutionaries are mor elikely to be men, because it's easier for men to feel bad in a society, be lowne wolves prone to risk and they'll still be less afflicted by an anarchy setting
>You talk as if men would happily focus on "career" wage slaving instead of making the kids "they desperately want". No. It's the same shit for everyone. Men would rather make the kids too than wage slave away. Pretty sure anybody would choose to freely make their kids and not have to answer to some boss or some market in hopes they have enough to sustain themselves and their family.
I don't think men are happily wageslaving at all
>But they have to, because society isn't giving free shit just yet.
This. In a natural setting, the protect and povide instinct would kick at some point because the world is a shit place, and men are the less empathic sex, more prone to risk and physically stronger, so they're naturally the ones going put there to put some shit on the table. Not because women are stupid like incels copium says, nor because men are violent dominators like feminist goyslop pretends. It's just a division of roles made by nature itself. Our brains are differently interwired for that exact reason, there are studies about it.
>>34396502
>equals or complementary to each other,
Which leads to this: we are complementary, not equals. And women trying to be "equals" to men are the "biological female troons" I was jocking about, because they act like men but in a woman body. I find them repulsing and most women nowadays act like that.

>>34396789
>how important is this in people's "weighted calculations" for deciding partners?
It's important because people don't do weighted calculations at all at this point, they just want the goyslop social media idol clones, and such social media idols are indeed pushing the subversion further (because to be cool nowadays you have to follow the subverted rules, and that starts a vicious cicle)
>>34396879
>obedient person, who simply obeys your commands but doesn't provide their own utility or anything innovative/irreplaceable
Not really. Watch one of those 30s screwball comedies for example. The women there are cute looking (not overtly sexual), they give off that sweet delicate vibe, yet they're not obedient at all, just not at war with men like every obnoxious modern day feminist empowering self insert mary sue who constantly brags about how independent and powerful she is. So no, women back then weren't slaves, that's another feminist bullshit, and incels believe that crap aswell. Irl women were just feminine (that's what I like, maube I'm not enough of a faggot to enjoy this era), "demure", strong but in a sweet way. Modern women are basically mothers in law constantly nagging on you because they have to feel special. Again this is of course a generalization, bitches and vamps were a thing back then aswell, and today there are still demure girls. But what is society pushing? What is society promoting? What did they took from us? The answer is obvious, if you can recognize patterns (you call them archetypes, but that's just how you analyse reality, by making generalisations to observe phenomenons, otgerwise you fall in the relativist trap and you'd end up saying "I can't say if women were or not subverted in their behaviour, because there are small numbers of them who are against the theory" spoiler: you can find a black sheep, but when you think of sheeps you expect them to be white, and for good reasons rooted in reality

>>34396949
>Wouldn't it be a good thing to be like men,
Not if I'm looking for a woman
>or are men not a virtuous ideal to strive for?
Men can be virtuous aswell, but their behaviour is different
> Or are they only like the "bad" parts about men?
Well, most of the time it's like that. Subverted women love to show rudeness (lowest men behaviours) and aggressiveness (concerning in a man, but even disgusting in a woman)
>Men have large enough variance within their group that assigning one as a "manly" is too vague. What exact traits make the women "manly"?
As said, overacting with a crass impression of what the stereotypical men is. Btw, even that stereotyped version of masculinity is a lie by the subversion. Before the "act like an animal, follow your lowest instincts" mantra you love so much, men were dignified or at least were trying to achieve that, now they're proud to act like savages (you're an example of that, you even fight to defend that shit, not realizing you're not the animal they want you to be)
>Most women are not vulgar sluts or troons. What do you even mean biologically female troons
Already explained. It's not about actually being sluts, it's the vibe, and the pride in being lowly beings instead of trying to be dignified. Imagine My Fair Lady. If it was a modern story, the girl would be proud about her crass disgusting manners, because they're seen as "natural" "cool" "authentic" by the subverted society, blocking every attempt of improvement. Why? Because they wanted to rule over a mass of nigger apes, not actual people, which is easier
>towards someone who might not even respect you.
How? She never disrespected me, I'm not a cuckhold
>Dial it down and protect, provide and love someone once you've actually proven that they deserve it so you don't end up betabuxx swindled
The simp menace was there of course, but being stuck up it never reached dangerous levels. Also, it was an instinct, a powerful feeling, not something I decided rationally

>>34397005
>What, so you just want a partner who's silent?
Not silent, but quiet and appreciative of silence aswell. Someone who enjoys contemplation more than being in the fucking spotlight.
>What's so enjoyable about that? Why would someone not liking sociality be an enjoyable trait?
Becaus eI could spend my time with her in peace, with no faggots disturbing the lrocess
>What have you got against sociality?
I hate what THIS society turned sociality into. I can't stand all the vulgar self satisfaction I already exposed in the previous posts. It's a deep feeling of disgust I can't suppress, because my instinct knows deep down that it's against nature to act like that.
>None of these concepts are inherently good or bad, it depends on the context and usage
And the context is indeed the goy boomer shit we live into, sadly
>>34397059
>Why does that suddenly stop holding true when it comes to her getting along with you
Because in that case the bias is bigger than Mt Everest... one thing is understanding her character (the main features at least), another is to start fantasizing about how she could react to me

>>34397085
>It's not a "lowly" action, it's simply a biological mechanism for animals to maintain homeostasis.
Doesn't matter why you do it, it's a lowly action because your body takes control of your mind for a moment. Sex has a noble reason to exist for example, but it's lowly because of how it works. These actions are our animal side prevailing for a brief moment over us, and we hate it.
>is eating also a lowly animal action that we should be ashamed of doing?
Yes, that's why we invented that apparently retarded ritual called dinner, why we eat with our mouths closed, why we use a fork instead of our hands etc etc. Eating is less disgusting because you can actually control how you do it and when you do it. The disgust/ shame level is directly linked to that, the more sonething is inevitable and out of our control, the more we hate to display it. Piss and poop are on top of the list
>We hide not because we are ashamed
We literally do, there's no need to cover yourself in certain situations except shame. It's not like you're walking amongst a cactus garden. You can very well be naked if it was just about comfort. And about the distraction: if you see something all day long it's not going to distract you. You're distracted only because you feel ashamed/reminded of something you don't want to accept, aka your animal side
>>34397094
>Why is that so hard to accept?
Because we have a double nature coexisting in the same body. A perfect rational godly mind who can reads the language of universe, and an imperfect body/instinct. Basically all human myths are obsessed with this.
>What's so wrong about being an animal?
They're stupid, imperfect creatures, and we hate to admit we are partially like them, and that our superiority will always be stained by that side. Again, it's a fucking trope in every civilization since when they discovered fire

>>34397147
>The meter exists
It exists only in your mind. You can't actually measure it. There's no border between a centimeter and the other, it's just a limitation of your eyesight that lets you believe it. This is peak relativism, and as you can see, it doesn't lead anywhere if not supported by faith (you have faith in your senses, and then in your intuition, then in objective reality, then maybe in God or whatever etc etc, there are different layers of faith)

Now wait before the new Divine Comedy wall of text, I haven't finished answering yet

>>34397293
>what if I use that "external support" to learn and put that knowledge into my brain.
The point is that we don't. Because it would be an useless effort, since we have it at our immediate disposal. The problem tho is that our brain shrinks by doing that, and we're literally becoming retarded because of this. Also, ancient people were humble enough to recognise that their forefathers weren't stupid, and if they did something it was for reasons. Progressive subverters just throw everything away because they think they know it better (like you), and by foing so they destroy the work that took millennia to be made
>>34397325
>Why does living amongst them automatically make you care about their opinions
Becaus eliving amongst people who considers you a retard shit person is detrimental to your mental well being. You become a pariah
>>34397326
>deal with the aftermath of it
I tell you what's the most lilely aftermath: you grow insecure, keep thinking about what you fucked up, it becomes an obsession and you end up more depressed than before. Maybe you'll even start to believe you ACTUALLY are a retard clown if the repetition goes on for long enough. The real "answer" would be prepare yourself and succeed avoiding making a fool of yourself. But you can't prepare if there's no structure and it's all liquid shit
>>34397348
>And there are other jobs out there
Imagine throwing away a secure job at 30+ and risk becoming a hobo just because you want to be le wacky extrovert
>>34397348
>Better than living like a dressed up dog with fraud roots
Of course, that's why I prefer to resist like a Man, and not bend to be like a dog at all

>>34397357
>you can't justify why he's great
I did. I said he was writing in a objectively elaborated form that requires a fuckton of ability, and he also wrote about universal themes (like the limerence for Beatrice just as one example) in a superior, non-banal way, creating an entire cosmos around it, using clever allegories and mixing history, literature, news (for him), religion etc etc in a working piece of poetry. His work is so superior that even if the genre is basically over today, we still talk about it, like everyone fucking did in the last 700 years. That makes him objectively great, no amount of reddit cope can change that fact
>>34397357
>? Do I have to invent some unga bunga more impressive contraption to prove to some retards I'm "more smart"?
Literally yes. They INVENTED, they created something new and useful from nothing. You're just following instructions to use what they invented.
>>34397362
>I can become smarter than a guy because he didn't get the chance to use his inventions but I did
That would be true if you were stacking knowledge, by actually appreciating what your ancestors did instead of thinking you're smarter. Also, you'd have to actually create something even better to be equal to those inventors, because until you do it, you never invented anything, and you just learnt how to use a tool, which is almost ape-tier compared to actually inventing it from scratch

>>34397411
>OP insists on attaching shame and stigma to anatomic functions and biological processes
It's not me, but mankind since the dawn of history, suggesting a natural inclination to do so. Easily explained with the conflict between the human rational logic mind, and the animal shell that contains it
>Actually, you can control your piss and poop
Suure, I dare you to stop pissing for a week. Hold your shit for a month. Spoiler: you can't fucking control it
>>34397411
>A 10/10 Trad waifu didn't drop out of the sky and fall into your lap because these random people didn't think wholesome thoughts about you
Of course not. But imagine not having the 10/10 trad waifu AND be the laughing stock of them aswell... now that would be double shit
>Implying you had any reputation to lose when they are STRANGERS
You start with a neutral reputation. Then people start to build an idea of you. It can be positive or negative. That opinion affects how they treat you and your opinions, even your actions.
>>34397411
>How
By creating a negative idea in their mind
>Why
Because you live with them, and they considering you a retard clown and acting accordingly on reality, will make you feel like shot until you remain near them

>>34397438
>What's the difference between a friend and a respected peer?
A friend is a close acquaintance, a respected peer is just a random guy with a spark of dignity
>Are you currently a respected peer?
Yes
>You'll never become a respected peer if you insist on staying a nobody.
A nobody turns into a respected peer as soon as someone meets him. Then hos reputation can go down or up accordingly to his actions
>At least by trying, you might be able to go from clown to actual "respected peer"
You can't recover from being a clown, first impressions are undeletable
>Why do you even want to be a "respected peer" to them if they're all retarded extrovert party hard -400IQ normies you despise and look down on anyway
Because I live with them and I don't want to be laughed at by some low IQ normie, especially if it's because of actions I despise and I actually don't want to perform
>Didn't you insist on saying that humans are not animals?
Yes, and I confirm that
>Oh no then what do we categorise all these humans that be acting like animals?
Brutes, fallen man, failed individuals, you can call them how you want, they're just people who abdicated their human superiority to go back into the mud like pigs

>>34397483
>A stranger who will never see you again
Again you fall for the city dweller mentality. I don't live in NYC or LA. Irl you can find those people again when you don't expect it. Imagine if you go to a pub and act like a retard. Next day, you have an important meeting and you discover that they saw you being a retarded clown. And you're fucked
>>34397483
>Society does not push "fucking 100000" girls before finding the "right one".
Not literally 100000, but it promotes hook up culture, which is basically the same crao
>Even if it did, you're free to not follow it.
And that's exactly what I'm doing
>>34397520
>The person reporting clearly had an agenda, like a vendetta or rivalry
People don't notify you these intentions. Best not to let yourself go too much in front of them
>that's not just some random stranger reporting because they felt traumatised by the word "nigger"
That happened all the time tho
>So don't say nigger. Is it that hard?
Nigger is just an example for your unfiltered thoughts. You were suggesting to share them with anyone. I'm saying that it's better to keep it for yourself until you're sure of your interlocutor's bona fide (and it takes a lot of time to build the necessary trust)
>>34397520
>Some art requires a fair bit of context and background knowledge to actually appreciate
That "art" is not beautiful then, it's probably some deconstructionist crap made to shock the bourgeoises and shieet
>Nothing wrong with subverting expectations
Not if you do that with a constructive approach. But if your only goal is to defile the existent, you're basically a nigger jew subverter
>A bunch of dudes decided these books go in the Canon
The "bunch of dudes" is literally every literate person who ever existed... it's not like there's a freemasonry circle who decides who "goes in the canon" lmao. The canon is such because people imitates it, considering it a model to follow, since it's objectively superior to the average

>>34397534
Lmao
>go read the love song of J Alfred prufrock
Seems like good advice, finally. The chat wasn't useless afterall
>>34397631
>The fact was subject to somebody's assessment.
Not somebody, but 99% of mankind. It's a physical reaction to that stimulus. Those features (beauty) produce a specific positive feeling in people, and they do so from a subconscious, instinctual, natural brainwiring way, it's not a conscious elaboration. Beauty gives hmgood feelings, but it's not the feeling itself. It's the source of it. Like wind isn't the fresh sensation on your skin, but the (objective) cause of it

>>34397635
>Hence we sometimes like to call that value assignment "subjective"
Everything is filtered by human eyesz so everything is subjective (relativism). But since 99% of humans have the same reaction to the same thing, we can deduct it's an objective link. On the other hand, if most people would feel disturbed/disgusted by modern art, and it takes a phd in marxist deviancy to "get it", well, that's the most subjective shit ever appeared on this realm of reality

>>34397671
>GO FIND SOME IRL FRIENDS AND MAYBE EVEN SHOCK HORROR GIRLS (with those shared interests) TO GO SPERG AWAY ABOUT THIS SHIT
There are no irl places like 4chan
>inb4 start a club
You can't if you don't know people

>>34397720
This legitimately gave me headache lmao, wtf is that, a code string?

And for this evening that's all. I enjoyed how we reached some sort of agreement on certain points, even if our worldviews are opposites and we despise each other. See you tomorrow nigga

>>34398568
>The petit bourgeoisie was the correct middle ground, where the aristocratic ritual framework was still accelted, but personal preferences were also took into account.
Right well this is A VERY SPECIFIC MOMENT in history you'd like to return to, so if you really love that particular period/place in history then YOU write up the exact rules and regulations of that time period and propose it as an implementable alternative to current day (remember, adjusting for actual current context so that it's still implementable, ie accommodate for all technological and political updates and etc)

And also, super poor fags are gonna be concerned with money. They just have to concern themselves with a smaller scale of wealth rather than "wealthy" wealth. Perhaps yes there's some super sweet spot where one can actually pick their "real" preference (leaving finances out of the equation) but I'd wager that's a "privileged" (but not too privileged!) minority

>sex revolution
To me it's just some Hollywood propaganda americanized shit. Elsewhere in the world, they aren't so sex obsessed. Although that's changing now that internet and porn took over. We are reaching a post-sex age where people don't even have sex to be sex addicts they just fuck their sex robots in VR or goon. They are never satiated since they're just coping with something else in their life, like feelings of inferiority or helplessness or stress or loneliness or unfulfillment. They patch it up with a cheap dopamine escape or a feeling of fake intimacy and security. There are so many problems surrounding sex these days, it's not that simple to just shut it off. That's why it's mastery that matters, not just hiding it under the rug. It shouldn't just be shamed, it should be addressed

>>34399211
>Want to fuck every guy you see and have multiple abortions? Go for it, you'll never be jailed for that, but you'll be known by everyone as the disgusting bitch you are, and not excused by some normalization cope promoted by ill willed subverters
That already happens though. Lots of grills hide their bodycount and lie and etc. and even guys do that too. For me, I think people with dysgenic behaviours should just cop with the consequences of their own decisions (low fulfilment later in life), but I guess some get away scot-free (cock carousel to betabuxx pipeline). Yes some people "excuse" it but it's far from the majority, it's quite a mix in the current day like some counter-movements picking up speed (alt-right, conservatives, etc), there's quite a lot of factions though I don't think any of them are quite right or have the right balance needed

>>34398600
>the retarded kids didn't see it coming, not their fault. They just drank the literal goyslop and poisoned themselves
It's half half. Like how some people blame their parents for all their failings - yes the parents are to blame, but you are an adult now too. It's up to you to pick up the pieces and deal with the aftermath appropriately. Just like these retarded kids - the consequences are starting to catch up, and they're realising they've been poisoned and have to now adapt etc. We've all made mistakes or had mistakes made on us, but it's up to us to identify and fix these.

>When you observe certain (partial but consistent and real) features, you can very well dismiss someone. If he's acting lile a retard, I don't care why he is, he's just obnoxiously retarded to me.
And I'm challenging this - yes, dismissing has its utility, for example I can't read the entire catalog of humanity's writings so I have to be picky and not read Dante or whatever and only read what I feel is most useful to my life goals. But I think you are TOO QUICK to dismiss others, especially when it's comes to IRL, where building connections is actually fairly important and would serve you well for your goals (build a stable family, network, community, etc) so the risk reward is quite good to take.

Also, it's actually good to see WHY someone's acting the way they're acting, because it gives you a better verdict on their character, like whether they are actually justified to act the way they act (or if it's grossly misproportioned), and whether they are redeemable/how hard will it be for them to change their ways

> I'm baffled by the lack of anons
Anons here only want to respond to
>be femanon
Or some rage bait

>easier for men to feel bad in a society,
Indeed, they are more spurred/pushed to snap/make a change, whereas females are coddled/sheltered so they have no impetus to deviate or even reach independence/self-sufficiency

>>34399347
>less empathic sex, more prone to risk and physically stronger, so they're naturally the ones going put there to put some shit on the table.
Empathy is a reaction that is learned/honed, it's not just something someone's born with. A person can have superior cognitive empathy and also muted emotional empathy, as this serves them well in first aid, being able to stomach the suffering (being able to tolerate and tune down the emotional empathy) whilst they help fix the problems/suffering (using their cognitive empathy). Emotional empathy only serves as a driving force to go help someone (without it, you wouldn't care enough to go help), but it is useless without the cognition, and even counterproductive when you have too much of it you can't even help anymore/you become helpless (hence when people call themselves empaths, they are not empaths they are just retarded useless faggots)

Yes the physical strength does place them in particular more "active"/dominant roles as a result, but it's most definitely not a requirement/fixed or hard rule, plenty of circumstances override the rule (especially in our era, where we are mostly run on brain power rather than man/horse power)

>Our brains are differently interwired for that exact reason, there are studies about it.
No matter the wiring you're born with, the brain can (and will) rewire itself upon external influence

>>34399359
>we are complementary, not equals. And women trying to be "equals" to men are the "biological female troons" I was jocking about, because
By this logic, every human is complementary and not equals to each other. Everybody has their own individual strengths and weaknesses, their own wiring/configuration. When I mean equal, I mean equal in the sense of holding your own weight and putting something equally contributive onto the table, even if that thing is different to what someone else put on the table. I mean equal value, not equal in the most literal/object sense.

>they act like men but in a woman body. I find them repulsing and most women nowadays act like that.
How do they do this? And again, that's a subset of women, I don't think that's the case of majority

>It's important because people don't do weighted calculations at all at this point, they just want the goyslop social media idol clones, and such social media idols are indeed pushing the subversion further (because to be cool nowadays you have to follow the subverted rules, and that starts a vicious cicle)
I would agree this is a general trend. But still, there are many individuals who see through the bullshit (even if only partially), and they are not few - it's up to you to find these people. The other option is becoming the influencer (i.e. anti-influencer) yourself - though this would be a much more ambitious and higher stakes route, that you wouldn't need to take if you're simply just wanting a relationship/family.

>>34398663
>fall in the relativist trap and you'd end up saying "I can't say if women were or not subverted in their behaviour, because there are small numbers of them who are against the theory"

That's the thing, I'm not so much "relativist" as I am "proportion-ist". I genuinely believe that you've got the proportional scale wrong, and that yes, the archetypes you disdain do exist, but THEY are in small numbers compared to the other archetypes that exist. And, there are many more archetypes that exist than just the ones you purport. The majority fall in a more balanced sort of archetype, more in between, rather than any extreme ends of the scale.

>But what is society pushing? What is society promoting? What did they took from us?
I do agree that what society "pushes" (or, puts on a pedestal) has indeed changed, from that more sweet cutesy archetype to the more sexy/sexualised archetype. Both are irritating. And even though society "pushes" those things with their mediashit/cultural collective hallucinations/delusions, the individual people do not all conform to what society pushes. A lot of people do, but a lot of people also don't. And you can only find that variance when you actually meet and get to know people on an individual level. And there's a lot of in-between - you might find someone who's bloody all the archetypes but fused into 1 person, some gem of a being (or nightmare!)

>>34398685
>Btw, even that stereotyped version of masculinity is a lie by the subversion. Before the "act like an animal, follow your lowest instincts" mantra you love so much, men were dignified or at least were trying to achieve that, now they're proud to act like savages (you're an example of that, you even fight to defend that shit, not realizing you're not the animal they want you to be)
No, I'm aware that "masculinity" of current day is also a lot of performative (and as they say, "toxic masculinity") propaganda. And I never followed that mantra, I follow one of mastery rather than full suppression. Mastery involves a lot more, it can include some suppression in certain instances (like delayed gratification, for instance, or even "suppressing"/harvesting something to transmute/channel it into a later more constructive instance), but that is only a means to the end that is mastery. Mastery doesn't mean hiding or being ashamed, it means being in control. So of the "animal impulses" that we have, we aren't supposed to demonise and shun them, we are supposed to understand and harness them/address them efficiently.

>>34399445
OH SHIT I MISCLICKED AND LOST MY MASSIVE REPLY oh well I think I remember what I said. Omg so fucking annoying

>It's not about actually being sluts, it's the vibe, and the pride in being lowly beings instead of trying to be dignified. Imagine My Fair Lady. If it was a modern story, the girl would be proud about her crass disgusting manners, because they're seen as "natural" "cool" "authentic" by the subverted society, blocking every attempt of improvement. Why? Because they wanted to rule over a mass of nigger apes, not actual people, which is easier
I was wondering what your exact definition of "slut" was. So to you, sexualised = slut. Essentially, society "subverted" the value of sexualisation so instead of negative/shunned, it's positive/prized. I disagree that's it's "natural" or "authentic". It's still "performative", and done because they follow what society "prized", rather than critically thinking about whether what society "prizes" is actually good or not.

>towards someone who might not even respect you.
>How? She never disrespected me, I'm not a cuckhold
I said MIGHT. We have no confirmation, so all possibilities are on the table.

>>34399501
>Also, it was an instinct, a powerful feeling, not something I decided rationally
The powerful feeling is still informed/fed by thoughts and rationality though. Even if it's cognitively distorted/misinformed rationality.

Like, if you actually talked to her, and she disrespected you or made it clear that she hates you and she revealed her true thoughts? That powerful feeling would change. Might even be destroyed. Might turn into a different powerful feeling - confusion, then upon further processing/investigating how it could be like this, anger, hatred (or maybe even gratitude - maybe she actually hates you for a justified reason, and it forces you to look inward and reflect on it and change for the better). The limerence spell would be shattered. The only cure to it - finding out the reality of the situation and putting your fantasy version to test.

>>34398698
>Not silent, but quiet and appreciative of silence aswell. Someone who enjoys contemplation more than being in the fucking spotlight.
There's a time and place for both (silence/contemplation, spotlight/action)

>Becaus eI could spend my time with her in peace, with no faggots disturbing the lrocess
Most relationships are like that, two people being together without third wheels. Sometimes there's the friend group but they should be relatively aligned and if not that's a first red flag

>>34399569
>I hate what THIS society turned sociality into. I can't stand all the vulgar self satisfaction
In a sense, society treats "sociality" in an extremely distorted way - they act as if we are meant to have the perfect friendship circle like a sitcom, have the perfect romantic relationship like a Disney movie, and anything short of these generic cookie cutter formulations means you're a loser or you're missing something or there's something wrong with you. I agree in that "social" doesn't mean "good inherently" - as said before, it's only a tool, a means to an end. But society treats "socialising" as if it's an end in itself. It's not. It's a means to an end, like networking for opportunities, building trusty reliable circle, finding partners, staying informed of the latest updates (relevant and useful to your life and not just useless shit like some teenage drama). On its own, socialising is just a tool, like technology. To me, it's not so much about the vulgarity/sexualisation of "sociality" as much as just the pedestalization of it without any actual useful direction - it's just another one of those things that society "prizes". They say "be social" but they don't give a compelling reason as to "why"? They just think we are "social creatures" so we are "supposed" to "socialise", end of story. They don't pick up the nuances of why actually, it might be wiser NOT to "socialise" in this particular scenario, or etc. They just apply it like a general antidote to everything when actually, there is such thing as socialising "too much" as well. Or being "over-socialized" as Ted K put it.

>>34399575
So to me, it's not so much about the vulgarity/sexualisation of "sociality", but just the inherent uselessness/banality of it (at least, in many "normies"' usage of it)

But indeed, it's a tool. If you can actually have directed purpose with "socialising", then it's a-ok. But if you're just doing it because your life has to look like a sitcom or Disney movie for you to feel "enough", then fuck off, do some soul searching (which can include socialising too, but for the purpose of soul searching and not to keep up appearances of commercially sold normalcy) instead

>Because in that case the bias is bigger than Mt Everest... one thing is understanding her character (the main features at least), another is to start fantasizing about how she could react to me
A major issue in your view of all this is thinking these things are fixed - her character can change. Her reaction of you can also change. She can even start off hating you, but eventually like you (like tsundere romance tropes or generic archetypal plots). Maybe you realise your errs and redeem yourself. Just like reputation. Maybe you fucked up, but then you make up for it later. YOU can change. None of these things are fixed written in the stars destiny has spoken and there's no way to change your fate. In your view, it's over before it began. It's only over if you have fully definitive evidence that it's over - physically gone/untraceable/ir-re-traceable, or legally enforced (though it shouldn't have to come to that point, you'd probably get the memo before this)

>>34398714
>lowly action because your body takes control of your mind for a moment
No, the body always controls the mind, and the mind controls the body, they are both synergestic - you feel hungry, your mind notices, your mind comes up with a plan to fix the hunger, your body executes the plan. You feel you need to pee, your mind notices, your mind decides it can't pee now because you'd wet yourself and cause more work afterwards so you restrain, your mind comes up with a plan to pee somewhere better, your body executes it. These are just part of being an animal. The body has needs, the mind decides for the body how to act to meet those needs. Same with wants, but the mind can decide to forgo wants.

Obviously, we are different from other animals, just like a rhinoceros is different from a turtle. The major difference being the ability for more complex thoughts due to developments of language, tool making/using - i.e. advancements in communication with each other. Our brain probably naturally evolved to be bigger/more specialised to cater to our systems that grow more and more complex, but our systems ultimately are built to attend to our bodily needs (and wants to a lesser degree). Our brains weren't the first thing to "spike" this intelligence - it was actually the opposable thumbs allowing us to grip things (so, there's still an element of physical determinism baked into the development of "intelligence" - we weren't just designed exclusively to be intelligent and every other animal dumb, because intelligence is the end - intelligence is still a means to an end, the end being our bodily needs/wants).

>>34399675
Even during times oneself defies bodily needs/wants to uphold something else - maybe they sacrifice their own needs for someone else's needs, like a parent to a child (also, this happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom too - salmon basically killing themselves to reproduce and leave their eggs or whatever when they swim upstream to their deaths towards the egg laying ground or something something) - all things are still rooted in bodily needs/wants even if it's abstracted onto someone else or paralleled onto something else. We're still animals despite our capacity to "disobey" what other animals "would usually do" in a situation (although other animals would never be in these super complex scenarios we've manufactured for ourselves... So an animal would do nothing because they can barely comprehend what's going on in these super complex scenarios).

>>34398714
>Yes, that's why we invented that apparently retarded ritual called dinner, why we eat with our mouths closed, why we use a fork instead of our hands etc etc. Eating is less disgusting because you can actually control how you do it and when you do it. The disgust/ shame level is directly linked to that, the more sonething is inevitable and out of our control, the more we hate to display it. Piss and poop are on top of the list

No, disgust and shame are different, firstly. Disgust is for the one observing, shame is for the one being observed. Disgust is a feeling - it's not always based on something rational (or what I mean is, it's still based off of rationality/logic, but the rationality may be distorted/biased and be a misrepresentation of reality), but it has its purpose. Disgust exists so you avoid the unhygienic, indirectly improving your survival odds especially before medical advances where an infectious disease was basically a death sentence, and a big proportion of death rate was due to infectious disease (rather than lifestyle disease nowadays). Another function, not only the unhygienic, but the poisonous perhaps - if something smells disgusting, you avoid ingesting/touching it, and again improve your survival odds. Basically, disgust has its use so you avoid something that would harm you. Kind of like fear (except, disgust is for static, immobile, inanimate things, where all you have to do is not go near it yourself, whereas fear is for things that can actively harm you and can get to you themselves so you actually need to do something to avoid it coming to you). Except, being feared isn't so bad and can even be beneficial to your survival (you get to take what you want). However, being

>>34399719
-> disgusting can reduce your odds (if you're unhygienic, you're more prone to disease, and also other people won't be willing to associate with you as much too, so you lose their help and support, and lose reproductive opportunity). Shame has its use as mentioned before - shame is an impetus to hide but also seek help and fix whatever it is that's making you ashamed - perhaps it's "being disgusting" that's making you feel ashamed, like "being unhygienic" or something - in which, it's good to feel ashamed, because that spurs you to fix it, thus improving survival/reproductive odds (no disease, no aversion of others).

It's not based off of being in control or out of control because that's too vague (of course we like being in control, who would rather be out of control and at the mercy of indifferent outside forces apathetic to your pain and suffering) - it's based off of pro-survival and pro-reproduction (like most emotions are). Yes, the more "in control" you are, the higher your survival and reproduction odds are (but as I said, that's too generalised/vague).

>>34398714
>We literally do, there's no need to cover yourself in certain situations except shame. It's not like you're walking amongst a cactus garden.
You're talking CERTAIN situations, not every situation. Hiding =/= ashamed in every case. Maybe you hide out of fear, like fear of sexual attack hence hiding genitals. Maybe you're hiding out of convenience - you hide your money and medals and trophies because people start pestering you about them and sucking up to you and you'd rather not have them interrupt your activities.

I'm saying, there's no need to hide your genitals because you're ashamed of them, or ashamed of what they represent. You can hide them simply for convenience. Like maybe you're actually very proud of your genitals and would love to show them off, but you hide them anyway because it's not worth the repercussions of what, getting charged/lawsuit with public indecency, or somebody straight up attacking you for it.

>You're distracted only because you feel ashamed/reminded of something you don't want to accept, aka your animal side
If anything, we probably clothe them because actual discharge and fluid comes out of them so it's more convenient in a hygiene and cleaning sense to just wrap em up. You're not distracted because you're ashamed, you're distracted because it's uncommon and unexpected. Like you said, once it becomes normalised, people are no longer distracted by it (like in a tribal savage scenario)

>You can very well be naked if it was just about comfort.
And we do (nearly naked), when it's hot.

>>34398714
>Because we have a double nature coexisting in the same body. A perfect rational godly mind who can reads the language of universe, and an imperfect body/instinct. Basically all human myths are obsessed with this.
>What's so wrong about being an animal?
>They're stupid, imperfect creatures, and we hate to admit we are partially like them, and that our superiority will always be stained by that side. Again, it's a fucking trope in every civilization since when they discovered fire

No, our mind is not perfect. It commits to logical fallacy, inconsistency, hypocrisy, bias and distortions all the time. Secondly, perfect according to who and what?

Sure we can attempt to read the language of the universe, but it's highly imperfect and error-prone and laden with inaccuracies. We strive for perfection, which presupposes that we are imperfect.

Maybe animals (excluding humans) are the creatures that are perfect. Maybe we could learn a great deal from them. Maybe they're stupid at chess or playing violin or reciting poetry but they're extremely smart at navigating their environment and misdirecting predators and carving their own niche to survive and continue to survive as a species in a cruel, uncaring and relentless earth.

It's a trope, but a trope is simply a generalisation to characterise a recurring concept. A trope describes a particular situation that has repeated at least once before. It's not a law of the universe. It's a device used to characterise something. Use the word monkey or ape if you just want to use figure of speech.

And, civilizations can be wrong about things. Multiple civilisations can be wrong about a thing.

>>34398720
>It exists only in your mind.
That's a valid form of existing too. If my imaginary friend only exists in my mind, it's still existing, even if only in my mind, it's still a concept that exists. A meter can exist physically too (a ruler, a thermometer, etc).

>There's no border between a centimeter and the other, it's just a limitation of your eyesight that lets you believe it.
A centimetre is a human-defined metric. The border between one centimetre and the next is exactly that, the end of one particular amount of physical distance, where we humans decided what that particular amount would be fixed at. We decided what the borders of one centimetre would be (it's a fixed quantity). We decided this because it's a convenient tool to use, to measure the universe, particularly for things that are under 1 metre (or maybe under a few metres) but above 1 centimetre, things like someone's height or dick or a chair or table or whatever.

I don't need to believe it's real, because it was defined by me. It's real within the context that it's being used. After it's been used, it can cease being real and it wouldn't matter either way.

>>34398805
>The problem tho is that our brain shrinks by doing that, and we're literally becoming retarded because of this.
A smaller brain doesn't mean (doesn't GUARANTEE) more retarded. The brain prunes useless information and consolidates useful information, making room for more information. You can have a smaller, more compact processor that outperforms are larger, more sparse/diluted one. You can have superior hardware and waste it on retarded software, and hence be outperformed by something with inferior hardware but superior software. The brain shrinks when people use tech to replace the brain rather than augment it. The brain shrinks when people stop using their brain entirely because technology does it for them, not when people keep using their brain for other tasks using the time/space freed up by technology/automation. Maybe a typical person will use AI to write their essay for them, but a researcher will use AI to write a better essay. Just like the pen and paper - it's just giving more space to do more complex/advanced things now, but it's up to the person to use that extra space given.

>>34399851
>Also, ancient people were humble enough to recognise that their forefathers weren't stupid, and if they did something it was for reasons. Progressive subverters just throw everything away because they think they know it better (like you), and by foing so they destroy the work that took millennia to be made
I never dismissed forefathers as stupid (or, that wasn't where I was getting at, or at least wasn't my intention). Quite the opposite. I recognise that forefathers (or whoever before me) paved the way (and have wisdom due to what they learnt and how they navigated their contexts/unique set of variables), I learn their ways, and I make something even better. I don't throw everything away, I gather everything from before, augment with my own new, updated things, combine and create/do something better. I just don't diminish my own capacity/capability in the process - I see myself as equal to whoever was before me, not smarter or dumber. Just different. Although, I like to say I'm smarter since I have the advantage of continuance whereas they got cut short in their journeys (they're dead). For the most part, I won't even use the word smart or dumb, since those words have been seriously distorted and don't actually convey what they're supposed to convey half (or most) of the time. Most of the time I just use those words for bantz and to trigger a reaction

>>34398805
>Becaus eliving amongst people who considers you a retard shit person is detrimental to your mental well being. You become a pariah
Better pariah and a menace than conforming to their retardation and becoming one of them amongst them. If someone considers me a retard shit person that's their loss, not mine, meaning they were too stupid/pompous to access my superior logic/take. They stay ignorant, I lose nothing

>you grow insecure, keep thinking about what you fucked up, it becomes an obsession and you end up more depressed than before. Maybe you'll even start to believe you ACTUALLY are a retard clown if the repetition goes on for long enough. The real "answer" would be prepare yourself and succeed avoiding making a fool of yourself. But you can't prepare if there's no structure and it's all liquid shit
You are already insecure. You think about what you fucked up, sure, then you try again and implement your strategy you find during your reflection on what you fucked up. After a bunch, you might even realise that it's not you who fucked up, but that other circumstances are causing failure, or it could even be the other person who's fucking up. You adapt your strategy again to patch for all these causes of failure that you gather through your trial and error. You get closer and closer to an actual success.

>Imagine throwing away a secure job at 30+ and risk becoming a hobo just because you want to be le wacky extrovert
If you can afford to, then do it. Is the opportunity cost really that large? Can you not just find another job if you blow it at this one?

>>34399881
>Better than living like a dressed up dog with fraud roots
>Of course, that's why I prefer to resist like a Man, and not bend to be like a dog at all
You aren't resisting if you are just accepting the subpar circumstances you've been forced into and not taking action to change it into something better

>That makes him objectively great, no amount of reddit cope can change that fact
Ok, so? (Also no, stop using the word objectively, that's not what the word is for. If you think he's so fucking great, then just say that. Stop misusing the word objectively, like you misuse the word animal, like I get what you're trying to get at in the context of these discussions but the misuse of the word is seriously irksome). His greatness or un-greatness is not relevant. You haven't made a case for anything, you simply said Dante also experienced limerence for Beatrice, got accused of stalking, and was a great writer. You haven't linked any of these concepts together to form an actual point or a case for yourself. That's why I find it irksome, it's like you're trying to justify your feelings/actions by saying someone "better than you/me" did it - authority bias.

>>34398836
>Literally yes. They INVENTED, they created something new and useful from nothing. You're just following instructions to use what they invented.
And maybe I'm on my way to inventing something greater than all of them. And I'm sure they didn't create it from nothing, they were also influenced by people/things/concepts before them. We stand on the shoulders of giants (them), they stand on the shoulders of giants (whoever before them), and whoever after us also stand on the shoulders of giants (us). Having this "IQ" contest is not what I'm interested in at all, the inventions themselves and how to get there is what matters

>That would be true if you were stacking knowledge, by actually appreciating what your ancestors did instead of thinking you're smarter. Also, you'd have to actually create something even better to be equal to those inventors, because until you do it, you never invented anything, and you just learnt how to use a tool, which is almost ape-tier compared to actually inventing it from scratch
I can both think I'm smarter and also appreciate what my ancestors did at the same time. Smart or dumb, better or worse, it doesn't matter, I stack knowledge, I create, I stack knowledge, I create, I learn how to use tools to create even better tools to be used. I don't actually care if I'm smart or dumber, that's not the end here, intelligence is only a means to an end. What end? True happiness and not fraud happiness. Intelligence helps me reach my goals, but it's not the goal itself.

>Suure, I dare you to stop pissing for a week. Hold your shit for a month. Spoiler: you can't fucking control it
Is holding my piss in not control? You are using absolute/binary terms to say we have no control, but clearly the reality is a spectrum and we do have partial control of it. And if there is some control in it, then there is control, even if it's not full control.

>>34398848
>It's not me, but mankind since the dawn of history, suggesting a natural inclination to do so. Easily explained with the conflict between the human rational logic mind, and the animal shell that contains it
If there's a natural inclination to do so, but we are not meant to follow our natural inclinations (animalistic, poop eat fuck), then can't we just disobey our natural inclination then (producing shame)? It can be easily explained, but that "easy explanation" is a severely reductionist take that misattributes and distorts the reality of it, which is that we are animals, we also use logic as a tool, and we manage our wants and needs as appropriate using the tools we have at our disposal, logic being one of them

>Of course not. But imagine not having the 10/10 trad waifu AND be the laughing stock of them aswell... now that would be double shit
Being the laughing stock is not such a bad price to pay when the reward could be a 10/10 Trad waifu that you so prize. It would be like, gamble 10 cents every time, for a potential million dollar reward.

>You start with a neutral reputation. Then people start to build an idea of you. It can be positive or negative. That opinion affects how they treat you and your opinions, even your actions.
Sure, but you need some tangible rewards/punishments. We need to see the actual scale of these treatments. Do they just exclude you from their parties? Not that bad of a punishment. Do they burn you at the stake like those witch trials? Ok that's really extreme and you'd probably be wiser to not risk it.

>like shot until you remain near them
Which you won't if they're strangers

>a respected peer is just a random guy with a spark of dignity
Why would a random guy have a spark of dignity or the respect of other random people
Point is the guy can't be random at that point

>>34399944
>A nobody turns into a respected peer as soon as someone meets him. Then hos reputation can go down or up accordingly to his actions
I'd say peer, not a respected one. But this depends on your definition of respect - do you mean basic respect for the fellow human, or do you mean a grander respect i.e. admiration, or what level of respect are you referring to.

>You can't recover from being a clown, first impressions are undeletable
You can, by make more impressions until the first one is diluted out (or simply explained how it's not as bad as it seemed)

>Because I live with them and I don't want to be laughed at by some low IQ normie, especially if it's because of actions I despise and I actually don't want to perform
Firstly, you don't live with them if they're strangers, secondly being laughed at does not stop you from any opportunities or freedoms so why is it such a huge price to pay for you when you will eventually get a wife in return for this price? Are you really not willing to pay the price of being laughed at for a few minutes in exchange for a wife/family unit? Also, it's likely that nobody will laugh at you. If they do laugh, then they're probably laughing "with" you and just find it light-hearted, and the worst reaction you'll probably get is them being equally awkward, maybe weirded out, then never seeing them again

>Brutes, fallen man, failed individuals, you can call them how you want, they're just people who abdicated their human superiority to go back into the mud like pigs
And nobody is actually as judgemental as you are (in high likelihood). You fear that THEY will think this of you, but it's actually pretty low likelihood that they will. They don't think like you - at least not as judgemental as you. Sure some might but majority - no. And if someone does - they're cooked and you won't see them again so it doesn't change ur life.

>>34398884
>>Some art requires a fair bit of context and background knowledge to actually appreciate
>That "art" is not beautiful then, it's probably some deconstructionist crap made to shock the bourgeoises and shieet
Like Dante - if you hadn't experienced limerence before, or of that intensity, then you won't appreciate his writing of it as much as you would if you also experienced it before. I'd actually argue that MOST art requires context and background knowledge to appreciate. If you don't have that knowledge, then you can't actually comprehend or correctly interpret what the author/artist was trying to convey/express

>Not if you do that with a constructive approach. But if your only goal is to defile the existent, you're basically a nigger jew subverter
What if you're simply depedestalizing what should be depedestalized? I.e. it's not defiling, it's depedestalizing. You are mocking things that deserve to be mocked

>The canon is such because people imitates it, considering it a model to follow, since it's objectively superior to the average
No, it's actually fairly limited, like only taking into account a specific sphere of Western intellectuals and nothing outside of that bubble. Not saying that it's bad, just saying that it's not the be all end all, and is fairly overrated. It misses a lot of things, and there's a lot of good shit out there that is underrated and just because it's not in this Canon thing someone built once doesn't mean it's inferior, just unnoticed as of yet (or unnoticed by the right authority figures in a sea of bureaucracy)

>>34398903
>Prufrock
Surprised you haven't already

>>34400003
>Not somebody, but 99% of mankind. It's a physical reaction to that stimulus. Those features (beauty)
I'm not talking about beauty specifically, I'm talking about value assignment as a whole/in general. Beauty is only 1 example. And do we really want to talk about 99% of mankind when 99% of mankind right now are stupid overly sexualised crass idiot apes (well according to your view). And I wasn't talking about all of mankind, I was talking about any possible observer there is, doesn't even have to be a human.

>Everything is filtered by human eyesz so everything is subjective (relativism). But since 99% of humans have the same reaction to the same thing, we can deduct it's an objective link.
No, because 99% of humans can also be wrong at the same time. Like the paradigm being that the earth was flat and everything revolved around the earth until Galileo (? Or somebody), a single person (and maybe even a few other lone individuals in different parts of the world who worked independently from Galileo but arrived at the same conclusions) proved otherwise and then caused a paradigm shift/revolution

>On the other hand, if most people would feel disturbed/disgusted by modern art, and it takes a phd in marxist deviancy to "get it", well, that's the most subjective shit ever appeared on this realm of reality
It might make something MORE objective, but never fully 100% objective. Again it's a spectrum, not a binary thing. For binary thing, well, I tried to explain it in binary terms by defining entities and how they are objects, but they turn into subjects when they are observed by (or, when they are in relation to) another object. That is subjectivity versus objectivity. But oh well, that is philosophical and for the purposes, I do get what you mean I simply found it logically inconsistent i.e. the misuse of words like "objective" and "animal" - even though I do get the gist of what you're trying to say, I just think you express/convey it poorly/inaccurately

>>34400010
/imprecisely

*for these purposes

>>34398884
I lost this post I'll respond later, but really it's all just rumination for inaction again

>>34400016
For every rumination, there is an equal and opposite rumination logically opposing it. The answer is JUST DO EET FAGGET DON'T LET YOUR MEMES BE DREAMS, JUST DO EEEEEEEEEET

>>34398884
>don't expect it. Imagine if you go to a pub and act like a retard. Next day, you have an important meeting and you discover that they saw you being a retarded clown. And you're fucked
If you act retarded it's going to be one-on-one most of the time. If their at a meeting the next day then you already knew them and they weren't a stranger unless low-probability coincidence that stranger actually works there and suddenly has a meeting for the first time with you

Maybe you should actually try the city out or somewhere with higher population where there will be even more variety/variance

>Not literally 100000, but it promotes hook up culture, which is basically the same crao
>Even if it did, you're free to not follow it.
>And that's exactly what I'm doing
Yes but there are other rules too like finding people meeting them talking them sharing activities etc that's not the only "expectation" (and it's hardly an expectation, only retarded people would think that's a deal-breaker if you don't fuck 10000 people before them)

>Nigger is just an example for your unfiltered thoughts. You were suggesting to share them with anyone. I'm saying that it's better to keep it for yourself until you're sure of your interlocutor's bona fide (and it takes a lot of time to build the necessary trust)
There is a technique where you sort of filter your honest thoughts but still say them (partial honesty). But even if you did say something honest and the reaction was bad, very low chance it'd get that bad of an reaction (reporting to HR or legal or whatever), so it's like worrying about getting hit by lightning

>There are no irl places like 4chan
>inb4 start a club
>You can't if you don't know people
Uni clubs usually work. There might not be "places" but there are events/congregations

>>34398919
Configuration = objective
Value assignment = subjective (relative) (even though, a value assignment itself can be treated like an object too, but only when you have both the value assignment, AND the source of the value assignment i.e. the observer. i.e. the value assignment is the relationship between the observer and the observed)

>>34399211
>Right well this is A VERY SPECIFIC MOMENT in history you'd like to return to,
That's just the most recent period where society was still working. Even poorfags (not scum, but normal poor people like peasants and workers) and aristocratd were still following some sort of code. And it's not even limited to finding a partner, but every social sitiation was more clear and ruled by dignified rituals. Every approach was following a formal scheme, and you just had to follow the path to succeed. Now you're supposed to act like you're a buddy to fucking strangers, it's all so fake and tiresome.
>just some Hollywood propaganda americanized shit.
Well, hollyjew was filled with marxists, remember the red scare? Turns out they weren't crazy, and the menace was real. The subversion used media to spread its poison all across the west. Europe (western) is as much as subverted as the US. We're both fucked
>Elsewhere in the world, they aren't so sex obsessed
Probably in the third world, or in eastern Europe, that got shielded by the stalinist brand of communism (the cultural marxist subverters acted in the west, they were trozkists and Stalin purged them, that's why eastern Europe is more traditional now)
>It shouldn't just be shamed, it should be addressed
It's not even about shaming it per se. But shaming its vulgar display. It's supposed to be a private thing, just like you're not supposed to poop in the street im front of everyone. Context is what it was all about

>>34399214
>Yes some people "excuse" it but it's far from the majority,
The majority feels it's disgusting and wrong deep in their guts, but they've been brainwashed or scared to say it out loud. Therefore, young people are fed with this bullshit idea that if you don't fuck, you don't act like a ghetto nigger, you don't smoke joints etc etc *insert boomer shit* you're basically a loser. I always felt instinctually that these things were against nature, they just gave off a deep sense of disgust to me. Apparently I'm not alone, and we're heading to the next point:
>it's quite a mix in the current day like some counter-movements picking up speed
As you previously said, society and human nature is like an elastic band. If you pull it in one direction where it's not supposed to be, it will follow you until it reaches a breaking point and darts towards the opposite way with equal force. Now it's pretty clear that we're approaching breaking point, and all the marxist bullshit is going to be erased with a violent reaction, which will of course be too extreme (taliban like I fear). It's either that reaction, or extinction. Because the subverted system is doomed since the beginning to fail (actually, it's designed to do so)
>>34399347
>and they're realising they've been poisoned and have to now adapt
Yes, but the damage is already done, and if we want to repair it, it's going to be the hard way sadly
>>34399347
>But I think you are TOO QUICK to dismiss others
To be fair, even if I surely sound the opposite here, I'm very pardoning with people's faults (individually). I could surely enjoy even the most retarded people findong some redeeming quality. It's not about them, it's about the system I have to bend to. If I have to act like what I despise to get to know them, I refuse to do so. It's about turning ME into what I hate, not about judging other people. Basically, to get to know them, I'd have to rape my very nature and act like something I hate. That's what blocks me

>>34399347
>Anons here only want to respond to
>>be femanon
Well, maybe I'll post the same greentext but with the genders swapped, lmao. I wonder how would they react
>>34399359
>Empathy is a reaction that is learned/honed
You can slightly change it, but I assur eypu it's innate. They tested newborns and females (on average) shown already a greater inclination towards empathy compared to males. It's really the biological structure of our brain, you can't change that, it's not something you can learn or develop. It's like having a beard, it's written in your chromosomes. Look up Baron Cohen's studies on this subject, it's really eye opening
>the brain can (and will) rewire itself upon external influence
Only to a certain point. If I'm an autist/sperg whatever, I'll never be able to act spontaneously like a normie, no matter how much I work on it. I could maybe reach a level of acting (fake) that will look genuine from the outside, but it will always be a play.
>>34399365
>every human is complementary and not equals to each other.
Exactly. That's why the whole egalitarism is a fraud, like every shit that came from the cultural marxists. They pretend that men and women are the same, that races are the same, that ugly and beauty are the same etc etc. They want to mix everything up into a slob, until identity is completely erased
>it's up to you to find these people
Yeah, it's almost impossible. They scientifically destroyed every social circle. Notice it: they firstly attacked the church, which was the community centre where everyone had to go and was forced to meet people irl. Then they attacked the concept of fatherland, the thing that rooted you with your ancestors and made you feel like a brother with strangers neighbors. And finally, they attacked family, which is the very base of human societies. Now we're basically dust particles with 0 links to each other (except the fake ones they propped up as surrogates, the social media, the hook up culture sex craze, etc)

>>34399382
>you've got the proportional scale wrong
It's not about the real scale, but the perceived scale. If there are millions of people with my same opinions but we're all closed in our homes and scared of showing our opinions because there's a push against them, it's the same as not having anyone with that opinion. Coincidentally, if a small loud minority controls society they can push their shit on everyone, until their control is operational. Then it will come a moment when it will break up and the elastic band is going to slap them in the face, but now it's not the time yet
>Both are irritating
The cutesy feminine archetype isn't irritating, it's literally the best side of women. While the other is women at their worst. And by cutesy I don't mean a bratty princess who cries if they don't buy her the latest girly pink dress, I mean the actual sweet, caring women, who are obviously suited to be good mothers, unlike the obnoxious, hostile "empowering" feminist at war with men, or the overtly sexual whore who's basically giving herself away with no self respect (both terrible mothers and insufferable to have near aswell)

>>34399445
>masculinity
As they did with the idea of woman, reducing them to sexual cesspits, they did with men, turning them into stupid cavemen. It's a double sided subversion, meant to break apart that perfect "combo" we talked about, the natural relationship between the two not equal but matching sexes
>mastery rather than full suppression
I do aswell. But mastery implies repression (not suppression). You have to keep the lowly instincts hidden until you're in a correct environment to let them go. Poop parallel: I don't say you have to keep your shit forever, I recon it's natural but also demeaning, so you're supposed to do it in the right place and time, not in front of everyone with the excuse "it's natural!". Sex should be channeled into meaningful relationships, not vilified as it is today, it's not a biological function like pissing, it's how you create life. Going around fucking like rabbits may feel good if you're living only on the lowest level of instincts, but it's actually spoiling the whole thing. It's a good thing to consider it taboo, because it charges it with mystery and make sit more appealing. That's why you see less and less people actually having sex in the sexualised society, it's because it's nauseating
>we aren't supposed to demonise and shun them, we are supposed to understand and harness them/address them efficiently.
You address them correctly by shunning them publicly, and vent them privately. Mankind should strive to the stars, even if we'll never reach them, and we should never let our lower instincts take control, but as you said, master them, knowing they're the dark side of us (definitely not being proud of them like the subverters retards are, there's no pride in falling into the mud. Pride should be found in being able to keep the mud on your boots at max, instead of showering in it like a swine)

>>34399501
>OH SHIT I MISCLICKED
Yeah, I hate that lol
>>34399501
>sexualised = slut.
I think that's a fair definition of it, don't you think? Women can be sexually attractive without being overtly sexualized. There's something disgusting in that behaviour, which is performative as you said. I find a delicate neck way more attractive compared to a baboonesque fat lardass twerking desu. And even without the comically huge asses and tits which I actually find repulsive, a more sexual but still attractive feature diaplayed with vulgarity (a provocative outfit for example) at best produces lust in the observer, which is a lowly instinct, that makes you inclined to "use" the woman instead of loving her. The delicate demure traits, are still sexually attractive, but they also trigger the tenderness that's required for a respectful relationship. For example, I found the intern girl very attractive, but I didn't have to impulse to fap to her. I felt a deeper attraction, I wanted to hug and caress her rather than using her as a human flashlight, if that makes sense. That feeling is only obtained through the "cutesy" type, you'll never feel that for a turbo whorish vulgar slag
>I disagree that's it's "natural" or "authentic"
It's not, it's completely subverted. But of course, the propaganda sells it as "freeing you inner nature" and other hippie bullshit

>>34399520
>The only cure to it - finding out the reality of the situation and putting your fantasy version to test.
Yeah, that's why I tried to message her. That costed me a lot of balls, even if you think it's everyfay bullshit. I felt exposed. The fact it never got delivered doesn't change the effort I put in pressing the send button
>Most relationships are like that
Idk, I think that most normies keep their over socialization. That's why they don't have kids, so they could keep their normie social routines. I just want a girl to be alone with. I feel like she could be all I need, and vice versa. Fuck the outside world, if this could happen, I'm sure I'd start to care less and less about stressful shit, because I'd have a safe place to be in any case. That's what basically every man had in the past, and why they had the force to endure horrible situations. Imagine being sent to the trenches: if you know there's your spul mate waiting for you, you'll try everything to exit that hell, and your mental stability would have an anchor. If I had to go there in my current situation tho, my first action would be shot the officer in the head and jump towards the enemy's machine guns. Because I won't have anything worth enduring the horror. I'd go suicidal after 10 minutes

>>34399575
>To me, it's not so much about the vulgarity/sexualisation of "sociality" as much as just the pedestalization of it without any actual useful direction
It's both. They pedestalized sonething not only unuseful, but also detrimental
>>34399600
>If you can actually have directed purpose with "socialising"
In the past, the schemes had always a clear purpose
>>34399600
>these things are fixed - her character can change.
Not fixed 100%, of course you can change. But nobody changes completely becoming its own opposite (unless some weird trauma happened). And opinions about you can be smoothed, but very rarely flipped
>>34399675
>the body always controls the mind, and the mind controls the body
I'd say the body affects the mind, and the mind controls the body. There's no rationality in bodily imputs, whike our mind is conscious and actually controls things.
>>34399675
>ability for more complex thoughts due to developments of language, tool making/using - i.e. advancements in communication with each other
This materialistic explanation isn't completely convincing tho. It could be that we causally evolved into this (or it was determined). But there's more to the human consciousness other than simple evolutionary necessities. All ancient myths tell us the same story, that we are "divine sparks" trapped in a material reality, focusing on our contradictory nature. Recent quantum theories seem to confirm somehow this idea. It seems like our brain is just the material receptor of something separated (consciousness). There are several hints going that way aswell. Call that "soul" "spirit" or whatever. It can easily be some perfectly explainable physic phenomenon we don't know yet, not necessarily some otherworldly thing. But the fact that we feel detached from our bodies is a huge give away. How would that be profitable for evolution? Why a completely material being would even develop such ideas? How a finite thing (brain) can conceive something infinite (math)?

>>34399681
>defies bodily needs/wants to uphold something else
But that something else can be something like spiritual growth. Which is completely useless if we see everything as merely materialistic
>>34399681
>We're still animals despite our capacity to "disobey" what other animals "would usually do" in a situation
We are hybrids. There's a doubke nature in us. We are both animals in flesh, and demigods in our mind (not gods, since as you said, it's fallible. But maybe that's just an handicap that comes with incarnation. Maybe living through our limited pov reduces our mental abilities, which could be complete after death maybe. Who knows, every theory is possible and even likely, because the more you observe the universe, the less hard materialism seems a valid explanation to it
>>34399719
The analysis of disgust is spot on, and I 100% agree. I ment the dual system disgust/shame which affects our relationship with our low functions. Every time we have to eat/shit/remind we have to fuck to reproduce etc etc, we are reminded of our animal side. Our mind (being it just an evolutionary bug or something higher) hates that. This trope, as you called it, is so rooted in our nature that every single civilization has myths and philosophy based on it
>it's based off of pro-survival and pro-reproduction
Not really, since chastity is often practiced and sexual retention is also an extreme mind control over the body, which is completely against reproduction

>>34399757
>Like you said, once it becomes normalised, people are no longer distracted by it (like in a tribal savage scenario)
My point was: why humans started ot dress up if the natural way is to be naked (no other animal dresses). It's because of our shame. Our minds know what genitals are for, and we subconciously link them to being animals. We didn't dress because of environmental reasons (because even bushmen in Africa where it's hot af invented skirts). The inclination to wear shut to cover our bodies is very hardwired into us, and it's not because we were "distracted", since animals never are. Only the consciousness explains this "deviant" behaviour. It's a cope mechanism
>because actual discharge and fluid comes out of them so it's more convenient in a hygiene and cleaning sense to just wrap em up
Interesting theory, but if we look a savages we notice that skirts were a thing before panties, so the primary function was to cover, not to wrap
>And we do (nearly naked), when it's hot.
Nearly... sexual apparatus is always covered tho. It's not even just sex, but also feces and urine. Those organs are like a HUGE reminder that we're animals. And we can't accept that. Why is this schizophrenic reaction a thing only in humans? Because our conscious mind is something very peculiar and almost alien to everything else. And from this we can imagine various explanation of it, from the most materialistic (evolutionary bug) to the most religious (God's image creation), to more gnostic approaches (consciousness as something trapped and/or picked up as a signal by the brain, but actually separated from the body)
>>34399808
>Sure we can attempt to read the language of the universe, but it's highly imperfect and error-prone and laden with inaccuracies.
As said before, the material trap is very lilely a filter, and an incarnated consciousness isn't able to go full potential. Nontheless, it's not a coincidence that we spot universal math patterns.

>>34399808
>We strive for perfection, which presupposes that we are imperfect
We indeed are imperfect. Because we have both a perfect side and an imperfect one that draws it down. It's the Fall myth. Every civilization tells us we are some sort of demi gods fallen into the material reality. Even if they're all coping fairytales (but it's not 100% confirmed, since there are weird coincidences with quantum physics), the very existence of these myths in every human society means that we consider ourselves that way. Which is a failure of evolution in a certain sense (we evolved so much that we now reject our body/animal side, which was the thing evolution should preserve)
>Multiple civilisations can be wrong about a thing.
Even if they wrong, it means that humans are wrong in their nature (aka the evolutionary bug). If every civilisation develops the same tropes everywhere without copying each other, it means it's something deeply rooted in human nature and not a construct (same as true Beauty, which everyone in every place always recognised as produced by those golden ratio proportions, so that it's not a cultural thing, but a natural one)

>>34399835
>That's a valid form of existing too
Yes, but this destroys the materialistic view
>We decided what the borders of one centimetre would be
Yeah, but those borders don't actually exist at all. It's an illusion. Space is an illusion. Everything is infinite. You can zoom in eternally, and zoom out eternally. There are no borders at all
>>34399851
>smaller brain
When I said shrinking I meant figuratively. It means we're becoming retarded. While pen and paper were still a tool that someon had to actually use and learn info to operate with, modern tech and especially AI completely replace your brain, you just have to click and read out loud with 0 elaboration. Also, the absolute immense archive of info is impossible to manage by a human mind, so we just click when it's needed, but doing that we lose memory completely, which is a huge downgrade. Something similar surely happened when they invented books and they stopped memorizing the Odissey. But books required someone to write them, required you to actually read and elaborate them. AI just does it all, you're basically a monkey trained to press on buttons like Koko the gorilla at this point

>>34399853
>I never dismissed forefathers as stupid
You clearly stated you are more smart than everyone who died before yesterday, because they can't use your tech level. But they had the same reason ability as you have, being tech savyy doesn't make you more smart.
>>34399853
>I see myself as equal to whoever was before me, not smarter or dumber. Just different.
This is a more spot on definition. I'd add that the only difference is context, and that humans are basically the same since 100000 years ago mentally speaking (hope this won't change after AI tho)
>>34399881
>If someone considers me a retard shit person that's their loss, not mine, meaning they were too stupid/pompous to access my superior logic/take
You're way too self absorbed. You can't ignore your surroundings like this, or you risk severe cognitive dissonance, like you thinking you're a super smart genius while others know you as the most retarded guy in town

>>34399884
>You aren't resisting if you are just accepting the subpar circumstances you've been forced into
Well, they forced me into having to play their subverted game. I refuse to play completely. That's not a victory of mine since I destroy myself in the process, but it's also not theirs, since they didn't succeed in their goal
>>34399884
>said Dante also experienced limerence for Beatrice, got accused of stalking, and was a great writer.
He didn't get accused of stalking, that was the point. Back then, writing an entire epic poem about a girl you found attractive was actually praised, whike TODAY you'll be treated as a creep. This was the entire point of bringing up Dante. To show how in the past it was considered noble and great what today is reduced to "le creepy weirdo icky". Just to prove how subversion killed everything higher and dignified about love (or relationships) to push their lowly sex obsessed shit
>it's like you're trying to justify your feelings/actions by saying someone "better than you/me" did it - authority bias.
It's not authority bias, it's just a way to find similar cases to yours, and see how they managed them. And Dante wasn't even the case, as I just said, he was only an example to show you how noble acts are now laughed at best, or straight considered disgusting/creepy/weird/etc. Like writing a letter to the intern girl would be...

>>34399915
>Having this "IQ" contest
You started it. I just said that our ancestors are valid men as we are and often even better since their context was less subverted. I never said they had huge 300 IQ brains, just that they weren't stupid retards lile progressives like to believe
>even if it's not full control
Our mind craves full control tho, even if it's impossible to achieve 100%
>>34399944
>If there's a natural inclination to do so, but we are not meant to follow our natural inclinations (animalistic, poop eat fuck), then can't we just disobey our natural inclination then (producing shame)?
The duality of man gives you the answer. Low natural instincts (from the body) bring you down. High natural instincts (coming from the mind) put you up. It's your choice which you want to follow. Just remind that there's one of those two that makes you a human and not a dog. I prefer that imo

>>34399944
>It would be like, gamble 10 cents every time, for a potential million dollar reward.
But in this scenario, you have just 1$ and you burn it into stupid bets hoping for that one in a million possibility to win. You'll end up poorer statistically. Which basically means: the odds of finding the tradwaifu are so low that repeatedly destroying your reputation and creating a desert around you is not worth the risk. Why? Because 10/10 tradwaifus are rarer than diamonds nowadays. And that's why I feel I wasted the only occasion with that girl. Because I never met another one with those features before in all these years
>>34399944
>Why would a random guy have a spark of dignity or the respect of other random people
Because that's the default reaction to a stranger, unless you're a bitch who thinks every single person is retarded even if they never did anything to suggest so

>>34399972
>But this depends on your definition of respect - do you mean basic respect for the fellow human,
Yes, this. That's why I said peer and not role model
>>34399972
>does not stop you from any opportunities
It literally does. It creates a negative halo effect and even the most smart thing you can produce would be considered a stupid guy's opinion
>Are you really not willing to pay the price of being laughed at for a few minutes in exchange for a wife/family unit?
As said, I'm not willing to waste all my few dollars on lottery tickets
>And nobody is actually as judgemental as you are
As said before, I'm actually very forgiving of people's faults. I noticed that normies are incredibly judgemental tho, and they actually develop grudges over trivial shit. I'd say that most people is prone to call soneone a retard/dickhead/asshole for the most stupid fuck ups. I rarely do, and when it's the case, I never say it out loud, unlike those normie snakes

>>34400003
>If you don't have that knowledge, then you can't actually comprehend or correctly interpret what the author/artist was trying to convey/express
To fully understand a work of art, surely. But I was talking about beauty, which is immediately recognized even by the most illiterate pleb possible. If you show Michelangelo's Pieta to a papua savage, he'll like it. If you show him some modern conceptual banana installation, he's going to peel it and eat it. That was my point
>what should be depedestalized?
Art and Beauty should be pedestalized, they're literally the highest achievements of mankind, the epitome of being Men and not animals. If you want to defile that, you're basically bringing mankind into the mud (subverters did exactly that in every field they touched, as throughly explained previously). I wasn't talking about comedy, which by its nature is ok to hit even sacred targets. I meant serious attempts at destabilizing and defiling what's objectively superior, out of spite and envy
>specific sphere of Western intellectuals
European civilization was peak humanity, if this canon was the best it produced, it's definitely worthy
>doesn't mean it's inferior, just unnoticed as of yet
Agree. But even if outside the canon there's great criminally underrated stuff, we should admit that 100% of the canon is made of great stuff. Especially something that was in it since almost 1000 years ago with no interruptions
>>34400010
>No, because 99% of humans can also be wrong at the same time
If we're talking about a construct, yes, of course. But when it's something deeply rooted in human nature, something shared by every culture around the globe, developed indipendently, that's not an opinion. It's a biological fact

>>34400010
>the misuse of words like "objective" and "animal"
It's just how I use those words, if you get the underlying concept I wanted to convey take it for what it is and don't be too anal about lexicon shades. I'm a retarded esl afterall

>>34400019
>JUST DO EET FAGGET DON'T LET YOUR MEMES BE DREAMS, JUST DO EEEEEEEEEET
Can't tell how to do it, missing procedure. ERROR ERROR

>>34400118
>Maybe you should actually try the city out or somewhere with higher population where there will be even more variety/variance
Even assuming this, how the fuck did you even start? "Hello! I'm a stranger who doesn't have any reason to speak to you and oozes awkward vibes, how do you do?" Lmao, suicidal tactic
>deal-breaker if you don't fuck 10000 people before them
Not a deal breaker, just a normal occurence. It shouldn't be normalised at all, that's the point
>events/congregations
These are extemporary situations, not forcing you to share the same place with someone until you know them unwillingly

>>34400956
Oh wtf I pressed back by accident and lost my reply AGAIN because it refreshed

Was saying even back then, you'd still have to follow a baseline
>it's about the system I have to bend to. If I have to act like what I despise to get to know them, I refuse to do so. It's about turning ME into what I hate, not about judging other people. Basically, to get to know them, I'd have to rape my very nature and act like something I hate. That's what blocks me
Of finding reasons to associate, an exchange or outcome oriented (no matter how small or big), breaking the ice. No need to hookup straight away, even that is barely getting to know somebody and not conversation oriented. Again it's about getting to know the person - what's (is or was) it like to live their life? Everytime you do this, you also accumulate knowledge, helping you to have more expanded conversations in the future, since you use your knowledge to make parallels and test more hypotheses and gather more data to add to the knowledge bank to make more hypotheses to test. It's like, expanding. Until you get fairly adept and no need to do it anymore because you no longer fear, and also you know so your estimates are usually pretty accurate. It actually becomes more fun, where instead of asking directly to test your estimates, you find round-about ways, asking general things or immediate surroundings type things, then make associations during conversation until you "accidentally" (not so accident) reach the question you were curious and making estimates of, and they answer it. But if that doesn't happen you can also just ask directly, no harm in that either although it can be awkward. It's about communication (conversation, back and forth). Not bending over backwards to fit some distorted ideal.

>newborns
As said before, what you're born with is nowhere near the final form. Brain is not hair follicles - brain is ->

>>34401688
this complex organ that is flexible and nimble, it adapts solutions and strategy to solve whatever the cold uncaring universe throws at you. We do not give it enough credit (and yet simultaneously pedestalize it, how ironic).

>>34401693
For example, can we say it's so set in stone when AI is usually a more empathetic and smarter listener than a psychologist? A psychologist only knows their sphere of knowledge, they are limited, AI knows every case that's been posted on the internet/literature/journals. The only value of the psychologist is having a real human hear your most "sordid" thoughts - this is the first step to "unshaming" - but you don't need a psychologist for that, you can just take a stranger to break that barrier. And more strangers. And different people. Test the same idea and gather the reactions, the data. A psychologist is only 1 data point, and one you can already guess if you researched yourself about what schools of thought they'd abide to.

Empathy for sure is not just dependent on a physical brain structure - it's shaped by your own experiences, and one day you might feel empathy for something, the next you find it stupid and your empathy shifts to only those who are in greater pain than that. Perhaps the brain structure allows it to function at all, but how it functions is up to experience to shape and wire. When everything is based on logic and memories and associations anyway - without a baseline comprehension, how are you going to empathise at all? How would you explain selective empathy - you feel pain if someone you love like your family is suffering much more than a stranger across the globe you have no connection to. It's not based on the physical brain then, it's based on the experiences you grew up with/continue to grow with or encounter. By no means is it fixed at ->

>>34401761
birth just dice roll gender. Gender is yes, physical differences of the body. But the brain is a different thing to the rest of the body. Even if it's an organ, it's so dependent on wiring and rewiring and rewiring that you can't really assign it any fixed thing. That's why I hate psychology/psychiatrists etc. While they have good descriptions of different configurations, by no means are they "fixed" like they seem to believe and peddle. They see what's happening but they don't understand why. Or they think they do, but in the end, the why is a huge butterfly effect chain of dominoes, and they miss 99% of it, or they miss the bulk of it. In the end the why is caused by beliefs - but where did those beliefs come from? Are some of these beliefs actually valid (backed by reality data objectivity etc), are some of them invalid (outdated data, skewed data, limited data), how do we reach more accurate beliefs congruent to human functioning and fulfillment? Etc etc

>>34401009
>Only to a certain point. If I'm an autist/sperg whatever, I'll never be able to act spontaneously like a normie, no matter how much I work on it. I could maybe reach a level of acting (fake) that will look genuine from the outside, but it will always be a play
But you don't know what the "certain point" is. Maybe the normies are acting too. Maybe acting is - FUN. Once you reach a certain level of prowess, of course. Like the concept of "flow", where challenge, and skill intersect. And it's worth reaching since it will get you closer to your goals of relationship/family/community etc. of course, this is all abstract, in the end it's about the game of dealing with humans and how to live or engineer a harmony with them to get what you want.

>Exactly. That's why the whole egalitarism is a fraud, like every shit that came from the cultural marxists. They pretend that men and women are the same, that races are the same, that ugly and beauty are the same etc etc. They want to mix everything up into a slob, until identity is completely erased
Yes but in the complementation there should be equal fit and not leeching or deficits.

Church is gone but there are other centres focused on other pursuits and not religious ones. Ancestors, I wouldn't put so highly either, of course you should hold onto your specific heritage and family history, but beyond that, your neighbours can turn against you so there's no point giving them a pass unless you have established history. I suppose, what's good about before is that there would be history to establish. Nowadays, we don't even "get to know" them, hence zero history or rapport established.

>>34401047
>It's not about the real scale, but the perceived scale. If there are millions of people with my same opinions but we're all closed in our homes and scared of showing our opinions because there's a push against them, it's the same as not having anyone with that opinion.
Sure but now that the internet exists, those people in those homes are getting louder and more visible. And these effects trickle into IRL, if at a variable pace.

>The cutesy feminine archetype isn't irritating
It's irritating because it implies helplessness. The best balance is humble and strong/independent, not just in women but men and everyone, humans. Somebody who is firm and just in their principles. Sometimes that means being hostile to fight for what's right. Sometimes that means being caring to nurture an ecosystem/community. It can mean different things during different times, circumstantial. But at the base level, there is that strength/power to use and humility/principles to guide it.

>consider it taboo, because it charges it with mystery and make sit more appealing.
Which is what creates the massive pedestalization of it. If it was not as hidden, people wouldn't be so obsessed with it, and wouldn't chase it so much, and people would actually focus on just the reproduction side of it rather than investing all their energies on the status chasing and FOMO riddance. It finally wouldn't sell for so much, because no more of this sort of artificial demand driving it up. I don't think any of it should be labelled with shame, only inconvenience. Most of these "meanings" are just symbolic, like shit means waste which implies useless or inconvenience. Nothing should simply be labelled "taboo" and that's that, it should actually be assessed for utility/benefits/loss/disadvantages.

>>34401914
>Going around fucking like rabbits may feel good if you're living only on the lowest level of instincts
That's the point, it doesn't feel good. It only feels good for people with low self esteem who are compensating for some other hollow in their lives. That's why I don't really see it as "following lowest instinct", because if we really did, if we just followed our nature and nothing is "socialised" into us, we'd live more constructively like in an ecosystem style, we wouldn't just be doing nothing and fucking all day, that would get boring too. Sex addiction is just another addiction, another escape from something else, low self esteem type ventures. Just like eating addiction. If we were really abiding to nature, we'd probably enjoy more direct sourcing of our food and preparation, just like domesticated cats still enjoy the thrill of the hunt even if they aren't eating it. We aren't just going to eat eat eat, if someone does that, they're probably coping from something else, it's escapism, it's low self esteem, it's a lack of control in their own lives and reaching their goals so they cope by substituting with a worse easier goal that deep down they probably know is a diversion from even grander goals they don't dare to dream.

I think by nature, we are constructive - survive, reproduce. Thrive, flourish. But this gets distorted and warped by modern influences and erroneous thinking - in particular, thinking we know best and then stagnating as a result rather than being driven for more. There is always more. It's fun to discover more. But people are so scared of "more". They are held back by social influences. Instead, there should be a fusion of nature and social influences, and return to how socialisation actually fits with nature, rather than how it holds it back.

>>34401953
Sure this is abstract, but I just think that our understanding of "nature" isn't very accurate at all. All nurture just comes from nature anyway, it can be explained away and sourced down to it. Rather than nature vs nurture, we should look at good vs bad. Plenty in nature is good, plenty is bad, plenty in nurture is good, plenty is bad. What's actually good for us?

>>34401073
>Sex should be channeled into meaningful relationships, not vilified as it is today, it's not a biological function like pissing, it's how you create life.
Creating life is a biological function. Pissing is for maintaining life. Sex is for creating life. That is where it actually gets somewhat symbolic - what life do you want to create? There can be lots of intent behind that action. You don't just accidentally create life (you can, but that's suboptimal way of going about it). You intentionally create one (optimising eugenics). That's the usage of sex, biologically. But there's the other component to it, the actual pleasure involved. Just like eating - sure we can eat for the sole purpose of biologically maintaining our lives with correct nutrients and energy. But there's the other component - the pleasure associated with the action. Sex is similar in this regard.

The result of sex is meant to be life, but consider that you just use birth control so you never create life.

How do we define the climax of eating food? The climax is more in the beginning and middle. Followed by a serotonin relaxation of having finished the excitatory task, and now you're feeling satiated at the end, restful rather than restless.

>>34402154
But that's kinda the thing about sex, with food, sure there's endless cuisine to try, but at some point you figure out recurring patterns and it's not that "exciting" to discover something new, it will just match something previously eaten. Sex is pretty much the same, you find new "ways" of triggering your arousal until finish/orgasm, but it just becomes the same shit after a while. Only difference is that you don't NEED to have sex - you don't NEED to create life, that's just an option you take or you don't. But you still NEED to eat otherwise you die.

Once you find the different configurations two bodies can mash together, you've mostly exhausted it. That's all sex is. Plus the various looks and textures of human anatomy, i.e. the slight genetic variation amongst humans. It's literally just entertainment. It's not "bonding" insomuch as it's something only you've done with the other so you have more knowledge of them and their configurations compared to someone else where it has been hidden. It's like any other leisure activity except this one is an activation of your bodily senses and sexual arousal whereas others are targetted elsewhere.

Most of the "meaning" behind sex is indeed "symbolic". Say, I had sex with you, I never showed my naked self to anybody except you, this is communicating "exclusivity" and that something or someone is special and given "access" whereas others are "denied". It's not so much the act, but the sort of "contract" of that, as in, it's like a "symbol" that you have committed to somebody. But that's where it gets fuzzy, sometimes this symbol isn't so solid, people cheat, people monkey-branch, people do it for casual temporary fun rather than committal situations, etc. The "meaning" of it changes, the "value" of it goes up and goes down. Sex is just sex, but it's the "meaning" that people attach surrounding the activity that gets us all into a twist.

>>34402157
What's all this symbolism and meaning for? You want a commitment, a contract from another person. What does it entail? What words do you want to include? Sex is a "contract" but it's an unwritten one that can be misinterpreted and then end in ruin, so better to lay out the contract clearly with words, terms and conditions.

>>34402272
Kinda like food, sure there is expression within the taste (pleasure) of the food, but so is there expression in the outcome of food (maintenance and health of the body). And so with sex, there is expression in the "pleasure" (act) of it, as well as the "outcome" (child).

Most people seem to completely disregard the outcome and only focus on the "pleasure" aspect, which gets pretty menial.

>>34401073
>You address them correctly by shunning them publicly, and vent them privately
This isn't really mastering them though. If you've mastered it, there's nothing to suppress. It isn't there anymore, the "sexual lust urges", you simply switch them on when you need them (reproducing, or even exploring), and turn them off when you don't. There's no fighting of an urge. There might be an urge, but you identify it and categorise it by "usage" then remove it if it's not aligned towards your goals. It's not charged with so much "meaning" and "symbolism" as you and others seem to attach onto it. It's not so pedestalized or demonized. It serves its function, like creative expression, love expression, reproduction, and that's it. Right now, people are addicted to it but are they using it creatively, lovingly, or reproductively? Not really. They use it for escapism, social status, and other ways that are somewhat repetitive rather than constructive.

>>34401116
In a sense, it's the "performative" nature of it that is annoying - there is a particular arrogance that comes with over-performing these things. As if you have to make it known that you are here, and you are higher in social status or whatever it is. That's why I don't necessarily find it just "lower instinct" but it's rather just unnatural in itself, trying to impose oneself in the pecking order. It's for people who concern themselves too much with social status, likely because of deficit in self esteem and them being hollow elsewhere. Trying too hard. The one who doesn't try is actually the one staying natural, in their lane, not trying to fraud their way to the top of the arbitrary pecking order. One who's actually comfortable with themselves, so they don't have to cover themselves (their natural selves) up with over-performance. Although I think there is still a balance to be struck - where one is comfortable with themselves so they can also be free with creative expression and performance, but not going overboard and over-performing. There are differences between one performing out of authentic creative expression and skill, and one doing it out of social status seeking.