I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Printable View
I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The video might not have loaded for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I saw the video, but there is a lot I don't understand.
It's not in English, so I don't know the words. Is it a translated version of Thriller?
It looks vintage. Is this current or something old?
I don't see the context to this thread (aside from being random). Is there a cleverness to the post that I'm missing?
EDIT: Obv. the music isn't Thriller. So is it a parody or an homage?
Some motherfucker's always trying to ice skate uphill.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
How does something so brilliant go so completely over your head?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Oh, I see what you mean.
Obviously, the emperor's new clothes are magnificent.
His new groove was better
It's basically Indian comedy. I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously at all.
They even have their own Chuck Norris...
Don't be fooled by the "very funny" tag. It's not that funny, I would be more inclined to use the word "amusing".
Dude, that's a clip from one the biographical documentaries on spoonitnow.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I forget what episode.
Kronk rocks!Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
They have their own rambo too.
Thanks for editing my other vid mmm, feel free to edit this one too, it doesn't seem to work on my phone.
I watched a bit of that too, it was fucking awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Awful in a good way, of course.
Also, try using [youtube] tags instead of [url].
I use the video button. But anyway, that movie's freakin' awesome.
I'd be curious what Americans or Canadians would make of that movie. Not sure if they'd get it.
This link:
https://youtu.be/36-vVlHA5ZA
redirects to this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36-v...ature=youtu.be
which is functionally identical to this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36-vVlHA5ZA
The last link gets you there without bouncing you through any URL's which you weren't pursuing or giving credit to anyone for you getting where you wanted to be.
***
The following is what I understand, but it could be incomplete or outright incorrect.
Everything after the ampersand (&) in the link is like a cookie that tells the site in the url (youtube) that you got there via a link from another site (youtu.be), and gives credit to that other site for redirecting to youtube.
Basically, even though we've embedded the clip in FTR, it's going to say that it came from elsewhere (perhaps in addition to also leaving a tag that it was redirected from FTR, I don't know.) I doubt FTR admins care about this, so it's not a big deal.
Note that the only reason I edited your post was to properly embed the video, and not to alter the url in any way. Once I was editing your post, I changed the URL because it seemed the right thing to do, though.
I just type out the tags instead of faffing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
But then again I don't faff about with the internet on my phone.
Everything after the & in a URL is known as GET parameters -- if the page is looking for it, then it can use that those key/value pairs programmatically for rendering the page/headers, submitting form data, pretty much anything it wants. Figuring out the source page of a link is different -- that's done through the HTTP "referer" header, which is automatically sent by browsers when you click on a link. That's the technical mechanism for how Google Analytics and similar systems are able to find out how traffic gets to your website.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
For youtu.be -- that's owned by Google, I think they just use it so people can share shorter links to videos. So adding the "feature=youtu.be" is probably just for their own internal tracking, to figure out how many people are using the shorter version of the URL vs. the longer one.
:highfive:Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
Thanks.
I just started reading how to win friends and influence people.
I've only read the first chapter but already I feel this could be a life changing event.
I recommend it, and it's freely available on the internet.
Yeah it's a great book with a lot behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Sowell on multiculturalism. Good stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ESlS2jrhXY
Related: My university champions diversity for the sake of diversity. It does so so deeply that it includes the subject in its entrance interviews and requires a course in diversity for all prospective graduates. Yet it is not a diverse school. It is a highly successful and prestigious regional school, but this status has nothing to do with its efforts towards diversity. Its success and prestige emerges from it being a select school among cultural Christians, i.e., those who embrace respectability culture and the work ethic.
I find that a little funny. It's like my university says "hey look at how much we're all about things that aren't like us" yet its success comes from it staying true to its principles that don't necessarily involve things that "aren't like us". In fact it's a school where people who want to get away from the complexities of multiculturalism and potential problems choose to go.
An additional thing I find funny is that it's not even as great of a school as its success would lead one to think. The instruction is mediocre. Its regional prestige has nothing to do with its skill at churning out learned graduates and everything to do with the ethic its graduates embrace.
what are the complexities of multiculturalism for uni students where you are?
edit: uni = university = college for your purposes
The students attending my university typically come from Christian families or are those who appreciate the more reserved, Scandinavian-American atmosphere with origins in the region. This can be contrasted to the two largest schools in the region, one that's among the biggest party schools in the country, and the other has a more lefty urban and hectic flavor.
Some examples of values found in other cultures that are largely foreign to the typical student at my university: rebellion against authority, libertine-type celebration, confrontational behavior of any sort, underhandedness (the professors are uniquely unconcerned with cheating since they know nobody who goes here would consider cheating), generally aggressive social lives, to name a few.
Aka multiculturalism is a bullshit myth that requires bullshit to keep alive.
It requires mutual respect. So yeah, I guess bullshit is fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Culture isn't a static thing. It is always changing. Every culture on Earth is the result of blending traditions from past cultures.
Saying multiculturism doesn't exist is kinda an odd re-branding of "multiculturism."
It seems that - to you (spoon) - if there is conflict, then it's multiculturism, but if there is no conflict, then it's just one culture getting along.
I think the only reason you're pissed about multiculturism is that you've drawn this line.
***
@wuf: Do you think it's a coincidence that you express acceptance and forgiveness even to the point of turning a blind eye on your closest neighbor's indiscretions, yet the further someone is from you, the less forgiveness and acceptance you afford them?
Discuss.
I have no idea what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Multiculturalism is such a confusing term. I'm sure lots of people use the term to mean different things. Until a definition is agreed it's hard to criticise it.
If it means simply different cultures living side by side, I don't see why it would ever be an objective of a country, it's the watering down of your own culture. And if culture and values are what gives us our indentity, then they are the only thing that effectively defines a group/population/nation and a governent that promotes multiculturalism is effectively betraying it's electorate.
Now some cultures can coexist in what would effectively be classed as a multicultural society, but only if the underlying values are shared, and perhaps the expression of those values differs. If the underlying values clash, there is no hope at all and none should be desired.
-.-Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You praise your own university and deride other universities.
You praise the culture of the religion in which you were raised, but deride the cultures of other religions.
You have no widespread or ethical critiques of those close to you (aside from your disfavor for taxation, but really, you view taxation as something that is forced upon you by "others," so it's really not even an outlier), but you do have scathing criticisms for people whom you've never actually met.
Is this merely a coincidence of geography or is it something else?
That was praise of my university and derision of others? LOL! I explicitly stated the instruction is mediocre. I cut it short so as to not make a long post. I don't like the school that much and I'm not the biggest fan of its culture. If I could do it again I would probably have accepted the invitation from the "more lefty urban and hectic" school instead of the one I'm at.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I have contrasted mainstream Christianity to mainstream Islam. You wish to imply that I'm a bigot for not equivocating them.Quote:
You praise the culture of the religion in which you were raised, but deride the cultures of other religions.
Raise your hand if you forgot the numerous times I have given rather scathing critiques of my "own people"? Critiques that you even agreed with at the time because you said you experienced them before.Quote:
You have no widespread or ethical critiques of those close to you (aside from your disfavor for taxation, but really, you view taxation as something that is forced upon you by "others," so it's really not even an outlier), but you do have scathing criticisms for people whom you've never actually met.
It's a coincidence of the lens through which you say I view the world is actually the lens through which you view me.Quote:
Is this merely a coincidence of geography or is it something else?
Don't be so eager to confuse an objective and academic argument with an emotional one.
Good way of putting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
One way I think this is exemplified is in how so many different immigrant groups have assimilated or are assimilating into the American mainstream even though they're still culturally unique in lots of ways. The underlying values they've accepted or brought with them include the respectability culture, work ethic, and family orientation. In groups where we don't see those values, we see lots of problems when interacting with the mainstream.
100% thisQuote:
Originally Posted by rong
lol man come on, we're trying to be cool and let you hang out with usQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But more than that, when two cultures with shared values meet, the potential exists for both to grow and improve, so there's actually value in it. Maybe we need new terms, multiculturalism and culture contamination?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Edit: that sounds so racist.
imo one of the biggest disservices intellectuals have done for the western world is equate culture and ethnicity. the further away from scientific racism the concept of racism gets, the more it includes things that aren't racism.
we should be able to talk about the role of culture in the world, but the second we do that we're racists.
Doesn't NYC invalidate this "when two cultures collide" argument? It seems super multicultural, and I mean in terms of actual culture not just skin color.
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams
On a larger scale, America is incredibly multicultural too. I guess you'd argue that the many cultures are segregated, and thats mostly true, but there's plenty of instances of cultures living together here besides nyc.
I heard itt that the refugees is a cultural dispute, same with #blm, and both are examples of cultures fighting. But I'm not sure that's true.
For one, take any southerner and transport them somewhere else. Many will keep their accent, way of cooking, religion, etc. Take a Mexican family and move them to wyoming, it's another dice roll on whether they become as white as ted cruz or act like the culture they brought.
So what's going on? Is it culture or is it something else driving the discussion?
For refugees in germany, I see lawlessness. Is it a cultural thing to completely disregard the laws of the State? I'm not sure it is. Is blackliveamatter the result of culture wars...or is it people objecting to perceived wrongs and acting within cultural norms? (Whats more American than protesting?)
I think this topic is more difficult than it appears
It indeed is.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
It can be. I'm not sure if I've said this here before or not: a friend teaches English in Korea. He grew up in Africa to missionary parents and loved it. When he was considering the move to Korea, I asked him why he wouldn't just teach English in the region of Africa he grew up in instead, and he said teaching there is a nightmare because the students, virtually without exception, adore cheating and abhor learning. It's so bad that their cultural value system itself considers cheating a virtue and integrity a flaw. I was kinda blown away when he told me this.Quote:
For refugees in germany, I see lawlessness. Is it a cultural thing to completely disregard the laws of the State?
As a response to the rest of your post, I think it's safe to say that most Americans have mostly acculturated to mainstream norms. This is why a place like NYC can be a relatively regular place. To see how a different cultural norm could totally throw that out of whack, just take any of those from elsewhere in the world and lob it into NYC. Say, mainstream Islamic views of women. Drop 2 million Saudi and Afghan rural types in NYC and we're gonna have proooooooooooblems. Most American Muslims have acculturated to the degree that they're very different than the average Middle East counterpart, so we don't see the sort of extreme problems from them in places like NYC like we would see from the rural Saudis and Afghans.
Appearances can be deceiving. We can see acculturated Muslim Americans and say "see they're totally different than us yet we don't have all these problems", but the reality is that they're actually not that different because they've adopted most/all of the important norms of our society.
I think there's an important distinction between macro culture and micro culture then.
It appears that were now saying that so long as the macro cultures line up, we'll be ok. I can see that, the many different cultures of NYC all share some fundamentals like "don't kill no body, and obey the law" (even if some choose otherwise).
It also explains why many muslims in America are behaving differently than those in Germany. Ours likely have adopted (or always held) our macro "follow the law" rules.
Likewise I can move to the bayou and love comfortably, still maintain my culture, and experience a ton of new stuff. This is mostly because our macro cultures line up and they don't believe in the mass murder of whites or something.
I'm pretty sure that this concept has been explored in this thread and others previously, though we didn't use the micro/macro terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
To give another related point of view, the "red pill" perspective is that proximity combined with diversity [in the sense of culture] creates conflict. The closer you are, the more similar the major points of your culture have to be for there to be relative peace. Taken to an extreme, imagine two people who are roommates. While the major points of their culture might be the same, they're close enough to each other that very minor points could cause a conflict on some level. However, if these same two people lived in different apartments that were right beside of each other, that could be enough distance that those minor differences aren't enough to cause conflict.
True story.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
i like both the macro/micro and red pill way of looking at it
Sorry to waste your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Peace out.
Most misdemeanors I deal with right now involve DUI or domestic violence. Also, most criminals/victims that I've seen were under educated or drug users.
I thought that was interesting.
Also, nothing makes you appreciate the right to bear arms like living in the middle of bfe.
Where are you?
For fuck's sake, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Bum fuck Egypt?
I laughed aloud.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I've had people asking me shit about managing multiple females via PM on FTR, and I can't tell if I should be irritated or just talk to them about it. Either way, I feel like I'm going to come across as a jackass who's super full of himself. I don't really like talking about the shit in my personal w/e, but I'll talk about managing chicks in the general sense all day.
:popcorn:
I also googled bfeQuote:
Originally Posted by rong
Wtf is bfe?
rong got it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luco
Why Egypt? I have no idea.
I don't know where/how it started, but it roughly means "not near civilization."
It probably varies from place to place. Even in the St Louis area, people's ideas of how far from the city counts as BFE is a wide spectrum.
It's a favorite phrase in AZ. Sorry.
I think it's cuz were in a desert and so is egypt...for the popularity I mean
Related: There's a place outside of Winston-Salem called Midway. Do you know why they call it Midway? Because it's midway between Winston-Salem and the middle of fucking nowhere.
Also, for those that don't know, there's only 3 "real" cities in arizona. Phx, tucson, and arguably flagstaff. Every other county/town/city has a population of nobody. Just miles of open desert as far as you can see.
LolQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Personally I think asking the question in the first place is out of line, but it's some real Aspergers type of motherfuckers asking it to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Anyone into researching their family history, etc?
I am interested, but it's not easy because of my surname... it's one of the most common names in the UK. Having said that, my interest is because my Dad swears to me that I'm a (very distant) blood relative of Winston Churchill, I'm curious to know if he's full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...at-199595.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm going out soon but I might stick my head in later to see what goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So have you ever thought about what the repercussions would be if rape on private property was made legal? People are apparently losing their fucking minds over a satirical article that considered that as its premise.
Woo libertarians. Woo anarchy.
Edit: For an example, it could provide incentives for women to have sex in public. Dealing with rape in prisons would also change, etc.
Sounds like a modest proposal.
:rolleyes:
Couldn't help myself.
it would be a disaster because the body is also private property. the proposed law would just be some extreme favoritism of one form of property (a person's land) over another form (a person's body).
Its not as crazy as it first appears, and that's mainly because of other laws that already exist.
Violent rape would still be a thing, even under his premise. The reason is because assault/battery would still be a thing. Don't think that only stops the serious attempts at defense either, I regularly see people charged with assault for mere pushes and little visible injury.
I found what appears to be the article, (it may just be commentary), and it seems like it's mostly advocating for relaxed statutory rape laws....so no more walk-of-shame regrets followed by 911.
Something I'm sure nobody cares about, but whatevs.
So I completed intro macroeconomics a week ago. Spring semester started today and I had a discussion with a guy who took that class with me. He hated it and didn't understand much and said the only thing he learned from the class is that "free markets fail". This takeaway is reasonable given that the class was taught from the political perspective that the Great Depression was a *wink*free*wink* market failure which resulted in depressed aggregate demand and that Keynes demonstrated that governments can counter this "natural" failure by altering the government spending portion of the aggregate demand equation (Income=consumption+capital investment+government spending+exports-imports).
The equation is good stuff and Keynes was correct that when part of that equation declines, governments can increase spending to counteract. The problem, however, is that the material was taught as if the premise for why Keynes developed the equation in the first place was correct when it has since been learned that it was not. The field of economics has come a long way since Keynes and it has since become consensus theory that monetary policy (something Keynes did not understand) and regulatory policy (something Keynes wasn't big into) are also key elements of aggregate supply and demand. So much so that by the early 2000s, the economics field *begrudgingly* accepted the statement that the Great Depression was not caused by a free market failure but instead by a combination of things that largely include regulatory failure and the "monetary mechanism gone wrong" (Ben Bernanke's exact words).
Yet we didn't learn any of this in the class. All the elements that economists learn that contribute to their questioning of the popular view of the Great Depression are either learned in more advanced classes or by an advanced understanding of microeconomic principles. Our coverage of the Great Depression didn't even mention monetary policy, despite the fact that economic historians believe that to be the most important element. It didn't cover regulation induced moral hazard causes nor the backfiring of the legislature's stabilization policies. In fact a central tenet of the coverage of the Great Depression was that the legislature's stabilization policies were a significant contributor to recovery, despite the fact that the data does not suggest that one bit.
When I mentioned to the guy the Federal Reserve element, he said that he thought the Fed was created because of the Great Depression (it was created before). He didn't know that a failure in the money market that contributed to the Great Depression necessarily could not be called a failure of the "free market" since the market was monopolized. He also was equating "market" with "free market". It wasn't his fault because the professors (and some textbooks) do the same, even though they wouldn't if asked specifically about it. It's more that they fail to make the distinction during instruction. They say the Great Depression was caused by a "market failure" (it indeed was; even a monopoly operates in a market), yet then they say that the field of macroeconomics was created due trying to find solutions to this failure of unregulated markets. Those two are not the same; market!=unregulated market. I don't know why they make this mistake other than Keynes himself made it.
It's a wee bit upsetting since this is important stuff. Lots of people walk away from intro macroecon classes having essentially been taught the wrong thing.
TLDR: people be leaving economics classes thinking that they were taught that the Great Depression was a response to a failing of a totally free market, when, in actuality, the market regulation leading to that time was high and is believed by most economists who specialize in that period to be the most significant cause of the Great Depression.
In other news, KRS-One has been saying college is a scam for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
- HHGGQuote:
Originally Posted by Ford Prefect
Some have said that the overwhelming support that Bernie Sanders gets from the college-aged demographic is evidence that the education system has failed. On the contrary, it is evidence that the education system has succeeded. With every passing decade, the education system has moved further away from being the laboratory of ideas and closer towards being the indoctrination tool that keeps people stoic for the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Ding ding ding.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In other words: the education system knows exactly what it's doing.
Ding ding ding again.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Just as a warning, I already know this is going to be kind of a long rant, so bear with me.
TL;DR: It details why I haven't identified as "red pill" for years, even though I advocate for using the theory that has been developed to your advantage. It also points out the only person's shit (Athol Kay, Google "MMSL" to find him) who I would recommend reading and learning from if you want to get better with women, relationships and taking better care of yourself without feeling like you have to apologize for it or abuse people in the process.
So for the handful of people who like to hear what I have to say about the "red pill" community, there was a recent "controversy" where a well-known blogger/writer/figurehead basically manufactured a huge amount of [baseless] negative press for himself in a really, really skillful way. Unfortunately, he also outed himself as not giving a shit about the people he used to seem to give a shit about helping, preferring to care more about making money off of his books and other shit he sells, and pretty clearly hurt the community as a whole. If you saw anything about the "pro-rape rallies" ordeal, which was debunked on Snopes fwiw, then that's what I'm talking about.
Anyway, I bring this up here because it's like the third or fourth time it's happened in the past couple of years where someone who helped a lot of people figured out they could bastardize what they were doing and make a ton of money in the process (like the shithead posting the videos that made it look like he was walking up choking random girls). This type of shit (and related circlejerks of their no-critical-thinking-having followers) is why the "red pill" situation as a whole is completely and totally hopeless at this point.
The "red pill" thing really encompasses a lot of different groups that sometimes have wildly different opinions on how things should be handled, but what they all hold in common is the core set of premises that they have about the biological and psychological differences between men and women.
To give an example of how wildly the differences can go between groups, one end of the spectrum has the MGTOW types that completely opt out of dating/courting/dealing with women (though they do not identify as homosexual or bisexual) and focus only improving themselves and what will make them happy.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you could have the PUA-focused types who have the same mindset towards improving themselves, but a lot of it centers around building the skills for seducing a certain subset of women (who are pre-selected to be more likely to be ovulating) and maintaining a rotating series of usually 2-5 girls in a "soft harem" type of arrangement based around that.
You've also got the married guys who just want to fix their dead bedroom and have the happy life with their family that they were told they would have if they "played by the rules" or whatever. There are the women who have become disillusioned with feminism and who have turned to TRP to become more feminine women who can pull as high of a quality man as they can before it's too late.
Anyway, there are a lot of different groups with a lot of different objectives, but they all start with a handful of fundamental assumptions and then go from there. Those assumptions are broken down, scrutinized and studied critically to develop red pill theory in a number of different directions. When assumptions are found to be incomplete or outright wrong for one reason or another, the theory adjusts, much like well-developed theory in any other discipline. While it's obviously not an exact science (and social science is an oxymoron), there's a lot that goes into it.
So what we get to is that there is a stark contrast between the basic theory and the extreme direction that some of the RP groups have taken it. For example, some people have tried to use it to build a white nationalist narrative, and others have used it to cash in on guys desperate to learn how to have more success with women.
Others yet, like Athol Kay (the only name I'll drop here) have used it to develop an effective approach to help men who are relationship-minded to get a high-quality woman, keep himself happy, keep her happy and keep the relationship healthy without going off on some psycho shit. He's also never sacrificed the quality or effectiveness of the material to make a quick buck, and he's by far the most legitimate option for people who want to learn the tools without going off the deep end by following someone with some other agenda.
Speaking of Athol Kay, the guy's wife was fired from a pretty good job because of his blog posts and the things he teaches a few years ago. Know why? Because he more or less got lumped in with a bunch of dumbasses, who actually tend to reject his viewpoints on things, because they both talked about the things that are fundamental to an understanding of the body of theory that's called "red pill." There's a happy ending to that story, however, because she joined him in his business, and they now make a really good living helping people without trying to fuck them out of their money.
I'm not associated with, affiliated with, or have otherwise ever had a conversation with the guy, but if you want to read up on the guy, just Google "MMSL" without the quotes.
With all of that having been said, there's a lot the shit can offer a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life, but nobody's ever going to give a fuck because now the whole world thinks that it's just a bunch of pissed off guys who live in their mom's basements who want to legalize rape because some guy figured out he could pull a media stunt and sell some books.
I have to say that my first impression of this situation was that some guys just need to grow up.
Then I thought about it.
I realize that my own concept of sexuality and its various uses and expressions is practically zero. While I have been exposed to a fair amount of interesting ... material ... in this area, I'm not an explorer. I would be remiss to claim any modicum of expertise in socio-sexual aspects of being a person.
Furthermore, if you're unhappy in your life and you are willing to change your behavior to affect the situation, then I am at least a little bit inspired by you.
So, while I'll be sticking firmly to the one gal that I've got, I respect that if we hadn't found each other, I could have very different thoughts on my situation. I don't see myself ever juggling multiple women, but that's mostly because I am overly quick to fall in love and irrationally devoted to people who have clearly been giving me warning signals.
So my only real argument against OPP is that I would be bad at it. So long as people are honest about why they're together, then I don't see a problem.
I mean... if you're gonna play the game, at least respect that not everyone's playing.
I have a few short comments.
For the sake of clarity, let's define studying game as learning applied charisma, particularly for people who do not have it naturally, and learning to manage relationships of all kinds in a way that keeps everyone engaged and interested.
That's what most men who study game want. The whole point of learning game in the first place is to be able to get to that point for them. That's what I wanted when I got into it myself; I didn't actively seek out another girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
A big part of game, especially in the context of relationships (all types of relationships, not just romantic/sexual), is learning the skills to where you can be extremely devoted without being taken advantage of.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The original PUAs (a minority subset of "red pillers" who are focused primarily on learning to pick up women) were guys who all knew they were bad at it and just put time into figuring out what worked and what didn't while sharing their experiences. Originally, it was entirely built by guys who were extremely socially awkward and had no natural charisma, completely on their own, figuring out things as they went.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's worth noting that this history isn't actively maintained in today's "red pill" communities, and it's kind of a shame.
In the "red pill" framework, one premise is that all of humanity and the interactions between people is a game, and you're hopelessly trapped in it whether you want to be or not. A good analogy is that in chess, even if you're a king, you're still bound to the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That can sound somewhat depressing until you learn its sister premise: You get to determine what the objectives of the game are for yourself. The "red pill" ideology is largely about (as much as I hate this next word) empowering people to determine those objectives themselves instead of basing them off of what other people have decided for them.
Just to give an example that might be a little counter-intuitive, imagine a group of guys all trying to go out and bang as many attractive women as possible. Someone in that group who decides they just want to stick to one girl might feel the influence of his peers and feel fucked up over it. The "red pill" ideology prepares that person to deal with setting his own goals in the game (ie: the one girl) instead of just trying to bang a bunch of girls because he's been told that's what he's supposed to do.
After reading these posts I feel so EMPOWERED.
Spoon, link me to a beginners guide to this shit. Googled mmsl but most of its trying to sell me books and forum is full of a ton of shit I don't understand.
Yeah his site has been in the middle of being revamped for like several months. I haven't checked there in quite a while, but goddamn does he need to organize that shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Here's a great starting point: What is the Red Pill?
There are a handful of links at the bottom of that brief explanation. I suggest reading these two first, and they're both very brief and information-dense:Quote:
The Blue Pill is the lie. The Blue Pill is the avalanche of marriage and dating advice that’s out there. There’s been books, movies, magazines, TV shows, seminars and sermons telling you how relationships should be. There’s what your parents brought you up to believe, what your friends told you and what she said she wanted to be happy. There’s been over fifty years of professional help from doctors, psychologists, counselors, teachers, ministers and more……and the divorce rate has never been higher. The advice is that bad.
The Blue Pill is what women *say* they want from a man. You’ve been fed the Blue Pill from birth and you’ve never had a proper chance to win at love because you’ve been told the lie about how the game is played.
The Red Pill is the truth.
I do have one word of warning about all this… you can’t unlearn the truth. Some of it is going to sting.
Once you take the Red Pill you’ll know exactly what women really want from men. Your life will change forever as you see the true nature of how men and women interact and everything will look almost scripted. The good news is that once you know the tune, the dance is easy to do.
Alpha and Beta Traits: http://marriedmansexlife.com/take-th...a-male-traits/ (the science/hormones involved in each)
Nice Guys and Betaization: http://marriedmansexlife.com/take-th...d-betaization/ (explains the friend zone and why sex dies out in a lot of long-term relationships)
Also, please for the love of god anyone reading this, avoid theredpill subreddit *at first* because it's extreeeemely geared towards the pure PUA approach that's all about pump and dumping as many women as possible. Read at https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill (start with the links in the sidebar) for more related to relationship game instead.
Note: It's not that the PUA skill set is bad, but it's not the most direct route for learning to handle women for relationships inside this framework.
Another perspective is The Rational Male, which is the single blog that I would recommend the most for people who are just wanting to read about the "red pill" stuff in a more general sense. His writing is interested in general. Here's a good explanation of why someone would bother to write about this stuff and try to reach men: http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/2...-your-problem/
Ian Ironwood's Red Pill Room blog is my personal favorite, and he has a writing style that I think everyone here would really enjoy a lot because it really fits into the introvert/nerd/people who would tend to like poker demographic. He also had a female teacher try to groom and prey on his young son and went through a shitload of legal stuff over that, and he works in porn (not as a performer) and has never had an issue over it in his marriage. His description of multiple types of alpha will probably be an eye-opener for people who think it's a one size fits all type of situation.
I have my own examples along these lines. One example is a long-standing FTR member who came to me for help because his druggie girlfriend stabbed him on Christmas because his brother proposed as a Christmas present, and the FTR'er *only* got the druggie bitch a necklace that was worth ~$500 (if I remember correctly). This FTR member came very close to being killed by some shitheads she was running with at the time. Another FTR example is someone who came to me because he wasn't sure if he should leave a woman and disappear because he was unhappy with life because she wants kids soon and he doesn't, and he "jokingly" mentioned offing himself as a potential solution.
Anyway that's all I have to say about that since I've hijacked this thread enough as it is.
Good info, game theory applied to relationships is awesome.
Does it account for differences in women tho? Like the differences between the shy nerd girl who likes to read about real number theory before bed and the one who is completely obsessed with cosmo advice and such?
Absolutely. Understand that all it does is start with a handful of basic premises and turns you loose to form logical solutions based on all kinds of different situations. It doesn't assume that all men are the same and that all women are the same, only that there are basic principles that underlie all interactions (ie: most women and most men will respond to certain situations in similar ways most of the time, but recognizing the nuances and exceptions are huge).Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Also see the Alternative Red Pill subreddit for the "red pill" concepts applied to gay men and other types of "alternative" lifestyles. There's even a recent post that's a primer for applying red pill concepts to transsexual women.
There's also a group of women who use the same principles to try to pull men who will be good husbands/providers/fathers/etc. It's worth noting that they often actively avoid men who are PUA types because this doesn't fit into what they want.
But anyway, I've posted a lot about this shit in the past few posts, so if anyone wants to know anything else, just use Google or the links I've given in this because I don't want to keep clogging up this thread with this stuff.
Thanks, good post. Now one more thing...
Jk.
In other news, don't ever DUI in arizona. I translated az's rules, and found out that defendants get boned. Not only are there large 4 figure fines, but prosecutors are forbidden from pleaing down to avoid em. That's in addition to having an ignition interlock device for a year. (Again, nonnegotiable).
I don't think anyone is visiting az anytime soon, but it's a fun fact.
yeah but in Alaska you can get a DUI without even driving. If the keys are in the ignition and you are sleeping it off, you are still operating your vehicle even if the car is in park.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The rational male stuff is good. Accessible and organised. It's interesting stuff. I don't see a downside to understanding this perspective, and although it's mostly aimed at the couples dynamic, a lot of it is applicable for all types of relationship.
I bookmarked some of this stuff. I still haven't gotten around to reading the last thing Spoon recommended on the subject when I asked, but I have it marked for later. The relationship aspect is not something I'm focused on now (I've gotten by on intuition well enough), and the self-improvement aspect is something that I know I would discard at this point in my life. I do intend to devour at some later date. Even with strong intuition on the subject, there is a lot that can be learned through a categorical and dissecting approach, which I have not done.
Same here in the UK. The law is really not very clear in this regard. For example...Quote:
Originally Posted by chardrian
This is not consistent with UK law. Normally, it is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence. And you don't even need to have the keys in the ignition. So long as the police deem you to "be in control of the car", then you can be prosecuted.Quote:
Q... What if I was in my car on my driveway having a cigarette trying to keep warm and I had no intention of driving?
A... There is no need for the prosecution to prove that a person was likely to drive whilst unfit or over the limit. It is for the Defendant to prove that there is no prospect of using the vehicle.
Of course, these laws are fucked up. If you decide to drive to the pub, leaving your coat inside the car, then after a few drinks, you decide to walk home, you could in theory be arrested for retrieving your coat from the car, and you now have to prove in court that you had no intention of driving, which of course is near impossible to prove.
Fuck law.
Some really good stuff here about Russian culture and how they view the west.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c..._donald_trump/
So I got to have the minimum wage conversation with Queen Spoon and Princess Spoon yesterday. That was interesting without being surprising, I guess. I'll share my thoughts on that conversation in case it helps anyone in spreading the good word.
Princess Spoon (whose stripper name is Lola) is pretty receptive because she's gotten pretty used to the idea that she was a teenager less than a year ago and that she doesn't know shit about shit, so she's in this really interesting phase where she's just soaking up all of this knowledge. And to be fair, she really doesn't know shit about shit, but she also doesn't try to act like she does.
Queen Spoon (whose stripper name is Ginger), on the other hand, is on into her mid-20s, and she's had the influence of a bunch of other people bitching about how Bernie Sanders is the best thing since sliced bread and how a $15/hour minimum wage would just be amazing for everyone. She's receptive, but she's a bit skeptical, which is fine.
I don't go into these types of things trying to change someone's mind or convince them of something. Instead, I approach it along the lines of giving them information and simple arguments that will get them to thinking in the right direction. I used three lines of thought, since I think that any more than will just be too much new information at one time. For example:
Line of Thought #1
A. Does increasing minimum wage increase or decrease the number of jobs available?
They both thought about it for a moment and answered that it decreases the number of jobs available.
B. So with that having been said, you agree that decreasing the minimum wage increases the number of jobs available?
Again, they both thought about it for a moment and answered yes.
C. And now we see how unemployment is affected by the minimum wage.
And then I saw the light bulbs turn on.
Line of Thought #2
A. Do you think lowering minimum wage allows people to be exploited?
They both answered yes without thinking about it at all -- I pointed out how quickly they answered this compared to how they thought about my previous questions before continuing.
B. If an adult agrees to rake the leaves in my yard for free, is he being exploited?
They both immediately answered no.
C. If that same adult agrees to rake the leaves in my yard for $1.00/hour, is he being exploited?
And then I saw the light bulbs turn on.
Line of Thought #3
Note: For a frame of reference, they both know that I write for people on the Internet as a profession and that I have clients on six continents, etc., just because that's the nature of the Internet.
A. There's no minimum wage for hiring people on the Internet. Does that mean I'm getting exploited?
They both agree I'm not.
B. But if there's no minimum wage, then why would anyone pay me more than peanuts?
They say because my work is worth it.
C. Do you think I'm the only person in the world who would be paid more than the current minimum wage if the minimum wage was abolished?
And then I saw the light bulbs turn on.
If forming an orderly queue is a very British thing to do, then what the fuck do the rest of the world do when lots of people need the same service at the same time?
That reminds me a lot of the way that the men I grew up with viewed pretty much everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I think the first point about minimum wage is the really powerful argument. If companies are forced to pay workers more, then they employ less. That should be obvious to anyone who has even the slightest idea about how business works.
It's nothing more than a vote grab. Stupid people on low wages think that voting for someone who wants to increase the minimum wage will make them richer. It won't. It will put in power someone who is adept at exploiting stupid people.
The idea that raising minimum wage will improve things appears to be a good idea at first - but, that could have a backlash of people not pushing themselves to improve their living circumstances. Clearly people don't want to remain at a low-income area, so most of the time 'RAISE DE WAGES' is going to be appealing.
Could this have a positive effect on the economy? More people having more money means more people buying shiny new things, right? Feeding the 'system' so to say.
Could the 'raise the wages' idea also just be an idea to improve some people's living situation? Are there some situations that the wage change not improve (likely).
I can see both sides of how it /may/ improve things, and how it can also deeply hinder some people from pushing themselves into situations where they can improve things themselves.
In other news - there's going to be a bunch of discount chocolate Monday because of the Hallmark holiday Sunday. Did I sell into it? Yes, I did. Will I buy chocolate Monday? . . .possibly. I know for damn sure I'mma be watching Deadpool this weekend, though.
WTF is going on? Ong has said two correct things in two days back to back?
If minimum wage increased real income, economic laws would break. It would mean that the way to produce more wealth is to spend more wealth, so we would all just try to spend as much as we could so we would be as rich as we could be. Clearly, things don't work this way. It's akin to trying to conserve your car's gas by using more gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
Minimum wage reduces incomes by reducing the demand for labor, which in turn reduces supply of goods and services, which makes for less income than otherwise. The best result a minimum wage can have is to be totally offset by a matching inflation in prices of goods and services, which would make the minimum wage neutral instead of negative for the time being. Even then, minimum wage still suppresses supply over longer periods.
That's the idea as held by many non-economists. It doesn't work.Quote:
Could the 'raise the wages' idea also just be an idea to improve some people's living situation? Are there some situations that the wage change not improve (likely).
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I, still, am on a fence about it. Mostly because it's a 'pretty' idea. Though, knowing the strong likelihood of raising the minimum wages turning into a negative situation it is likely an idea that is only a pretty package.
I'm ridiculous in wanting people to succeed, while keeping in mind they must want to do so. Some people do not have the want to.
side note: I always see many sides to one thing, there's no stark white and black, but many shades of gray between those two. Obviously when several people look at one idea, they all are going to have different opinions, and then their own ideas about the base idea. Does that mean that one person is 'right' or one person is 'wrong'? Not completely. Mostly because we have our own idea of reality of how things 'work'. I'm completely off the original topic, apologies, that's how my brain works.
You know what I think is a pretty idea? That people with no incomes and low skills can more readily acquire incomes and skills when there is no minimum wage. Another pretty idea: people with incomes can acquire more and unique goods and services by there being no minimum wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
Some things only look pretty when they are viewed through the misunderstanding lens.