Randomness thread, part two.

[spoonitnow]

Getting away from the JP references, there are different approaches that you'll find among different segments of the RP community about how to go about improving your position on the attraction spectrum and what should be done about your position on the comfort spectrum (along with how to manage each of those in the general sense). These different approaches and the reasoning behind them are the sources of the biggest fundamental differences between the various present-day RP communities.

...

Once you have that, you're all set to work on yourself for yourself for its own sake, and you get to decide what that looks like. You can essentially sacrifice yourself to yourself at your own altar on your own terms without getting tripped up or pulled back into a bunch of bullshit.

I want to touch on these two paragraphs in particular on the point of what is recommended to do once covert contracts have been rooted out and you're sacrificing to yourself instead of to other people [without their knowledge of the deal you have with them in your head], etc.

As I covered above, the first two steps in the process, for someone like Hero or in other related situations, are to accept the truth and to learn to do it for their own sake instead of doing it for someone else.

The third step is to then actually put a plan into action. As I note in the quote above, different segments of the community will recommend different approaches, but it mostly just comes down to deciding what you want to do and then doing that.

One thing you have to decide is how you want to handle your relationships with women. Here are a few common approaches for heterosexual men, in order of their perceived difficulty:

• "Spinning Plates" - This is the name given to a form of solo polyamory where you see multiple women (plates) in short-term relationships without committing to any of them in particular on really any level whatsoever.
• Soft Harem - The same as above, but the women are exclusive to you.
• Long-term Relationship - The standard long-term relationship made better by keeping your attraction up. Legal marriage is still discouraged as a matter of practicality with family/divorce courts being measurably one-sided towards women, which is its own tangent outside of the scope of this post.
• Multiple Open Relationships - This is like spinning plates with longer term relationships. You'll do somewhat more comfort-based activities, like spending a fair amount of time together for purposes other than sex, but the women aren't necessarily exclusive to you.
• Hard Harem - Multiple long-term relationships with women who are exclusive to you.

Most young guys want to spin plates or have a soft harem, and most guys who are a bit older (say late 20s and up) tend to want long-term relationships or multiple open relationships. You can see how each of these would require different degrees of attraction and comfort to make work (ie: spinning plates doesn't require much comfort at all, but a long-term relationship does).

I want to point out that hard harems are generally seen as being too difficult and impractical to cultivate and maintain to be a reasonable goal for a majority of men. It's the only arrangement of the five above that isn't covered in tremendous detail by the RP praxeology. Likewise, spinning plates is the method recommended the most for guys to start with because it's fairly easy once you start working on your attraction levels.

What you'll also notice is that men are typically told that wanting anything other than a long-term relationship with a woman makes them a piece of shit and some kind of perverted deviant. This type of pressure pushes most men into wanting a long-term relationship, and when you combine that with them typically having no idea how to build and maintain attraction, you end up with a lot of men not getting laid inside of crappy relationships.

----------

Overall, there's a huge problem here in general because men often don't actually know what they want. This is not unlike what we mentioned briefly in a previous post about women not knowing what they want either. Men have been told what they are supposed to want for so long that they start believing it, but when they get it, they feel completely unfulfilled. This is a pretty good treatment of that particular topic and the idea of discovering what it is you actually want: http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2017/...ont-know-want/

I always like having an opportunity to brag, so I'll do so here since the quote is related:



"In order to have what you really want, you must first be who you really are." -Tim Grover

My girl has been practicing calligraphy for a few months and made this a few nights ago. She made the border first and then wanted my suggestion on what to put in the middle, and I gave her the above quote.

Edit: Brag.

[wufwugy]

http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2017/...ont-know-want/

I wonder what the process of discovering what you want is.

[OngBonga]

townie is just another way of saying cookie cutter bummers

I really hope this is true.

[wufwugy]

i still aint even know what cookie cutter is

[spoonitnow]

[BananaStand]

Even I'm cringing at this one. I've aided and abetted a few instances of marital infidelity in my day, but I drew the line at fucking a deployed soldier's wife.

[Savy]

Even I'm cringing at this one. I've aided and abetted a few instances of marital infidelity in my day, but I drew the line at fucking a deployed soldier's wife.

Why? As you're a pussy?

[OngBonga]

I think it's some sense of "morality", like how a mass murderer might say "no women and children", like it somehow means he's not a complete wanker.

[Savy]

I think it's some sense of "morality", like how a mass murderer might say "no women and children", like it somehow means he's not a complete wanker.

But by his own logic a businessman who is never at home because he's away making bare dolla is doing a much better service for his country than some random soldier.

Having a "sense of morality" is one thing, being a pussy is another.

[spoonitnow]

Morality is arbitrary no matter how you slice it because you have to start with some type of axiom.

[OngBonga]

...because you have to start with some type of axiom.

This is clever trolling.

[spoonitnow]

This is clever trolling.

I was trolling in the other thread about the logs, but I was 100% serious about this.

[BananaStand]

Sorry if this blows your mind guys. I sincerely do appreciate the sacrifices that soldiers make on my behalf. I think the least I can do is not fuck their wives.

Also, the one time I had the opportunity, the chick wasn't that hot. Easy pass.

[spoonitnow]

Sorry if this blows your mind guys. I sincerely do appreciate the sacrifices that soldiers make on my behalf. I think the least I can do is not fuck their wives.

Also, the one time I had the opportunity, the chick wasn't that hot. Easy pass.

I was defending your position, fwiw.

[Savy]

Sorry if this blows your mind guys. I sincerely do appreciate the sacrifices that soldiers make on my behalf. I think the least I can do is not fuck their wives.

Also, the one time I had the opportunity, the chick wasn't that hot. Easy pass.

People make decisions to do what they do, if they had better options they wouldn't do it.

Also if you are in a relationship and decide to leave for a long period of time you have to be mad or with someone who is repulsive to think they won't have options to fuck other people and people are only as faithful as their options.

[Savy]

I was defending your position, fwiw.

Not sure it being arbitrary is the best form of defence.

[spoonitnow]

Not sure it being arbitrary is the best form of defence.

All morality is arbitrary. What I'm defending isn't how he arrived at his morality but having a morality that he sticks to, which I think is more important.

Funny how this probably belongs in the Christianity thread.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Morality is arbitrary no matter how you slice it because you have to start with some type of axiom.

Unfortunately, starting with some axiom is the basis for all knowledge.


Furthermore, all axioms are sloppy, as they have to setup the definitions and playing field of what's to come, but by their nature, they are the first steps, so the notion of definitions is off the charts with wrong. They have to presuppose the definitions of the words used to define. It's an endless cycle.


You can't prove anything without logic-ing it back to axioms you hold as True, so axioms are unprovable, by design.


Philosophy of knowledge makes me frowny-face.

[spoonitnow]

Unfortunately, starting with some axiom is the basis for all knowledge.

That's not true. It's only the foundation for [most] deductive reasoning.

[boost]

Unfortunately, starting with some axiom is the basis for all knowledge.


Furthermore, all axioms are sloppy, as they have to setup the definitions and playing field of what's to come, but by their nature, they are the first steps, so the notion of definitions is off the charts with wrong. They have to presuppose the definitions of the words used to define. It's an endless cycle.


You can't prove anything without logic-ing it back to axioms you hold as True, so axioms are unprovable, by design.


Philosophy of knowledge makes me frowny-face.

That's funny, it makes me grin.

That's not true. It's only the foundation for [most] deductive reasoning.

Please elaborate.

[spoonitnow]

Let me spell this out point by point so that there's no confusion.

Axiom defined within this context is as follows:

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

This was the claim I was referring to:

Unfortunately, starting with some axiom is the basis for all knowledge.

And this is how I referred to it:

That's not true. It's only the foundation for [most] deductive reasoning.

Here's a simple example: A baby learns that being slapped hurts. The baby has no concept of language and cannot form a statement to create or understand any axiom. However, the baby has knowledge that being slapped hurts.

Edit: Fucked up another bracket.

[OngBonga]

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

This statement is an axiom. You have to take as true what an axiom is before you can proceed further with the discussion.

Unfortunately, starting with some axiom is the basis for all knowledge.

Therefore, this statement is true (while also an axiom).

[MadMojoMonkey]

That means that spoon explaining to us was axiom-based deduction, but it doesn't mean that the baby in spoon's example made an axiom-based deduction.

It's an interesting refutation of my point, and I don't see any flaw in it other than to question what is meant by "knowledge."

I'm not prepared to argue that subjective knowledge about one's self is not knowledge, so I concede that I've been shown I was wrong.

EDIT: "I'm not prepared" sounds like I have some interest in pursuing that argument, but no. Self-knowledge is on a different level from scientific knowledge, but so long as we presuppose a healthy-minded self, capable of honest introspection, the line between whether that subjective observation is "true" or not isn't so easy to find.

[OngBonga]

I don't think spoon has proven anything until he uploads a vid of him slapping a random baby.

[wufwugy]

since a coupla you dorkfaces jeff off to hillbilly theater

i thought this was funny

[spoonitnow]

This statement is an axiom. You have to take as true what an axiom is before you can proceed further with the discussion.

Definitions aren't considered axioms.

That means that spoon explaining to us was axiom-based deduction, but it doesn't mean that the baby in spoon's example made an axiom-based deduction.

It's an interesting refutation of my point, and I don't see any flaw in it other than to question what is meant by "knowledge."

I'm not prepared to argue that subjective knowledge about one's self is not knowledge, so I concede that I've been shown I was wrong.

EDIT: "I'm not prepared" sounds like I have some interest in pursuing that argument, but no. Self-knowledge is on a different level from scientific knowledge, but so long as we presuppose a healthy-minded self, capable of honest introspection, the line between whether that subjective observation is "true" or not isn't so easy to find.

You can also take all of this in the direction of animals having knowledge, which gets hairy since they don't have language to make statements with.

To assist us, here are a few definitions of knowledge:

facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

the fact or condition of being aware of something

the range of one's information or understanding

Axiomatic reasoning and axiomatic systems are very important for developing and expanding knowledge within our framework of language, but they aren't the only ways to acquire knowledge, etc. I'd argue from the above definitions that animals can have knowledge of things [without the use of axioms] as well.

I think in general, our types tend to work so much in the world of axiomatic systems that we often ignore or at least discredit knowledge gained through experience rather than reasoning.

In all seriousness, when I realized just how guilty I was of this in my mid-late 20s, I almost immediately started becoming better and more successful at virtually everything I did.

[spoonitnow]

Unrelated to any of that, this is pretty dope:

[wufwugy]

Unrelated to any of that, this is pretty dope:

Here's what I think. What he did was wrong* and it is right to maintain the order of the court and the process and all that.

However, and this is a big however, what he did I believe derives from a deeply flawed justice system that doesn't deliver actual justice. One way of seeing this is how everybody knows that this guy will get his ass beat, raped, and maybe killed in prison and most people are happy about that and those that aren't are generally indifferent.

Public executions for the most heinous wrongdoers are good, perhaps necessary for a fully healthy society. Instead what we have is a facade of non-violent treatment when meting out justice covering up the real violence that inevitably still happens.


*I'm not saying I wouldn't act that way or it was immoral, just that the system really does require order when meting out justice. It also require IMO true justice and visible justice, neither of which I think we get much of.

[BananaStand]

Here's what I think. What he did was wrong* and it is right to maintain the order of the court and the process and all that.

However, and this is a big however, what he did I believe derives from a deeply flawed justice system that doesn't deliver actual justice. One way of seeing this is how everybody knows that this guy will get his ass beat, raped, and maybe killed in prison and most people are happy about that and those that aren't are generally indifferent.

Public executions for the most heinous wrongdoers are good, perhaps necessary for a fully healthy society. Instead what we have is a facade of non-violent treatment when meting out justice covering up the real violence that inevitably still happens.


*I'm not saying I wouldn't act that way or it was immoral, just that the system really does require order when meting out justice. It also require IMO true justice and visible justice, neither of which I think we get much of.

You watch too much Oz.

It seems unlikely to me that this man would be mixed into a prison population that would beat, rape, or kill him. He's not exactly a security threat, it's likely he'll be housed with other people who are not security threats. i.e. people who would not beat, rape, or kill someone. More than likely he'll live out his days in a segregated unit where he'll read, sleep, and play chess with a 90 year old former bank robber.

I don't know what you mean by "true justice". He didn't kill anyone, so the prospect of him being killed doesn't seem right.

"visible justice" happens all the time. Whenever they give a lethal injection, there is a room right next door where people can watch. I don't know about you but I see blurbs in thew news about executions all the time. Timothy McVeigh's last meal was a question on Jeopardy.

[wufwugy]

You watch too much Oz.

It seems unlikely to me that this man would be mixed into a prison population that would beat, rape, or kill him.

I wasn't clear in that I'm thinking more in terms of what people think happens. Most people think bad things happen to people like him in prison.

I don't know what you mean by "true justice". He didn't kill anyone, so the prospect of him being killed doesn't seem right.

That's something worth debating.

It is my view is that we can be more sophisticated than just thinking it's only okay to execute when the wrongdoer murdered. Some things might be worse than murder. Other things may warrant execution that might not be worse than murder.

"visible justice" happens all the time. Whenever they give a lethal injection, there is a room right next door where people can watch. I don't know about you but I see blurbs in thew news about executions all the time. Timothy McVeigh's last meal was a question on Jeopardy.

Sanitized, isolated. By visible I mean public square, attended by the community. Granted there are problems with this view since the size of civilization probably makes this dynamic not function the way it has through human evolution.

[spoonitnow]

I think in general, our types tend to work so much in the world of axiomatic systems that we often ignore or at least discredit knowledge gained through experience rather than reasoning.

In all seriousness, when I realized just how guilty I was of this in my mid-late 20s, I almost immediately started becoming better and more successful at virtually everything I did.

I was asked in private conversation to expand on this, so I figured I'd post it here instead of in a Skype box. First, a quick bio of what led up to it:

• From the time I was in my early teens, I was more or less on the path I would have needed to be on in order to get a Ph.D. in mathematics and teach at a university. I love teaching, I'm good at it, I love math, and I'm good at that too. It was a good fit.
• I went to a junior college for two years before intending to transfer to NC State. While there, I worked as a tutor for the college for everything up to and including physics, the entire calculus sequence, differential equations and abstract algebra. I also worked in a TA type of role and as a substitute instructor for the department when needed. I absolutely loved it.
• I loved to Raleigh to go to NC State, some things didn't work out, and I moved back home. I started going to college again about a year later fully intending on continuing the path I laid out above.
• Within a year, I became disillusioned with academia. Within a year of that, I quit school permanently. Within a year of that, I was making more than I would have made as a professor with a lot more freedom and a lot more room for growth, with the exception of a few years where things went off the rails because of things that went down with my ex. The earnings and freedom have continued since my mid-20s, and I'll be entering my mid-30s later this year.

I mentioned realizing "just how guilty I was of [ignoring/discrediting knowledge through experience rather than reasoning]" in the quote above, and I can trace that back to a single afternoon. This is what led to the events of my fourth bullet point above.

All of the reasoning in the world told me to stick with my plan. It was a solid plan, and abandoning the plan did not make sense within that frame of thinking. In the interest of making this as short as I can, I had one conversation that hit me right in the face with the reality of my experience and the knowledge that experience had given me. (The conversation was with Renton from FTR, oddly enough, though this effect wasn't intentional on his part.)

Now here's what my experience told me: I loved math, but I hated school. I hated the politics and the bullshit. I hated the rigid schedule, and I hated authority. I hated needing to rely on one entity for a means to provide for myself.

Reality hit me in the face: By following this super rational plan of finishing school, getting my Ph.D. and teaching, I was going to be miserable. I would have to endure a lot of things I really hated in order to get a chance to do things that I loved, and that would make me miserable. I didn't want to do that, but I didn't know what else to do because I was completely discrediting that whole line of thought because it didn't follow the type of thinking that had gotten me to that point. I was discrediting and ignoring what my experience was telling me. The "reasonable" plan was "safe."

Then I had that one conversation one afternoon, about six months after the UIGEA was passed, and it was like a switch flipped. I took two more classes after that just because I wanted to (real analysis and a graduate complex analysis) with no intention of trying to graduate after that, and I threw myself into anything I could to build a different life.

It turned out that I was good at it and that it made me happier than what I was doing before (and this was before I really got into poker how I did for a while). All of the disadvantages of the "reasonable" path were gone, and I wasn't miserable anymore.

[wufwugy]

That's really cool.

[spoonitnow]

So Brady won another one.

[BananaStand]

So Brady won another one.

Fuck you

[spoonitnow]

Fuck you

MVP! MVP! MVP!

[BananaStand]

MVP! MVP! MVP!

Barely matters. Who else was gonna get MVP this year?

Very much a down year competition-wise in the NFL.

[spoonitnow]

Barely matters. Who else was gonna get MVP this year?

Very much a down year competition-wise in the NFL.

Foles was like +900 or something for MVP looooooooooool

Brady was the only money line favorite

[BananaStand]

Foles was like +900 or something for MVP looooooooooool

Brady was the only money line favorite

You must be talking about Super Bowl MVP, which Brady didn't win. He won the award for League MVP during the regular season.

There's no way Foles was +900 to be league MVP.

[spoonitnow]

You must be talking about Super Bowl MVP, which Brady didn't win. He won the award for League MVP during the regular season.

There's no way Foles was +900 to be league MVP.

Fucking pronouns.

I was referring to Foles being like +900 to win the Super Bowl MVP, which he did win.

[BananaStand]

Fucking pronouns.

I was referring to Foles being like +900 to win the Super Bowl MVP, which he did win.

That was probably a good bet. I wonder how they came up with that line.

I know most figures I saw said that Philly was about 40% to win. The winning QB is named MVP a HUGE percentage of the time. I'm not sure what that percentage is, but let's be super conservative and say it's 50%. So .4 x .5 means there was like a 20% chance that Foles would be named MVP.

9 to 1 payoff on a 4 to 1 draw??

I call.

[Savy]

They aren't independent variables so that doesn't work.

[Poopadoop]

It's a conditional probability so yes it does work.

The most you can argue with is if he's assigning the correct probability to each event.

For 9:1 to be a bad bet, Foles getting MVP has to be < .10.

If p(Eagles win) was = 0.4, then p(Foles MVP|Eagles win) has to < 0.25 for it to be a bad bet.

Of the first 51 Super Bowls, the QB was MVP 28/51 times = ~ .55

Without knowing anything about how good Foles is, it seems like a good bet.

[Savy]

The quaterback getting MVP is an absolutely huge deciding factor over whether the team wins or not. Especially when the team playing well tends to pad the QB's stats and make them look better.

[Poopadoop]

The quaterback getting MVP is an absolutely huge deciding factor over whether the team wins or not. Especially when the team playing well tends to pad the QB's stats and make them look better.

Yes, and that's reflected in the fact the QB gets MVP > 50% of the time.

[BananaStand]

The quaterback getting MVP is an absolutely huge deciding factor over whether the team wins or not. Especially when the team playing well tends to pad the QB's stats and make them look better.

Tom Brady put on an all-time Super Bowl performance and lost. By any objective measure, Tom Brady was MVP, and it's not even close.

Eli Manning was average at best in his two Super Bowl MVP performances.

So I'd say you've got it backwards. To be MVP, you have to win first.

[forkitnow]

Tom Brady put on an all-time Super Bowl performance and lost. By any objective measure, Tom Brady was MVP, and it's not even close.

Eli Manning was average at best in his two Super Bowl MVP performances.

So I'd say you've got it backwards. To be MVP, you have to win first.

I'm sorry, but winning isn't the most important thing. Leading your team is.

[BananaStand]

I'm sorry, but winning isn't the most important thing. Leading your team is.

and if you lead them to defeat?

[spoonitnow]

and if you lead them to defeat?

But he won the popular vote.

[forkitnow]

and if you lead them to defeat?

I don't expect you to understand that privilege is the primary characteristic to determine "defeat" or that leading has nothing to do with leadership in a game build on the backs of marginalized groups treated as field slaves by white land owners, oh wait, I mean team owners.

[wufwugy]

PLANTATION'D

[MadMojoMonkey]

Over 10 posts in the first day the account was created?

The FTR policy is still to limit new members to 10 posts per day for a few days, IIRC.

So... forkitnow is probably an alt from a mod and not a member.

I just can't tell yet if it's spoony-not-spoony, or if someone else is trolling spoony.

Fun game.

[spoonitnow]

Over 10 posts in the first day the account was created?

The FTR policy is still to limit new members to 10 posts per day for a few days, IIRC.

So... forkitnow is probably an alt from a mod and not a member.

I just can't tell yet if it's spoony-not-spoony, or if someone else is trolling spoony.

Fun game.

That's the old policy. New members can post pretty much as much as they want as long as it doesn't include links.

[OngBonga]

It's either spoon or someone doing a good job so far of pretending to be spoon.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/07...ads-to-id.html

Does anyone else see anything "off" about this?

That guy's not Asian. Also, the chin isn't even close.

[OngBonga]

That isn't spoon, it's banana. I mean he totally ignores it.

[BananaStand]

That isn't spoon, it's banana. I mean he totally ignores it.

Ignores what? Obvious foil-hat troll posts?

I actually have nothing to contribute to a discussion of whether or not humans are unknowingly enslaved by alien overlords. I've seen no evidence either way on that front.

[OngBonga]

Ignores the second utensilitnow troll in a day.

This is fun, it's like werewolf. I'm thinking spoon and banana right now, but the first one could be someone like rilla.

[OngBonga]

If anyone else feels like playing, be more creative than knifeitnow.

I'm thinking something like pizzacutteritnow

[BananaStand]

Ignores the second utensilitnow troll in a day.

I actually think that's what everyone should be doing.

[Savy]

It's either spoon or someone doing a good job so far of pretending to be spoon.

If every account is spoon why would a new account not be spoon?

[OngBonga]

If every account is spoon why would a new account not be spoon?

Shut up, wuf.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ignores the second utensilitnow troll in a day.

This is fun, it's like werewolf. I'm thinking spoon and banana right now, but the first one could be someone like rilla.

If this is your current level of werewolf, you've seriously lost your edge.

I had forkit narrowed down to 2 possibilities in the first 5 posts, either person A or someone who knows person A from outside the forum and is in cahoots with person A.
The pic in the NSFW thread cinches that hypothesis. I.e. it is certain that person A is either forkit or an IRL friend of forkit, because forkit posted a picture of person A.

Spatula is almost certainly also person A.

[OngBonga]

I didn't look in the NSFW thread because I'm at work duh. I know, weird.

Anyway, the only actual evidence I saw was spoon replying to you about new member post limits, which struck me as odd, because spoon obviously knows this is a troll. So it's either spoon, or someone in cahoots with him, sure.

New one could be anyone really, perhaps even me.

Nah, I'm a shit troll, I'd be too obvious.

[spoonitnow]

THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO DO!!

This guy gets it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oi.

One of you British blokes.

What the hell is doggin' in your country, 'cause I don't think it means the same thing here.

[BananaStand]

i thought it meant a half assed effort. "he was dogging it in practice"

only in the last couple years have i learned it has an alternate meaning

[Poopadoop]

Oi.

One of you British blokes.

What the hell is doggin' in your country, 'cause I don't think it means the same thing here.

Sex in public.

What does it mean there?

[BananaStand]

Sex in public.

What does it mean there?

Just in public? I was under the impression there was a specific outdoor element.

[Poopadoop]

Just in public? I was under the impression there was a specific outdoor element.

I think the outside thing is part of it yeah.

[OngBonga]

It's more than sex outdoors, it has the added aspect of being intended for public view. Like finding a quiet car park and nailing your woman in the car while people watch from outside.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sex in public.

What does it mean there?

Definitely not that.

Banana's description of "half-assed effort" is probably the usage I'm most familiar with, but I'm very to super white.
I will ask someone more familiar with black slang what they'd think it means at work.

My Hawaiian gal guessed it would mean really good, and used it as an exclamation.
"That's doggin'!"
(I've not heard this usage, but that's not really indicative of anything, given my hermit tendencies.)

[BananaStand]

Definitely not that.

Actually, it means that here too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Actually, it means that here too.

confirmed

I just spoke with one of my non-melanin-challenged coworkers and she confirmed that is a usage.

Predominantly, though, she said doggin' would probably mean disrespecting, as in, "Why you doggin' me like that?"

[wufwugy]

American slang is retarded. Like, "doggin" meaning "half-assed effort" makes zero sense. Dogs are full of effort. Humans are the half-assers.

But "doggin" to mean sex in public is slang perfection. It fits the behavior, fits the language, is visual, and funny. Britain's chief export should be slang.

[spoonitnow]

American slang is retarded. Like, "doggin" meaning "half-assed effort" makes zero sense. Dogs are full of effort. Humans are the half-assers.

But "doggin" to mean sex in public is slang perfection. It fits the behavior, fits the language, is visual, and funny. Britain's chief export should be slang.

Too bad their chief export is cucks.