Vreyan31

Meanwhile, all the progressive poly guys I know who have figured out how to deeply respect women have more partners than they really have time for. And quite a few of them are not "good looking" by any conventional standard (though some are).

The simplist answer is that this guy could buy some high-coverage foundation and a make-up sponge. He could change his appearance in other ways too if he likes - get a wig, fake nose, etc.

I want to discuss the first statement in your last reply - about "lumping all single men together".

That is just how quantification of anything works. If we were talking about unemployment, or number of people with blue cars, or days with rain - if there is an increase, you mark on the sum increase over the previous baseline, and discuss potential reasons for the new influx.

If you think you are part of the previous baseline - guys who would have been single in past generations, then the discussion doesn't apply to you. Even if no one goes through and specifically excludes you. Because the influx is what is being discussed - not the baseline.

But I don't think you are actually upset at being lumped in with the influx. I think you are upset because the guys in the influx are being rediculed and you desperately want to find a reason to both be mad about that and to say those criticisms don't apply to you.

You say you don't want to be assumed to be a PoS bc you don't have a gf.

If you really are not trying to date, I don't think you run the risk of that.

The criticism in the top post is directed at guys who are obsessed with their dating status - but see it as a game they are losing, and women as objects to be manipulated into what they want.

If you are trying to date but see women as hostile opponents to be 'managed', you are going to act like a PoS.

What determines your PoS status isn't your dating status - it's whether you see and treat women as fully equal people with the same expectations to dignity and respect as your guy friends, or if you see women as alien beings on an opposing team - targets to potentially be manipulated to get what you long for, or targets of resentment for withholding or being inaccessable for what you long for.

If you are truly single and don't have any resentments towards women about it, you are unlikely to come off as a PoS.

But honestly, that isnt how your comments are coming off

Another way to put it is that our culture is creating a lot of men who no one wants to be around. Who either don't see themselves as needing to be likable or who see being likable as something that goes completely against their identity -- something that is 'impossible' for them that they refuse to work on.

A lot of this may be tied to ideas of masculinity that see social awareness, empathy and cooperation as feminine traits since 'tough guys' in media can get 'respect' and attention despite eschewing all of those traits.

If you feel particularly lacking in those traits, it can feel very reassuring to tell yourself you can't work on those things and it's unfair to be judged or suffer consequences for deficiencies in them - because there is no escaping the sense of vulnerability one feels when trying to build up something one is weak in.

So we end up with a lot of guys who are sullen about being miserable and being miserable to be around.

These guys have a lot of hard work ahead of them. The first big hurdle is accepting that they have to be responsible for becoming people that others like being around - and getting over their safety blanket idea that they 'can't' so they shouldn't bother.

I think this is still a skills issue, the question is "what skill?"

You have a passionate interest. What you don't know how to do is talk about it in a way that shares why it is so fascinating to you. That can be worked on. It'll take practice, including more times where you flop, but you can try to watch how people with other niche interests pull people in and create intrigue and excitement.

Trying to learn this skill for your passion will help you do it more generally; it will make you a more interesting person that people enjoy connecting to.

My problem with these people is that voting 3rd party or not voting doesn't help Gaza. It is not a plan.

Harris said she was pro-Israel, but she would have given a damn what the liberal base thinks and the liberal base wants the deaths to stop. Harris could have been influenced by the left. That would have been a plausible strategy worth pursuing

Trump doesn't give a shit what anyone who hasn't bribed him and loves raping others thinks. There is no way for the left to influence anything now. If Trump can, he will make money putting all of us into camps.

The left not only tears itself apart but is also allergic to effective planning. It's some weird kink where they want to be absolutely powerless while screaming about all the things others must do.

This matches every account I've heard from friends in Seattle that have worked for the HQ.

I think we may be (re)-discovering the appeal of monotheistic religions, and why they hew patriarchal.

On average, men desperately need more mental health resources. But, on average, they are not comfortable building that with other men, and it often isn't appropriate or effective to lean on their female significant other (if a straight man).

So - enter the primary description of 'God'. Can listen any time but will always forgive, is super masculine but won't emasculate you, and has never told another soul what you are thinking.

AI is always available and is unlikely to emasculate anyone, but that third item... Well, we'll see where this goes.

I think that to a narcissist empathy is also chaos and terrifying - it drives 'irrational' behavior in others that is not intuitive for them and works against their goals. It has to be absolutely infuriating to them.

I haven't read a lot of Sanderson, but I've read enough to sense that this difference is in true personal disposition.

Sanderson's drive seems to be more of wonder, curiosity and adventure, and the stories delve into morality and justice as a source of plot tension.

In contrast, I think OSC has always been more of a black-and-white thinker. I think his best stories have been ones where he is exploring a moral struggle or thought experiment. But at the end of the story, you can pull out what OSC has concluded morally about those characters - who is good, who is bad (and always has been), and maybe who is a necessary evil.

All of OSC's stories are about categorizing people, behaviors and decisions into 'should/should not' buckets. And I've just never gotten that sense from Sanderson's books.

At 13, I read Ender's Game and was absolutely obsessed. Read a ton of other OSC books at that age and it took me decades to rid myself of all the veiled mormon morality in his books.

As an adult, I never had one hesitation about disavowing him. I re-read the Ender saga a few years back to see how it held up (it didn't hold a candle to my teen-self's impression), but I had no problem not paying for new copies of anything that would pay OSC.