Random Thought of the Day

[Nyctophilia]

I lowkey kinda wish April and Tammy 1 had more screentime together, they had so much potential

I'm still sad their make out scene got cut because "two women kissing" was too inappropriate for tv.

Well if it was scandalous that Andy is twice her age, it sure would be scandalous for a woman who's like twice ANDY's age to be making out with her.

Did I read about this before? I'm getting dejavu so I think I did. I can't believe that was even planned. Definitely Aubrey's idea lol. I remember she also kissed the actor that played Jerry on some show with the cast lol...

yeah. Aubrey and Nick talked about it on his and Megan's podcast a few years back

I really should start watching more podcasts.

I personally only ship people who are incredibly unpopular and is an idea that occurs to basically no one though, which is why I was contemplating her with Tammy II not Tammy I. Also Ann but that's more obvious and more people ship that.

Leslie and Tammy II makes more cannonical sense though just because of that one scene where they're fighting in the dumpster and Tammy II is 'into it' lol... But Leslie would never reciprocate.

I doubt that was the reason it was cut though, since there had been various female couples on TV before that including kissing.. And that was one of the later episodes that Tammy I popped up in so it would have been into the 2010s by that point. Also she'd been with Andy since the second season? Or the third so not much opportunity really.

I mean biphobia extended far beyond general homophobia on TV and there were characters they didn't want to make bisexual who were supposed to be bisexual in the 2000s. Though April was in a relationship with two guys at the beginning of the show who were also in a relationship and at least one of them was not explicitly bisexual. It was portrayed pretty casually and she'd make out with both of them at parties etc... I can see why they wouldn't want to go back though since it was implied she'd 'moved on from that period of her life' but it's not like it would be out of character per se. I just don't think she would ever cheat on Andy, so you'd have to find some weird way to explain it.

So yeah I couldn't see it happening really because she's too committed to Andy which for a character that was based on Aubrey is probably kind of a waste because you're limiting the potential chaos a lot for one and also because she has too much chemistry with women.

Remember what happened in that Christmas film where everyone ended up shipping her character with Kristen Stewart's instead of the main couple:

She replied: "I wanted it too. I'm not gonna lie. I wanted it too. I wanted it very badly, but I didn't write the thing, and I didn?t direct the thing. I just showed up, did my job and got out of there."

Plaza continued to say that she's "not giving up hope for Riley," adding: "I think that she's got a bright future ahead."

Aubrey no.

DuVall also addressed the backlash during a discussion with Elle.

"Aubrey Plaza is amazing. She's such a babe. I don't blame anyone for wanting to see more of her, but I think the debate is less about the film and more about your philosophy on forgiveness and growth," she said.

"You don't go through a hard couple of days after a long period of time, meet a stranger, and cut and run. Even if that person is Aubrey Plaza."

Having not seen the film I don't really know why she was there at the party in the first place since she was another character's ex. Also Alison Brie is in that film too lol. The ratio of attractive brunettes is really high.

Wait Alison Brie made out with Aubrey Plaza in another film? I was just thinking I couldn't really ship their characters in that film since Alison's character was straight (presumably) lol. One of the main character's sister.

The YouTube video is age restricted...





No lol.

Also yes that film came out years ago and I'm only just learning about it.

Baena said that "the film is rooted in the expectation versus reality trope", which forms the basis for the main plot as well as other elements. One of these sub-plots - in which Amber (Brie) "had more sparks with Kat" (Plaza) than Nick (Nivola) - was added to the story when Baena and Brie noticed that Plaza's chemistry with the main character in another film (Happiest Season) was unexpectedly more popular than that of the character's love interest, and felt that Plaza could bring the same to Spin Me Round. As well as contributing to the theme of subverting expectations, Baena wanted to write a complicated character for Plaza to play as neither simply villain or victim.[5]

Totally the same wave length.

[Nyctophilia]

^ I'm also just learning that Jeff Baena died Spoiler: committed suicide earlier this month and he was also married to Aubrey Plaza so this has been quite the emotional rollercoaster.

Just like one thing after another.

[Nyctophilia]

"I think that witches are dangerous and these women are basically witches and we should test them in the water to see if they weigh more than a duck." - Malcolm

I think your family background was too involved in the life insurance industry for you to be so cocky:

Malcolm is the great-grandson of Carr Collins Sr., founder of the Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company, and grandson of James M. Collins, a Dallas, Texas businessman and politician.

I don't know about national days of hate. Carrots are way more powerful than sticks and this is an evidence supported stance on my part.

I think you should take your wife's advice. And also hers:

Economic inequality in this country has always been enabled by the fact that people basically like the rich. Yeah, we judge people who live in McMansions and we get irritated by elitist, out-of-touch behavior, but ultimately we have no choice but to stan.

And the people we stan the hardest are people like Jeffree Star, who in a way, seems like a poor person who just so happens to be very rich.

Now, if inequality increases enough, I suspect the stanning will stop. Because it's fun to watch Jeffree Star spend $69,000 in one trip to the Louis Vuitton store if what you're doing is fantasizing about what you would buy with that much money. But if you're thinking about how $69,000 could pay off your life-ruining medical debt or about how you'd be able to afford cancer treatments for your dying wife, this kind of thing will start getting under your skin. And eventually, people will start building guillotines again.

In fact, the only way I can really imagine a revolution actually happening in this country is if rich people start behaving as badly as possible.

Simone: I'm obsessed with this too. This new account that just compares really crappy houses in Canada with castles in Europe that cost less.
There's so many headwinds (?) that might make people delay having kids.

Malcolm: I think that's all nonsense.

Simone: Well I'm still thinking there are some factors. This definitely happened with us we were like we're going to start our family when. And ours might not have been as solid-

Macolm: We moved to Peru (?) Simone so things were cheaper. You can move.

Simone: I'm sorry wait you think people are reasonable? You think people are willing to make sacrifices to have kids.

Malcolm: I understand but I'm pointing out that I don't think it's healthy to buy into their fantasies of I can't afford a house in Canada therefore I have to genetically commit seppuku. No that's a silly, silly argument. By people who do not want to think outside the box or do the extra work that's required of our generation. And as we've seen historically the numbers just aren't that correlated.

My friend showed me a castle in Scotland that was more reasonably priced than some flats in London. Of course castles are incredibly expensive to heat and maintain too.

Of course the guy who was is very wealthy and always has been has no concept that some people would delay having kids due to not being able to afford a house and stuck living with their family etc (this also makes it very difficult to date and have relationships. Perhaps it doesn't for non Western people but it really does for Western people.)

"But that doesn't happen in some non WEIRD cultures."

Oh well it's happening here now genius. This is not something they have to put up with and when he's like 'just move bro' he seemingly has no concept of how difficult it is to move country for most people at least legally. You have to be able to find a job too.

And ironically he supports measures that are currently chucking illegal immigrants out of the US lol. And of course people and Western women in particular often don't want to move to places with cultures that are completely alien and/or misogynistic. In fact women in general don't tend to emigrate as much as men with the exception of North Korea where more women have been leaving than men which is sort of self explanatory since large sections of the population are just starving to death and they have laws against leaving (that's a pretty good sign that women want to leave I think btw.) Turns out women really like food who knew?

"Just move somewhere with a lower cost of living with no qualifications or skills that people need bro."

"The entire bottom third or more of every Western country can just be passport bros bro."

OK well, we'll see how this economic requirement goes. Actually I'll tell you what I think will happen lol if this expectation becomes normalised and accelerated instead of people just choosing to stay and not having kids etc. More men than women will leave Western countries as this can be reasonably assumed from statistics on emigration (outside extreme cases like North Korea.) You'll chuck out and reduce most of the male immigrants too starting with illegal immigrants and then moving to legal as that's the Republican party's M.O. (so it's now too expensive to live and you're practicing isolationism at the same time. Eventually some (more) jobs will also be automated of course.)

In non Western countries they will start to target and kill and rob Western men who they know are trying to date local women (this has already started happening so you can see news stories in South America about this.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68022288

It's not clear whether he first met the woman through a dating app or through friends. But his death is one of eight in Medellin that prompted a warning from the US embassy, external about the risks of using dating apps. All eight victims were Americans who died in suspicious circumstances in November and December.

The US state department said it was aware of a gang in the city that previously used dating apps to isolate victims before abducting and killing them. But it's unclear if a gang was behind the US deaths.

In the first 10 months of 2023, Medellin's tourism observatory had already recorded 32 violent killings of foreigners in the city - including at least 12 Americans and three from the United Kingdom - a 40% increase from the previous year.

"There's a negative profile of the tourist in the city that looks for a certain type of opportunities," said Calle in an interview. It's usually related to sex work, he said.

A spokesperson for the tourism observatory confirmed that the "majority" of victims last year were men, but added that many cases are still under investigation.

This is actually a common way to get targets using these apps tbh. People do the same thing to find and attack homosexual people sometimes. In this case it's probably that they assume that those Western men are rich. Passport bros are kind of very vocal online too about how they have enough money to get women in these countries. Edit: Thinking about it these guys should take contrapoints advice too:

Now the upper class cultural elite in this country, the real classy people, are mostly very unlike Trump. Instead of being ostentatious and gaudy, they embrace the reserved old-money values of aristocratic WASPs: white Anglo-Saxon protestants.

Fussell notes, for instance, that they tend to value privacy over showing off ⁠-- they like to live at the end of long driveways in houses away from public view, and they dress down while traveling so as to avoid drawing attention to themselves.

These are essentially survival skills of the experienced rich. If you flaunt your wealth too much, people might rob you, or they might get envious and come after you with pitchforks and guillotines, or worse -- taxation!

Old money knows this, but new money just cannot resist the temptation to show off.

Obviously on top of wanting to rob people there's also the fact that poor men in these countries are pissed off by men who have resources that they now have to compete with on top of local men. Why do you think most white nationalists in Western countries come from working class backgrounds?



You'll have a large number of Western women who can't reproduce even if they wanted to because there are no men. Obviously this is already happening by choice but it will accelerate this trend (some portion will start dating other women, or use sperm banks maybe but not all of them and at a certain point this will start to become more incestuous too genetically speaking depending on how unbalanced the gender ratio becomes. Fortunately there are so many people that this won't become a serious concern for some time though.)

As an interesting aside - older women and single women vote democrat btw (maybe [BEEP] women do too not sure.)

Something tells me it doesn't get better in a lot of other countries if the massive number of people (men usually,) trying to get into Europe is any clue. The ones moving for work are willing/planning to move back to those countries later, but most Western people don't want to settle down long term (like more than several years,) in non Western countries besides maybe Japan, South Korea or other East Asian countries occasionally (with a higher cost of living.) Just because they can't afford to live in the West. Let's be real.

Part of the reason intelligent people reproduce less which they're never going to discuss (and yes the other reasons are accurate too this is just the elephant in the room,) is because a lot of them are basically assholes. They have very disagreeable personalities to use the big 5 as a reference. They also have very high standards for people and look down on others.

You see this clearly in this couples YT content. They are elitist.

Not only that but Malcolm talks about how lazy he is and that he likes delegating. There's a lot of guys like this in the billionaire class too. People who are hard working project that onto these guys and assume that these people worked hard to get where they are/were. Like the 'clueless' from the ribbon farm thing I posted before (the psychopath, clueless and loser categories.)

I think of this article constantly:

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/0...to-the-office/

The Gervais Principle is this:

Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.

MacLeod's Loser layer had me puzzled for a long time, because I was interpreting it in cultural terms: the kind of person you call a "loser." While some may be losers in that sense too, they are primarily losers in the economic sense: those who have, for various reasons, made (or been forced to make) a bad economic bargain. They've given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability. Traded freedom for a paycheck in short. They actually produce, but are not compensated in proportion to the value they create (since their compensation is set by Sociopaths operating under conditions of serious moral hazard). They mortgage their lives away, and hope to die before their money runs out. The good news is that Losers have two ways out, which we'll get to later: turning Sociopath or turning into bare-minimum performers. The Losers destined for cluelessness do not have a choice.

Based on the MacLeod lifecycle, we can also separate the three layers based on the timing of their entry and exit into organizations. The Sociopaths enter and exit organizations at will, at any stage, and do whatever it takes to come out on top. The contribute creativity in early stages of a organization?s life, neurotic leadership in the middle stages, and cold-bloodedness in the later stages, where they drive decisions like mergers, acquisitions and layoffs that others are too scared or too compassionate to drive. They are also the ones capable of equally impersonally exploiting a young idea for growth in the beginning, killing one good idea to concentrate resources on another at maturity, and milking an end-of-life idea through harvest-and-exit market strategies.

The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm than the Sociopaths. They do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot.

The Clueless are the ones who lack the competence to circulate freely through the economy (unlike Sociopaths and Losers), and build up a perverse sense of loyalty to the firm, even when events make it abundantly clear that the firm is not loyal to them. To sustain themselves, they must be capable of fashioning elaborate delusions based on idealized notions of the firm -- the perfectly pathological entities we mentioned. Unless squeezed out by forces they cannot resist, they hang on as long as possible, long after both Sociopaths and Losers have left (in Douglas Adams' vicious history of our planet, humanity was founded by a spaceship full of the Clueless, sent here by scheming Sociopaths). When cast adrift in the open ocean, they are the ones most likely to be utterly destroyed.

The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out -- through experiments and fast failures -- that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he?ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence.

So Ryan floats directly to the top, where he does what is expected of him -- lead a bold strategic gamble by building an online sales channel operation. As with any big strategic move, the operation has its risks, and fails. And here we find that Ryan is still not quite experienced enough as a sociopath. He foolishly goes the Enron route, attempting to cook the books to avoid failure, and is found out and arrested. A true master Sociopath like David Wallace would instead have spotted the impending failure, promoted a Michael to take over (who would obviously be so gratified at being given a new white-elephant title that he would not have seen disaster looming), and have him take the blame for the inevitable failure. Completely legal and efficient.

You know they do this with women a lot I think. Since they're pretty eager to get into high status positions for gender based reasons.

The glass cliff is a hypothesized phenomenon in which women are more likely to break the "glass ceiling" (i.e. achieve leadership roles in business and government) during periods of crisis or downturn when the risk of failure is highest.[1][2] Other research has expanded the definition of the glass cliff phenomenon to include racial and ethnic minority groups.[3]

The term was coined in 2005 by British professors Michelle K. Ryan and Alexander Haslam of University of Exeter, United Kingdom. In a study, Ryan and Haslam examined the performance of FTSE 100 companies before and after the appointment of new board members, and found that companies that appointed women to their boards were likelier than others to have experienced consistently bad performance in the preceding five months.[4] This work eventually developed into the identification of a phenomenon known as the glass cliff - analogous to the concept of a glass ceiling, but implying the inability to perceive the dangers of the cliff's transparent edge rather than the false promise of elevated organizational positions which can be "seen" through a ceiling of glass but which are actually unattainable. Since the term originated, its use has expanded beyond the corporate world to also encompass politics and other domains.

Evidence of the glass cliff phenomenon has been documented in the field of law. A 2006 study found law students were much likelier to assign a high-risk case to a female lead counsel rather than a male one.[8] A 2010 study found undergraduate students in British political science likelier to select a male politician to run for a safe seat in a by-election, and much likelier to select a female candidate when the seat was described as hard to get.[9] A 2014 analysis of US Fortune 500 leadership found that firms with weak performance were likely to promote women into CEO positions over white men.[10]

I wonder why. /s

Haslam and Ryan's initial studies indicate that people believe women are better-suited to lead stressed, unhappy companies because they are felt to be more nurturing, creative, and intuitive.[15] These researchers argue that female leaders are not necessarily expected to improve the situation, but are seen as good people managers who can take the blame for organizational failure.[16]

Or you should go [BEEP] yourselves.

The high status psychopaths are the most ruthless and generally intelligent of the 'losers.' He also talks about how his friendships are entirely transactional for this reason. He acts like he's high value and gullible hard working people believe him (and believe similar men.)

I know he has a history of like trolling on reddit etc too and I know his family background so I can picture the personality etc easily though of course he readily reveals it in his content. It doesn't matter because his wife isn't going to give a [BEEP] about this clearly and from his pov with 4+ kids and rich he's already winning.

Not only all of this but being exposed to this culture - and merely going to university will probably expose you to some people like this as I said before - will give you a deep sense of:

"Oh God these people are disgusting I'm going to start instinctively isolating myself."

Which of course reduces your ability to have kids. Of course career focus effects that too but this is a factor as well.

Might explain in part why women with bachelors degrees have less kids in the US at least than those with high school education or PhDs. Agreeable women with disagreeable men doesn't work well due to personality clashes? But tbh agreeable people in relationships tend to last longer without breaking up regardless.

The highly educated female group are possibly more disagreeable too? Someone should look into that in research. I think probably women who go to uni in general are though and this lowers their own birth rate.

But it's also possible the most highly educated just get access to more guys like this who want better genetics and those women possibly are autistic etc at higher rates. Don't notice red flags.

Anyway, I had more thoughts I think but I've kind of lost them so will prob edit this. It's amazing how much Malcolm fits this personality type though.

He talks about how a lot of older women he knows do sex work including divorced women with kids. Absolute nonsense to think that's most women instead of some weird bubble. He does this in a kind of warning way like 'if you leave your husband who provides for you this is what will happen to you.'

And we know from a previous recent video I quoted that Simone is primarily funding them!?

Simone: "You're answering this question of why should an ambitious young woman have children in a very Malcolm way. Which is you don't answer the question and you just say what you want to say and you're not speaking to the audience. I can answer these questions speaking to the audience, I can speak their language."

Macolm: "Speak to the audience. Because you did it. You now have this life and you seem to like it and you find it more satisfying I think then the life you would have had."

Simone: "Yeah but I'm actually kind of cheating because who is actually making the money in this family?"

Malcolm: "You."

Simone: "Who is actually controlling all the finances?"

Malcolm: "You."

Simone: "Yeah that's kind of the problem. I'm not very trad wifey right?"


Of course Simone is autistic too. I feel like this is what the dream I entirely forgot was trying to tell me lol. No but this is insane. Man has more red flags than a communist parade and this is exactly the kind of guy who gets everything he wants and increasingly owns everything.

Oh yeah that was something the ribbonfarm article is important because all these people are part of the extended social network of the rationalist community. That article was written by someone also connected I think. So it's the kind of thing that comes from experience with people in these kind of circles too and within business.

They want to train themselves to be more psychopathic I think to gain success within this narrow economic framework.

Then redefine psychopathy as good and bad psychopathy. So low status criminals are the bad ones and people who increasingly own the entire planet are fine.

And yes, as people are pointing out, Facebook did start as a hot or not rating website. The entire Internet transformed from hobby sites and personal websites into that when you think about it.

The deleterious cultural impact can't really be underestimated.

It's making it very hard to see positives in Humanity for a lot of people.

What I don't get is how any of these people think they are helping encourage anyone? Shoeonhead said she thought the US democrats lost on purpose in her video and just before she said that I was contemplating the same. I don't want to be too conspiratorial though but I get the same 'The Good Place' TV show vibes from many pronatalist tech/nerd circle people.

Spoilers:



"As my mum always used to say if a cop handcuffs you to a bike rack there's always something you can gnaw through."

"Your mum.. Always said that?"

Like you're doing this on purpose to reduce the birth rate right?

But Hanlon's razor suggests they're all really just that incompetent. And assholes.

Seeing as Malcolm's plan is to have a day where you hit and shame women who are 'old maids' (and then as an afterthought included men without kids too,) and then also included people who don't commit with many kids. I wonder if he has any thoughts about Elon Musk's personal life with the several babymamas? (Seeing as they're fans of his and part of the same 'movement.') Or do you only include economic support as necessary?

I thought so.

Silicon Valley troll Elon Musk keeps getting held up as an exemplar of the movement for having ten children with three women. In any other context our society would be bashing a man who fathers children with an assortment of different mothers, but if you are very wealthy, very white, and hold the right kind of parties, you can declare that your inability to "remain faithful" or "keep your pants on" is in fact a noble effort to save all of mankind.

Not "stop exploiting child labor." Not "stop turning the oceans into an acidic slush that will kill entire marine ecosystems while supercharging world weather." No, just devote yourself to having sex and the rest will work itself out. If you do it right, you'll even get newspaper reporters beating a path to your door to ask you about your philanthropic efforts.

Our rich people are ... not all right.

And the sad thing is this probably will be an issue in most of the world due to aging populations, but you're all really fucking up the conversation.

Also to go back to that shoeonhead video where she said the democrats were going to become "neocons but gay." The democrats are already economically right leaning the vast majority of them do not even support social healthcare. But on top of that most of the pro-gay right wing economic fans are supporting Trump and there's no way they're going to move in a more progressive economic direction so your choices never really involved significant economic change either - or pivoting away from hard power military stuff.

At this point the only LGBT+ group the democrats support that the republicans don't (I'm talking about the status quo of the republican party at this point not the extreme evangelical wing,) are trans people who are a tiny minority and have less overall support. Like the couple in the above video are economically right wing, pro gay, anti trans, like to fearmonger about immigrants and the idea that Europe is overrun with foreign rapists like you can't move without being raped/killed (this is something that different groups of people both downplay and overplay somehow,) and they're republican. There's lots of people like them. About 50% of cisgender gay men vote republican too. I imagine it's a lot less for lesbians and [BEEP] women in general but that couple don't talk about that xD

It is similar in my country as a non-binary person who also dislikes both parties for numerous other reasons I've reached a point where there's no point in voting. I don't feel like any politicans support me lol. I still do for the sake of it (I've only ever voted labour once and otherwise have never voted for either of the two biggest parties,) but you know 50% of my town didn't bother in the last election which is crazy when you think about it, though it makes sense.

edit: Sometimes I almost forget how important I am but then the US government is like "We're not going to change anything or help anyone but we've won against the 30,000 non-binary people."



I've been to concerts twice that size. Well concert. This concert actually xD (well either this one or the day after at the same venue they recorded both days):



I prefer smaller concerts ideally though. I feel like this was a lot of people's first concert. I was 14 but otherwise same:

I was in that crowd. My first ever gig, 15 years old, full of angst and loving every fucking minute of it. One of my best memories.

Just think if the US government wasn't crazy I might never have had this experience.

Census data from the UK (I'm assuming it's not going to be dramatically different for the US):

The 2021 census for England and Wales found that 0.5% of people aged 16 and over identified as trans or non-binary. This was the first time that a census in England and Wales asked people about their gender identity

48,000 people identified as trans men
48,000 people identified as trans women
30,000 people identified as non-binary
18,000 people wrote in a different gender identity

Unfortunately if I'm not non-binary that means I'm a white liberal woman/witch (tm) so it's kind of a lose/lose for you.

This is why Republicans will lose the gender war. Not enough (trans) men.

[Nyctophilia]

You know I see gnosticism all over fiction and was just thinking Adventure Time (which I haven't watched properly tbf because it was sort of after my time but I've seen a bunch of clips) seems rooted in that too. Like Lemongrab is the demiurge and Princess Bubblegum is Sophia.





Hmm not surprised other people noticed:

Lemongrab possesses many of the same traits as the Demiurge as conceived in some sects of Christian Gnosticism. He is an imperfect creation, who builds his own flawed world and people modeled after the works of the higher being from whom he has received his power. He is jealous, petty, and cruel to his creations, in much the same way the Christian Gnostics believed the "God" (Demiurge) of the Old Testament was. He is later supplanted through the intervention of an initially reluctant son, who more perfectly embodies the virtues of the higher being, bringing his creation into a more enlightened age.

I can see this too:

The Earl of Lemongrab's tragic tale alludes to the story of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Lemongrab's eidetic memory was inspired by Stephen Wiltshire, a famous autistic savant who has eidetic memory and the ability to draw an extremely detailed landscape of a city after a short helicopter ride above the area.[23]

[Nyctophilia]

This is the only video I have watched on this. (No I haven't I just clicked on this now.) The most important viewpoint on this topic (probably):

The jreg situation is insane

Jreg recorded this video without my consent.

I can't believe at this day and age people are still ostracising youtubers from dramas they should be included in. This is just sad, my heart goes out to you.

I opened up this video, went to the transcript, ctrl+f'd "Hanthony" and didn't find anything. I'm feeling very left out and I have to say, I'm very disappointed. I've been subscribed to Jreg for years so I thought we were pretty good friends but I guess Jreg just doesn't care anymore now that he's made it.

Can't believe jreg would do this to Hanthony.

clicking on this video I had no idea what the "Controversy" was about, still have no clue. I expected nothing less from you reG

That's the main reason I clicked on it.

Also the fruit jeans are 10/10

what in the world are those pants

THE PANTS YAAASSS GO OFF QUEEN 💅💅💅

The real star of this video and the Destiny drama.

[Nyctophilia]

Regarding Trump winning more voters from basically every group besides older women (which comes up in this video.) I do find this somewhat misleading. It seems he's doing worse with white men over time (and also white women almost always vote for the republican candidate, though these days at least it's pretty close to 50/50 I think):

White women are still voting for the Republican candidate

Although women as a whole have historically voted for Democrats, white women have not. Instead, over the last 72 years, a plurality of white women have voted for the Democratic candidate only twice, in 1964 and 1996. On Tuesday, they once again went for Trump - just as they did in 2016 and 2020. But Harris made inroads with the group; she lost them by only 5 points, according to CNN. (In 2020, they broke for Trump by 11.) More surprisingly, Trump's lead among white men also shrank, from 23 points in 2020 to 20 in 2024.

Because its only a slight majority of white women and because black women vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party (and possibly other minority women do too,) it ends up being a majority of women who vote democrat which leads right wing men online to obsessively yell at white women which I find really entertaining.

Both because of their hyperbolic statements and fear (as I am an asshole but also like one bad day away from becoming scarecrow from Batman,) but also because they're alienating a group who tend to vote for the party they support (although some of these guys are far right but not republican supporters as well.)

Anyway that is surprising though of course a majority of men still vote republican. I imagine there will be more independent voters over time too.

Trump definitely appeals to working class people who aren't [BEEP] as well (as pointed out.) I don't really like when people kind of lump every LGBT+ category together since it's useful to seperate them mostly because cisgender gay men don't vote like the rest who I think are slightly more aligned in being anti-republican:

The LGBTQ community has historically voted Democrat but unlike most other demographic trends this year, LGBTQ support for the party's presidential nominee rose substantially from 2020. CBS News' national exit polls showed 86% of people who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender voted for Harris, while just 13% voted for Trump. Echoing most Harris voters, a majority of LGBTQ people said they feared what could happen during another Trump presidency.

People in the LGBTQ community told CBS News they see the recurrence of Trumpism as a tangible affront to their basic human rights. The implications feel particularly urgent to transgender Americans, whom the president-elect and his affiliates categorically targeted throughout the campaign.

^ Again it's not a Trump thing. It's the republican party imo. As far as I know they have uniform opinions on trans rights. Even the UK conservative party doesn't have uniform opinions. There was a conservative politican running for mayor of London or something like that who was pro legalisation of weed and self ID for trans people somehow? I dunno maybe there's a weird US republican buried somewhere but certainly not very visible.

I can't find the London guy either now but I know I read an article about him once. I never memorised his name (and tend to forget names anyway,) so I feel like I'm not going to find him now since searching on google isn't working. There was also this weird incident but that's not the same guy:



Neither of the two main political parties in the UK really support trans rights though.

Trump did better with young women too although as with most young men supporting Trump, most young women still supported Harris. I feel like there's an upper limit to that honestly (like how much they could win,) because there's a very aggressively liberal set who would basically never support Republicans because of their opinion on gender (among other things but its very personal,) Which I get. They made themselves enemies of single and childless women and trans and non-binary people. If I was in the US I think it would require decades of consistent change in most of their positions lol for me to ever vote for them. That's what they are up against because I've been observing these younger women and some of them are way more intense about things than even my generation (millenials.) And misandry seems more popular too.

I don't like either of those parties though.

[Nyctophilia]

You know as soon as I saw the title of this video I immediately thought 'this definitely happened in the UK' and it did (and yes obviously the main reason was that it counts as harassment but I swear everytime there's some ridiculous element like this it's the UK. Florida is insane too but in a different way where I somehow know if it's Florida or the UK):

I feel for the people in the UK that have to pay their taxes for this

I don't earn enough to pay income tax at least, which is a good thing during occasions such as this. The unfortunate thing is you pay tax on most things you buy as well.

i think it's more about the fact that a multitude of much more serious crimes have largely been ignored by our police, but they spend time and effort on stuff like this

That doesn't help, no.

They are used to it.

No, I think the weird puritanism that leads to fixation on dumb stuff is disgusting really. There are a bunch of weird porn/sex stuff that is legislated too. I can't remember if maybe some of that was overturned again later. Like this below:

Upon going into force on 1 December 2014, the regulations were subject to immediate criticism, much of it arising from the debates around female ejaculation. A Vice interview with BBFC officials indicated that apparent female ejaculation was regularly cut due to restrictions on urolagnia, and the difficulty of distinguishing what could be female ejaculation from straightforward urination.[4] A blog for the New Statesman highlighted that many of the activities were popular in the LGBT and BDSM communities or related to expressions of female sexuality.[5] Myles Jackman, an obscenity lawyer, expressed concerns that the regulations set a dangerous precedent and described pornography as "the canary in the coal mine" of freedom of speech.[3]

Isn't that an ongoing debate anyway? It's not acid so who cares if the people involved consent? Can't even make a safety argument for that one.

Following the December 2014 face-sitting protest outside of Parliament, the feminist magazine [BEEP] criticized the regulations for censoring women's sexuality on the basis that "[t]he laws seem to specifically target acts that prioritize female pleasure or indicate female dominance."[9] The article pointed out the double standard in permitting men--but not women--to assume a dominant position during oral sex acts, and accused the regulations of perpetuating the sexual subordination of women in porn by writing pornography's gender bias into law. Its author Catherine Scott explained

Pandora Blake, webmaster of the BDSM-themed site Dreams of Spanking, insinuated that the sites shut down for failure to comply with the regulations "have been gay sites and female domination. No BDSM sites with female submissives have been targeted because that [women's subordination] is apparently fine."[9]

The list of banned acts includes: physical or verbal abuse; strangulation; penetration by any object "associated with violence"; and any caning. What's stirring up the ire of protestors, though, is the list of banned acts deemed "most violent": face-sitting; fisting; and--this is truly perplexing--female ejaculation.

Bolded is very open to interpretation once again. And what about self humiliation?

"I'm arresting you for calling yourself a [BEEP] on video."

I'm pretty sure I could be arrested for my posts on this forum if I posted them on social media.

(I'd like to say that's part of the reason I'm obnoxious and I guess in a way it is part of the reason I'm obnoxious but also I'm just a pervert really.)

[Nyctophilia]

I swear if I read one more MGTOW post (not here, obviously), I'm going to lose my mind. Why have people given up on relationships? Or at least it seems that way (maybe this just me being chronically online). Literally will see dudes on instagram, youtube, reddit all say how men should never get married, men should never have children. Like imagine if that was the general consensus lol. And I’m only using men as an example, I know it takes two to tango.

Why can't our culture start encouraging love, relationships, and commitment again? Literally I don?t think any other relationship or experience is greater than romantic love, except the love of a parent for their child. Or if someone does want a relationship, I feel like they?re discouraged in pursuing one. "Just focus on your hobbies and friends" or "stop looking and just let it happen if it does".

Maybe this is a rant idk

So I'm kind of biased due to personal experiences and what I see around me but friendships (and relationships with family members,) tend to last longer than romantic or sexual relationships, even sometimes with people you were once in a romantic relationship with.

I also think it's important sometimes to have friends to avoid loneliness due to the instability of those relationships. That's why I ended up liking the film The Extra Man even though I literally only watched it because I knew it involved Paul Dano 'crossdressing' (actually in that regard it was very disapointing cause Spoiler: it seemed to be an idea he liked more in fantasy than in reality,) but in a way it's more about male friendship. I mean I wouldn't think most guys would appreciate the film or the plotline it's very unconventional (multiple male characters are working as escorts,) but yeah. Several characters manage to find some kind of community in spite of that element of their life not working out. That was my takeaway anyway after watching but I have a tendency to forget most details of films I only watch once not long after.

If you can't maintain commitment to a friendship you probably can't maintain commitment to a romantic relationship either (being able to maintain friendships doesn't mean you can make a romantic relationship work either but if you can't even do that I can't imagine how you could. Most romantic relationships involve sex too and keeping up desire long term is probably almost impossible actually. It makes it a lot more difficult to navigate. Often relationships will end when kids are older or grown up.)

The differces between the genders is way too much for constant relationships to happen, this is a case of opposites DO NOT attract, the political and moral divide is so massive and it will only get worse.

Men and women really do compliment each other - I think the issue is men have become too passive and women are now expected to take on both the feminine and masculine role

Not really. Historically they've put aside their differences to raise children but most aren't really willing to do that now. A small minority manage to stay in a romantic relationship long term now that cultural shaming for breaking up and such is much lower and there's more choice involved. Something about Western culture also amplifies sex differences in personality and interests which I assume has to be making that worse.

The best way to fix this would be arranged marriage in synergy with polygyny, high age-gap marriage and young marriage.

A lot of guys have unrealistic notions about polygyny. First of all a lot of guys who try to do this in an open and casual relationship type fashion get accused of some sexual allegation or other eventually by women. Like they have a primary partner and then just have sex with others on the side in most cases. Sometimes those women will have sex with the wife and husband seperately...

"Wife pimps out husband to women." (That she's either just met, or is fucking.)

Is a dynamic that really doesn't work out well btw and there seems to be a wealth of conversation about this now backing up the idea it doesn't...

There's also the men who are often conservative and want multiple women who are exclusively committed only to them which is just unrealistic. No way would any guy like this promote polyandry though.

Going back to the sexual allegation thing of course you have to be pretty unsavoury in the first place generally but the fact that they don't get commitment from the guy is often part of the issue those women will have with men and although they also attack and compete with each other - they'll also often team up with each other and then feel more comfortable sharing various stories and forming a community almost. Kind of like a union too thinking about it.



(There was no need to include this but yeah.)

And I quote:

They had been unaware of one another's existence until they'd heard the podcast. Since then, they had formed a WhatsApp group and grown close.

"Am I happy?" she wrote in her journal. "No." But she also noted that she wasn't alone. "There is no need to feel abandoned anymore."

Part of the problem is that many couples also tend to be kind of predatory about it and go after certain kinds of women. Some of those women desperately try to avoid abandoment or whatever and don't share their view of sex and relationships. They're often struggling with various things... It ultimately ends up backfiring on them.

There's a reason this music video exists too:



I've thought about this and the only scenario I can see polygyny working in the West with liberal women is if the guy is completely submissive in the relationship - sexually too - and it's like some kind of femdom thing... Or some kind of non hierarchical polyamarous relationship with multiple women and a guy.

There's an assumption though, by conservatives and Christian conservatives who are into polygyny, that in this kind of relationship the guy will be prioritised and the head of the relationship in some sense but that's not necessarily the case. One thing Louis Theroux found was that it's very important for the women to like each other too and if they don't the relationship won't work:



"Here's what I learnt in the world of polyamory is that it works for some people which in a way is the first surprise because you might think everyone would collapse in sort of jealousy and recrimination. But when it works it's when the women are close friends. The women in the way are the bedrock for polyamory. The woman would have to be closer to my wife - and it would be a woman Russel in case you were wondering - the woman would have to be closer to my wife than to myself.

I wouldn't equate open relationships with poly relationships as Russel does in the title of this video (or whoever titled it but it's his channel.) Most of the time in open relationships there's a couple who just have casual sex with other people on the side which is different from many poly relationships.

"Did you feel like you wanted to intervene? A bit like you know recently the David Attenborough film crew saved those penguins. Did you feel like saving Jerry?"

"It's in the nature of documentaries that- of the kind I make there is the urge to intervene. But you can't. Part of these docs is giving people the autonomy and the respect to make their choices."

Yeah that's why I like his documentaries actually though I haven't watched any in many years. Because it is very hands off in this way.

And also I've seen anecdotes of relationships with two women and a man (even famous men,) where the women will leave the guy together. Like in this famous guy's relationship:

With his first wife [...], whom he married in the early 1970s, he has two daughters, [...] The couple also had a mutual lover, [...], although the relationship between the three ended in the early 1990s as [...the two women] left [...famous guy], taking his daughters with them.[2]: 158?159 [136] On 12 May 2007, he married [another woman,] with whom he has worked on [...][137]

This is framed in a fairly biased way I think (it's The Times so they're a relatively conservative news source,) because they seem to still be friends and obviously were involved in political activism together etc:

[name] first marriage ended when an experiment in polygamy went wrong. He had married [...] at the age of 20 and they had two daughters. By the late 1980s he was in a menage a trois with [..] and their mutual lover, [...] "We decided we wanted to experiment with a different way of living," he said. "We did this very openly; we didn't hide it." However, the relationship was not sustainable. "It ended explosively, as you might expect." The two women went off together.

But my point in highlighting this is that there's a tendency in conservative polgynous circles to downplay gynephilia in these relationships. Swinger circles too. It's all kind of treated as for men and that's not really how these relationships work most of the time....

He later remarried as mentioned and also the woman they were in a mutual relationship with did as well to another woman (not his wife,) in 2006 (?) Or they had a civil partnership I guess as that was pre gay-marriage being legalised.

DD: There were parts of my life I felt were just mine to tell and were pertinent to my growing up and coming out, etc. I did have long discussions with my sister about the work and I knew that she and other members of my family were perfectly happy with my revelations. There were areas of my life that warranted a slightly more oblique approach - namely my relationship with [...] and [...] and their children, which is I suspect the people and events to which you refer. Given that anything pertaining to [...] private life might attract unwanted attention I included only such details that were relevant to describe the friendship we have (and still do enjoy) and the political work we were jointly involved in. Since so much absolute rubbish goes flying about on the internet I think discretion and privacy were important values to uphold. I will say one thing about [..] though, which I would be very happy to publicly defend: he is a feminist. I was horrified and hurt, on my own behalf as well as that of [..] and [..] and [...] wife [...], by the absolute bollocks that was bouncing around online earlier this year concerning [..] so called misogyny. What a shame that so much time and energy was wasted which could have been more profitably spent in pursuing the cause of liberation for all - a cause for which [...] has worked tirelessly for more than forty years.

I see a lot of evo-psych explanations for gynephilia in women (especially the prevalance of it,) as being a way to make poly relationships work better but it doesn't really seem to do that in the way most people think. Like it doesn't seem like women are well suited for harem dynamics per se (in fact that seems even more unstable.)

Older women also sometimes start dating women after they break up with male partners and when they often have kids (despite not dating women beforehand,) so it seems to overlap with that tendency. I don't think they were all just closeted until that point, as many women talk about their preferences changing at different points in life.

I think even more than jealousy it's the dislike of certain power dynamics and feeling "cucked" that puts a lot of people off poly relationships.

It can presumably work with conservative women regardless of the power dynamics because they don't have the same preferences or values as liberal women and seem to be OK with men having power over them in relationships and traditional gender roles and so on.

I do think most people still have a preference for serial monogamy though and monogamy when having kids (like I've heard about people who have poly or open relationships who want to close that when having kids including - a certain infamous couple recently that are connected to certain quotes in this post. Where a famous woman asked a famous guy to do that I think from what I remember. He probably ignored that and he ignored many things she asked him not to do... That relationship was a really great example of like some of the toxicity you can find among poly and moreso open relationships. This has nothing to do with the people involved in the poly relationship with the two women but the quote about the 'cult of women.' and the woman saying she didn't feel alone anymore. I've sort of temporarily committed to not revealing people's names because I almost feel like it's irrelevant to any point I'm making - although I'm realising this also increases confusion a lot and now this whole thing is a mess. Also it has nothing to do with Destiny either xD)

But yeah a lot of people end up cheating as well during both poly and monogamous relationships. Realistically both monogamous and poly relationships don't tend to last long term these days.

It's fine if you don't have kids (well no a lot of this stuff like the cheating and predation and selfish behaviour isn't lol but yeah,) but obviously kids prefer stability.

[Nyctophilia]

What is going on with arts ?

I don't have a degree in art literally but it was a creative field that was like split between the art faculty and computing, business and law faculty and we did have drawing classes too as part of it. I also studied a fine art A level before that.

It's high risk/reward so most people make peanuts doing whatever they end up doing and artists are often not very grounded people. High rates of mental health issues too in some careers.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...job-insecurity

People in performing arts twice as likely to have depression, Equity finds

Paul Fleming, Equity's general secretary, said: "This landmark study confirms in concrete terms what Equity members have known for years: those working in the entertainment and performing arts industries are likely to experience poor mental health. There are a range of contributing factors, but it's abundantly clear that the harmful impacts of precarious work, low pay and poor working conditions are fuelling this collective crisis."

One per cent of the general population is bipolar but seven studies over the past 30 years have found rates of bipolar between 5% and 40% in populations of artists and writers reaching as high as 70% when cyclothymia, a milder syndrome of cycles of elation and gloom, is included.

In the case of unipolar or major depression, the population rate is about 5% but the rate among artists and writers in the various studies between 15% and 50%.

Lots of people get demoralised and give up on life.

Honestly not a conventional or traditional bunch of people at all either, so it doesn't really take a genius to figure it out lol.

Former artist here. The arts (commercial, fine, illustrative, media, etc) DO NOT PAY WELL. There are so many creatives out there, companies know they can pay them a pittance because there's always some other sucker willing to replace you. It's a hard field to break into, a lot of working 60+ hours a week to stay afloat. A lot of scrabbling for freelance work, a lot of times you need a side hustle. And when there is a recession, creative jobs are basically expendable.

The instability of a career in the arts is not conducive to raising kids.

So glad I got my master's in a completely different field.

lots of artists shouldn't have any career and be the wise and responsible guys and get a normal job. but they don't. you should be wise and responsible to have children.

If you say that you're not allowed to consume anything made by an artist now. No more music, animation, tv shows, books, comics, movies, games for you

nope, i can do whatever I want.

Then don't [BEEP] on artists if you consume their stuff

I am not shitting, they are what they are.

"Artists are stupid because they don't make enough money, they should do something else. But not too many artists, I still want to enjoy their work (they just don't deserve money)"

It comes with the temperament and it is what it is. They're not having kids as often anyway (as you can see,) but people complain about that too...

I'm pathologically unmotivated really. There's a high chance I have undiagonsed ADHD or something anyway due to basically life long issues with many symptoms.

I get bad brain fog and stuff too. Definitely some kind of chemical imbalance is going on too based on my constant skin issues. Then there's the anxiety issues on top of the other stuff compounding the problem of even seeing doctors and basic things like that when there are too many hoops to jump through.

I don't think people who don't struggle with motivation appreciate how hard it is. Like trying to move when you're stuck in mud or you're chained to a radiator or something.



"You and I may all hear the noise in the kitchen. The person with ADHD is compelled to react to it. 'Oh did you hear that? I guess they're washing dishes. Maybe I'll stop in and take a look. Did you know I was a dishwasher when I was back in college?' You see what's going on here? You all heard the dish but it was irrelevant to what we're here to do today but to the ADHD individual the distraction is going to provoke a response and the response can't be inhibited and now they're off to the races skipping from one thing to another to another."

Yeah.

People project how easy they find doing things onto other people all the time.

I know many artists (including my spouse), and I have a couple of ideas. One, artists tend to be unconventional thinkers who are skeptical of tradition. Norms often don't dictate their behavior.

Also, many are quite political, and they tend to criticize the things they consider problematic, which leads them to spend a lot of time thinking about the worst aspects of society (discrimination, climate change, wealth inequality, etc). It can make for a dim view of the future and of human nature.

Last, many artists seem to have weak connections to their families (unless they come from a family of artists). This break with family often stems from criticism they receive when they decide to pursue careers in art. I know some people whose parents tell them they made a stupid decision going into art every single time they have a conversation. It doesn't really encourage warm thoughts about family.

Rumination is mostly a neurotic trait and I don't think artists and creative people are actually more likely to struggle with neuroticism (though the ones that do stand out which creates the stereotype,) but I've heard mixed things both that creative people are less neurotic than average and more neurotic on average and that it correlates negatively with creativity (along with conscientiousness.) I don't think art students are necessarily the same group as artists in general though so important to seperate those. Seems like art students are higher in neuroticism:

https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/12568077...print_2016.pdf

Consistent findings across studies were that students of arts/humanities and psychology scored high on Neuroticism and Openness; students of political sc. scored high on Openness; students of economics, law, political sc., and medicine scored high on Extraversion; students of medicine, psychology, arts/humanities, and sciences scored high on Agreeableness; and students of arts/humanities scored low on Conscientiousness

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886915300921

Bolded is also why art students/former art students don't often end up what was is it he said lol... 'Wise and responsible.'

They basically always have high 'openness' since that's the personality type responsible for creativity:

Openness to experience is one of the domains which are used to describe human personality in the Five Factor Model.[1][2] Openness involves six facets, or dimensions: active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety (adventurousness), intellectual curiosity, and challenging authority (psychological liberalism).[3] A great deal of psychometric research has demonstrated that these facets or qualities are significantly correlated.[2] Thus, openness can be viewed as a global personality trait consisting of a set of specific traits, habits, and tendencies that cluster together.

Bolded would be a problem.

https://www.ideatovalue.com/crea/nic...th-creativity/

Some individual tests have shown a positive correlation between certain traits like Extraversion and Creativity, and a negative correlation between Neuroticism as well as Conscientiousness and creative performance.

Amongst all of the five criteria, there is nonetheless only one which is significantly positively correlated with creative performance, such as those measured on divergent thinking tests:

Openness to Experience

Yes, out of all of the five traits, only Openness to Experience seems to be directly linked to creativity.

The strong link has been found in multiple research studies (1978, 1987, 2006, 2009).

Indeed, a 1998 meta-analysis of over 83 other research studies found the strongest positive correlations to creativity being with Openness to Experience, and the strongest negative correlations to Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.

?Creative people are more autonomous, introverted, open to new experiences, norm-doubting, self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile and impulsive.

Introverted people obviously interract with others less which means less likely to get into relationships presumably and the norm doubting part means they would be more sceptical about things like having kids.

In Mark Runco's outline on the latest creativity research, he summarised the following personality traits which highly creative people seem to prefer:

Autonomy
Flexibility
Preference for complexity
Openness to experience
Sensitivity
Playfulness
Tolerance for ambiguity
Risk taking and risk tolerance
Intrinsic motivation
Psychological androgyny
Self efficacy
Wide interests and curiosity

I guess being androgynous would make it more difficult/less likely too.

I'm guessing... The neuroticism connection might be because LGBT+ people are more neurotic and also more creative and higher in openness - especially bisexual people. They're also more psychologically androgynous. So maybe even if neuroticism correlates negatively with creativity the fact that group are more neurotic means creative people as a whole are more neurotic? I think it's cute how people are desperate to try and find some silver lining in what is a terrible personality trait (speaking as a neurotic person of course.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...eative/471447/

But still, belief in this magic sauce persists not only in popular media, but in the research community as well. In a recent issue of Trends in Cognitive Sciences, a group of psychologists led by Adam Perkins, a lecturer in neurobiology at King's College London, published a column titled "Thinking Too Much: Self-Generated Thought as the Engine of Neuroticism." (Although the paper was an opinion piece rather than a new study, the authors did draw on a number of prior studies.) Perkins and his colleagues argued that neurotic people may have a more active "threat generator"--in addition to being afraid of immediate threats in the environment (which was already known to be high in neurotic people), perhaps they're also constantly being fed concerns about things that only exist in their imagination.

So far, so good. Neurotic people do tend to "self-generate" an awful lot of concerns. Heck, I can relate to this--even when there is no danger in sight, my mind automatically seems to compute all the possible permutations of what could go wrong.

But in a section of the paper titled "Links between neuroticism and creativity," they speculate that neurotic minds may be more creative "because they will tend to dwell on problems to a greater degree." In support of their argument, they quote Isaac Newton: "I keep the subject constantly before me, and wait till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light." They also mention Newton's many neurotic tendencies: constant brooding over past mistakes, worrying obsessively about his predecessors, his nervous breakdown in the summer and autumn of 1693.

The thing about thinking a lot and daydreaming is that it's essential to creativity but negative rumination is mostly distracting and useless. I guess though if you pair that with intelligence and a general interest in problem solving you might eventually solve a problem. Intelligence being the more important part really.

Otherwise you just kind of obsess endlessly about whatever with no productive outcome whatsoever. Like what I'm doing here and in most of my posts hahaha.

If this were the only argument in support of the thesis, it would be easy to discount. After all, there's nothing in the single case study of Newton to suggest that his neuroticism was a cause of his contributions to Calculus, mechanics, gravity, and cubic-plane curves. Newton's quote suggests that he had great powers of concentration and grit (passion and perseverance for especially long-term goals), not that his nervous breakdown was somehow a positive contributor to his groundbreaking work.

But Perkins and colleagues do go on, bringing in past research to support their claim. Among the papers they cite is a study of advertising-industry employees showing that those working in creative roles tend to score significantly higher on neuroticism than employees in "noncreative roles." They also cite a study showing that people in creative professions have a higher risk of psychiatric illness and suicide.

But here's the thing: One can be creative in any field. There are a heck of a lot of uncreative artists and a lot of creative accountants (far too many, in fact). And for the most part, the relationships between neuroticism and creativity are pretty weak.

In a reply, a group of psychology researchers published a response to the opinion piece reviewing the existing literature on the link between neuroticism and creativity. Their review found only very weak (and sometimes even negative) correlations between neuroticism and a host of creativity-related variables, including IQ, creative thinking, insightful problem solving, creative achievement, everyday creative behavior, and self-assessed creativity.

Along the same lines, my colleagues and I recently administered a battery of cognitive and personality tests to three demographically diverse samples, totaling 1,035 participants. The average correlation between neuroticism and creative achievement was zero. In fact, we found that the only personality trait that consistently predicted creative achievement across the arts and sciences was openness to experience.

I still don't think it has a positive impact. I just think neurotic people self select into that kind of thing for other reasons. Like imagine you're pathologically neurotic and the idea of working for someone makes you feel trapped or you worry about being able to quit/escape, or the idea of working around other people is something you want to avoid due to anxiety? Time to try and become a self employed writer I guess. Things like that.

Not to mention if you are neurotic you want to find ways to distract yourself and creative/fantasy stuff probably helps.

Openness to experience is a dimension of personality that reflects the drive for cognitive exploration. This could mean a thoughtful exploration of your inner world of ideas, or it could mean an exploration of beauty, art, music, culture, and new experiences. This sense of openness has been linked to higher dopamine, which has been referred to as ?the neuromodulator of exploration.?

This article is just kind of echoing what I was saying actually lol:

In the 1950s, the Columbia University psychologist Jerome Singer and his colleagues found that people differ widely in the content of their daydreams. They identified three main daydreaming styles: poor attentional control (representing the inability to concentrate on an ongoing stream of thought or task), guilty-dysphoric daydreaming (representing obsessive, anguished fantasies), and positive constructive daydreaming (representing playful, wishful, and constructive imagery).

Singer called this last group the "happy daydreamers," because they "simply value and enjoy their private experiences, are willing to risk wasting a certain amount of time on them, but also can apparently use them for effective planning and for self-amusement during periods of monotonous task activity or boredom."

Critically, research has shown that while guilty-dysphoric daydreaming is correlated with neuroticism, positive constructive daydreaming is not. Instead, it?s associated with openness to experience--and therefore, one could argue, with creativity.

What these findings suggest is that creativity doesn't just involve imagination. It also involves motivation, organization, and collaboration. The neurotic imagination can really distract from these processes. For instance, emerging research suggests that math anxiety and stereotype threat reduce performance because worrying takes up precious memory resources. For optimal creativity, you want multiple brain networks to be firing on all cylinders, flexibly ready to engage and disengage depending on the stage of the creative process. You don?t want nagging, irrelevant concerns to impede on your creative possibilities.

When you think about it, it's almost a perfect map of the stableness of employment. If you're in education or healthcare, you're basically guaranteed a secure job for the next 30 years. The next most stable would be engineering, where you're going to do financially well and be in good demand, but there might be some recessions in your way.

Everything else is a crapshot, and more to do with your connections and family wealth, with art being the prime example. IT is the only outlier, in that it should be fairly stable, but it's also a male dominated space, and women likely still face discrimination,.

Another interesting not is that postgraduate managment is an outlier. Probably because, if you haven't managed to get a managment job by graduate level, and have to do postgraduate managment, you have none of the necessary connections or ability to actually get a job in managment.

I've been around a bunch of programmers and my friend is a senior programmer at a video game company. I assume it's connected to personality again. It's kind of a stereotype anyway that guys in tech have difficulty finding romantic relationships.

My friend is very picky about people and incredibly introverted. Never drank alcohol either which makes socialising more difficult. Doesn't want kids, hasn't tried to date anyone in many years and didn't have much success with online dating. I think this is probably true of an increasingly significant group of people these days tbf but he's not very aggressive about pursuing that.

Found this:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2015...ise-agreeable/

Introverted but creative

The trait with the strongest link to programming skill was intelligence, with individuals who scored higher on intelligence tests producing code with fewer errors. Openness to experience was also vitally important, as Gnambs expected. Conscientiousness was too, although to a lesser extent.

As for the more popular stereotypes, the only one that held any water was the expectation of introversion: people with lower extraversion had higher programming scores. Neuroticism and agreeableness, however, didn?t display any strong link to programming.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Professionals

IT professionals had significantly higher levels of agreeableness and tough-mindedness, and lower conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, assertiveness, customer service orientation, optimism, and work drive.

"Customer service orientation" Lol.

Being customer service orientated means having a positive attitude and being eager to help when working with a customer. It also means demonstrating a willingness to provide the customer with the best service possible.

This is against the law in the UK:



I have the south English personality (tm) type but I do actually like that tendency Americans have to be bubbly and optimistic (which some UK people have too. According to my dad one of my cousins who I am not in contact with is like that. We are not lol. Oh and she's from Liverpool.) I mean it freaks me out too sometimes when people are like that because of my temperament and avoidant attatchment style and fear of being socially obligated and roped into doing things I don't want to etc, but my favourite school teacher was American because he had that happy/optimistic personality type. At one point we had pizza parties if we did well in maths but the head teacher shut that down because the other kids in other classes might get envious which is very UK and likewise his idea was very US imo.

(And I know there are huge cultural differences in different areas of the US. He was from Minnesota where people are stereotyped as being more nice like Canadians I guess. But also, I'm speaking in a generalised way.)

[Nyctophilia]

Scrolling through subreddits:

Do you think if they banned porn, masturbation, condoms and abortion nation-wide, there would suddenly be a lot more babies?

God this sub is scary sometimes.

Having a bunch of unplanned and unwanted kids is not a good idea unless you want a higher crime rate and people wandering around who don't contribute anyway.

Banning abortion tends to just get balanced out with infanticide.

Banning condoms is a great way to spread more STD's.

As soon as people start to get the feeling they're being forced, they'll put in more effort to abstain. Women especially.

There's a study on small monkeys where one was horribly forced to be a mother which ended up her mutilating her baby. It can't be re-tested due to animal cruelty but people are crazy to think that it wouldn't happen to unwanted children if the pregnancy had a chance to grow in a healthy way.

This does happen among Humans too. As some twitter poster said:

Abortion is the only acceptable way of Eugenics for human species now yet idiot republicans want to abolish it? Women or females eugenics instincts are as strong as their maternal instincts.

How are you going to ban masturbation lmao.

Good point and I used to use my imagination.

Forgot what subreddit I was on and thought I was on r/rolereversal for a minute lol (why is he topless? Feels like it's created more for an external voyeur. The vibe is weird):



It's giving that episode of Bob's Burgers where the kids end up in the male strip club Pickles after they get stuck in the ice in an ice cream truck (Except Louise who is about that age hates girly stuff like that.)

In "Land of the Loft," Jen takes Tina, Gene, and Louise to the club to see her cousin Dave who performs as a pilot in a 9-1-Buns show after they take his ice cream truck which Jen used to get to them out into the icy weather.

It's the sequel to Today:

But could men order him around?

...

There was a whole episode about Louise's antipathy for fairy princesses lol:



I thinks she'd be more into the undisneyfied fairy mythology:

The Unseelie Court describes the darkly-inclined fairies. Unlike the Seelie Court, no offense was deemed necessary to bring down their assaults.[4] In Scotland, they were seen as closely allied with witches.[5]

In folklore, the Unseelie Court fairies are often depicted as residing in a realm that exists somewhere between Heaven and Hell, representing a space of chaos, trickery, and unpredictable nature, where neither divine nor infernal forces hold complete sway; essentially, a liminal space where the rules of the mortal world do not apply

Black Annis (also known as Black Agnes or Black Anna) is a bogeyman figure in English folklore. She is imagined as a blue-faced hag or witch with iron claws and a taste for human flesh (especially children).[1] She is said to haunt the countryside of Leicestershire, living in a cave in the Dane Hills with a great oak tree at the entrance.[1][2]

She is said to venture out at night looking for unsuspecting children and lambs to eat, then tanning their skins by hanging them on a tree before wearing them around her waist.[2][3] She would reach inside houses to snatch people. Legend has it that she used her iron claws to dig her cave out of the side of a sandstone cliff, making herself a home there which is known as Black Annis' Bower Close. The legend led to parents warning their children that Black Annis would get them if they did not behave.[1][2] She was also known to hide in the branches of her oak tree waiting to leap upon unsuspecting prey.[1][4]

Other traditions stated that when she ground her teeth people could hear her, giving them time to bolt their doors and to keep away from the window. It is said that cottages in Leicestershire were purposely built with small windows so that Black Annis could only get a single arm inside. When she howled she could be heard 5 mi (8.0 km) away, then the cottagers would fasten skins across the window and place protective herbs above it to keep themselves safe.[1][Note 1]

Like how she wanted a dollhouse after she saw her teachers creepy violent doll house photos.

She's a very 11 year old 9 year old. Well I guess not entirely, I was into Beetlejuice when I was 7-8. But I think her degree of edgelord is more common in teenagers.

A Seelie (left) with a Unseelie (right)

Isn't that Hades and Persephone fanart though lol? I swear it is.

Yes:

https://www.deviantart.com/sandara/a...one-1-91425066

Cause I found those like a decade ago.

There was another painting by the same artist as well with a similar aesthetic. Gets used as cover image for intense YouTube music uploads and such:



It's very deviantart.

It's very:



So I guess fair point. Everything on deviantart is like that though.

I think a lot of people think Prince Nuada is an elf because of his aesthetic appearence but he's actually the first king of the Tuatha De Danann from Gaelic mythology:

In*Irish mythology,*Nuada*or*Nuadu*(modern spelling:*Nuadha), known by the epithet*Airgetlam*(Airgeadlamh, meaning "silver hand/arm"), was the first king of the*Tuatha De Danann. He is also called*Nechtan,*Nuadu Necht*and*Elcmar, and is the husband of*Boann.[1]*He is mostly known from the tale in which he loses his arm or hand in battle, and thus his kingship, but regains it after being magically healed by*Dian Cecht. Nuada is thought to have been a god and is related to the*British*and*Gaulish*god*Nodens, who is associated with hunting and fishing.[1]*His*Welsh*equivalent is Nudd or*Lludd Llaw Eraint.

The Tuath De Danann are often depicted as kings, queens, druids, bards, warriors, heroes, healers and craftsmen who have supernatural powers. They dwell in the*Otherworld*but interact with humans and the human world. They are associated with the*s?dhe: prominent ancient*burial mounds*such as*Bru na Boinne, which are entrances to Otherworld realms.[1][2]*Their traditional rivals are the*Fomorians*(Fomoire), who might represent the destructive powers of nature,[3][4]*and whom the Tuatha D? Danann defeat in the*Battle of Mag Tuired. Prominent members include*the Dagda*("the great god");*The Morrigan*("the great queen" or "phantom queen");*Lugh;*Nuada;*Aengus;*Brigid;*Manannan;*Di an Cecht*the healer; and*Goibniu*the smith, one of the*Tri De Dana*("three gods of craft").[5]*Several of the Tuatha De Danann are*cognate*with*ancient Celtic*deities: Lugh with*Lugus, Brigit with*Brigantia, Nuada with*Nodons, Ogma with*Ogmios, and Goibniu with*Gobannus.[1]

Medieval texts about the Tuatha De Danann were written by Christians. Sometimes they explained the Tuatha De Danann as*fallen angels*who were neither wholly good nor evil,[6]*or ancient people who became highly skilled in magic, but several writers acknowledged that at least some of them had been gods.[1]

Matchmakers should make a comeback.

When people are asked why they don't have children, a top reason they give is that they haven't found the right partner yet. Many people are struggling to find a partner well into their 30s, which is obviously going to impact their ability to have children. The first step to improving the fertility rate is helping people find a partner to have them with.

Elves are somewhat similar but are obviously Norse and not Gods.

There's been meetups that were setup near my area in Des Moines. What little I've heard about it there seems to be trouble getting men to show.

That also seems to be true in religious communities as well for some reason. I don't know specifically why that is the case. Matchmaking events in my own religious community seem to be dominated by women, with the organizers having to pull teeth to get men to show up.

For what it is worth, the women showing up to these events are generally older (by my community standards: late 20s to mid 30s). And at least in my religious community where marriages happen in early to mid 20s, I've gotten the sentiment from other men I've talked to that all the "good women" would have already gotten picked up and wouldn't need to go to these events.

I'm genuinely shocked it was the men they had the problem with and not the other way around

Date Me DSM was what popped up on Tiktok a while back. I just looked through a few of their videos and they were calling out to men bc the women?s tickets were sold out with a waiting list.

Interestingly I just came across this thread: [gen z subreddit]

Some of the comments are informative. I sympathize with them too. I'm not terribly interested myself either because I don't see much of a return on investment.

Why would you pay $30 to take 2 hours out of your Friday after a long week of work to get rejected by a bunch of women?

Even if it was free most wouldn't go

Like dead [BEEP] this is getting out of hand, y'all motherfuckers can not be whining about how gen z is so lonely and there isn't anywhere to meet people in real life and then be shitting on an event to meet people in real life

why would i do that when i can play games with buddies, some of them women too. there is no value to dating so i'll pass it everytime

There is a ton of value in dating. If you are asexual or just truly don?t want any sort of companionship, sure. But those types of people are rare. I'd venture to say if you found a woman worth dating, you'd be extremely happy. [..]

Im straight & i dont wont anyone so im in the 2nd category, hell there are asexuals that want romance but no sex & no if a woman came to me, i would reject them, i have no interest in no one & being come up on creeps me out like alot of women feel about men

Interesting. This matches what I'm hearing though but I wouldn't know since I'm not trying lol.

Just date women (if you're a woman.)

Are you asexual?

Nope, hetero

You can be hetero and still asexual. Are you just not interested in getting closer to people right now?

Sorry I'm just generally curious. I haven't been on the market for 8 years, so I have no idea what people are generally feeling and going through.

I dont consider myself an asexual, they dont want sex or want to be with people but dont want sex, i do want sex but im also not interested or worried about getting it after having unpleasant experiences. I also dont want to be with anyone after past experiences, i rather play games with people instead

Yeah it's pretty fascinating.

Look up online dating statistics for men and then come back. And yeah you don't have to go online, but the majority of women do not like being approached in public. So you either have to get lucky and find someone online or through shared circle/ mutual friends, and that's pretty much it.

I guess you could try speed dating...

Also finding people through a shared social circle was how most people throughout history found partners and friends it just used to be fairly easy at least during liminal periods of your life. Like university. Or a holiday camp. 12% of Americans now have no close friends.

Per the shocking study, nearly half of all Americans -- 49% -- reported having fewer than three close friends. This marks a nearly twofold increase from 1990, when less than one-third (27%) of Americans had three or fewer close friends.

During that year, 33% reported having 10 or more close friends, compared to just 13% today.

If that wasn?t bad enough, a mind-boggling 12% of interviewees claimed to have zero friends today, four times as many as 30 years ago, per the survey.

Although studies of the subject tend to be general estimates of the entire population, it looks worse when we focus on generations who grew up with the internet. When polling exclusively American millennials, a pre-pandemic 2019 YouGov poll found that 22% have "zero friends" and 30% "no best friends". For those born between 1997 and 2012 (Generation Z), there has been no widespread, credible study done yet on this question - but if you're adjacent to internet spaces, you already intuitively grasp that these same online catalysts are deepening for the next generation.

Another concerning trend is so-called "late adulthood", which has been particularly common among those born from the 1990s onward. The term refers to a delaying of traditional milestones of adulthood such as getting a driver's license, moving out, dating, starting work and so on.

The trend became obvious starting in the 2010s. In 2019, it was compiled in a comprehensive study titled The Decline in Adult Activities Among US Adolescents, 1976-2016. The same paper found a similar decline in how often high schoolers went out without their parents. Some of this is not necessarily "bad", and it's more symptomatic than anything else. For example, delayed adulthood is linked to less of a desire to engage in risky behavior like delinquency or excess drinking.

Singles events aren't attractive to men. There's an assumption that only losers (of both genders) would show up to them. And isn't there a degree of truth to that? Attractive people generally don't need help with it.

So most of you care more about the perception of yourself as an attractive/succesful person than meeting people? That tracks.

Exactly. I can go up to any of the girls in my classes and get rejected for free!

But I'd bet money that he doesn't lol.

Except my point is that often there isn't more women, and the few that there are are usually already taken or have a gaggle of simps around them.

Reality wasn't much better in more female centric studies either, I had a friend who was basically the only guy in a class of 30 women and none wanted him, partly because the majority was already taken.

Most young men are basically fighting for the very rare normal single young women as there is much fewer of them it's actually brutal.

So who are all the women dating? Just figure out which guy they're all sharing since most don't want to share guys in reality and then when they realise they're being cheated on or sharing the guy they can just find each other online, excommunicate him and/or make sexual allegations about him, and then he's removed from the dating market. Rinse, repeat.

What?



This happens all the time now lol...

I wonder how much worse things are going to get before civilisation collapses lol.

A low-trust society is defined as one in which interpersonal trust is relatively low, and shared ethical values are lacking.[1] Conversely, a high-trust society is one where interpersonal trust is relatively high, and where ethical values are strongly shared.

According to researchers, low-trust societies are typically kinship-based;[1] outcomes of low-trust societies can include difficulty in forming and maintaining corporate structures.[2] Mechanisms and institutions that are corrupted, dysfunctional, or absent in low-trust societies include respect for private property rights, a trusted civil court system, democratic voting and acceptance of electoral outcomes, and voluntary tax payment.[3] Research has identified a correlation between linear-active cultures (i.e. following a daily schedule with a single task at a time)[4] with high-trust societies, and multi-active cultures (flexible schedules with many tasks at once, often in an unplanned order) with low-trust cultures.[5]

Interesting. In cities, I usually have to watch out for other "groups" coz I don't know what they are up to. It is like Bosnia civil war 101.

What the hell are you talking about?

Kinda like how you have nothing in common with your neighbor?

Yeah, my neighbour is a weirdo. But it's a big leap from that to "We'll I guess we're headed for the Balkan War?"

Lol. This feels like a scene from a sitcom.

[Nyctophilia]

My grandma (Silent Gen) was telling me stories about how girls had to survive in situations.

Apparently it wasn’t uncommon to corner a girl and threaten violence, and they did what needed to be done to diffuse the situation. Then were told boys will be boys.

I was born '94 in the suburbs but my boomer mom still had this mentality... it was like she just accepted that boys/men are allowed to do whatever the hell they want and us girls just have to accept it + know that we'll be blamed

Oh my mum is too aggressive for that. I think even moreso before my lifetime based on anecdotes I've heard.

It has a lot to do with class.

One of my daughters had a boy at school do the classic hit her/throw gum in her hair and we had a meeting about it with the school because she didn't want to go anymore.

They did the "oh, he just really likes her!" bullshit. I stood up and said how I like them to, and will slap them both across the face to show my affection. Both his parents just sat there and then it hit the dad, he said "I need to talk to him. I am so sorry". His mother kept defending it and the principal told them both that if their son keeps it up he will be expelled. She also said no rumors or trash talking will be tolerated and seen as bullying, and their son is never to talk to my daughter anymore.

The mom walked out of there furious, still not grasping how her son is in the wrong and it's everyone else's fault. Guess my point is that attitude is still being perpetuated by parents and it's really toxic.

You have to wonder if their relationship involves domestic abuse or if she has a history that involves that. I guess he kind of grasped it though and she didn't which makes me wonder about her upbringing. But some mums have this delusional level of defensiveness over their sons. Also it can be a narcissistic defence too.

[Nyctophilia]

I'm reading reviews on tripadviser of this lido and restaurant space with some spa facilities. There's some very mixed reviews especially about the restaurant. Then I noticed this one (feel like you could probably make a YouTube series or at least video out of this but I'm sure someone already has.)

This was booked as a spa experience birthday treat for myself and family. I had not read up on the venue before arriving Arrived with time to enjoy the pool, hot pool, sauna, steam room. Had a swim in a quiet pool but unable to use the hot pool or sauna as it was packed all of the time. The steam room was just warm. I got cold waiting for my treatment, there was nowhere to sit and wait comfortably. The package was booked for me so as I mentioned had not read up on the venue, so when it came to my treatment was VERY surprised to see a male "beautician". The Tapas was good Customers should have been made to have a shower and soap down before entering the pool I would not recommend

That seems a bit sexist lol?

[Nyctophilia]

Assuming this reddit story is real (a lot of these are AI generated) and there are elements of this one that have that surreal fake AI vibe. Like the repetition of certain things. I have some thoughts...

I think my marriage is over


I met a man who I thought to be charismatic, loving, caring, handsome, everything I could have wanted. We got on so well, we were inseparable. 3 months later we got engaged and 3 months later we got married. It was a fairytale wedding and our honeymoon was absolutely beautiful. Been married for 2 years.

I was a virgin and remember crying the next morning for some reason - I thought because I lost a sense of my innocence I wasn?t sure. I
noticed that my husband?s attitude towards me seemed different the morning after our wedding. I remember asking him what was wrong because he seemed slightly distant or cold. He said nothing so I brushed it off but ever since then I noticed a difference in his behaviour towards me - nothing major.

We lived in his parents house and then a few month?s later secured our own home. A few months after moving into our own home he started smoking weed everyday (a habit I thought he had quit a long time ago but something that started in his teen years). He also did other drugs occasionally for the fun of it which were experiences that we bonded over as I had never been exposed to these things in my life. He smoked weed for 1.5 years of our marriage. I tried getting him to stop but ultimately it was something that had to come from him.

My trust issues with him started when I noticed his change in attitude towards me - I didn?t understand how someone could just change suddenly so I naturally questioned things. Since the beginning of our marriage I saw increasingly suspicious behaviour over time. Starting from scratches and marks on his body, to marks on our bed and walls that could easily be explained away.

One day I saw a bank charge for something unusual. I asked him about it he said it was a game and then admitted he paid for a live online video chat with a woman. I made it clear that this was borderline cheating for me and it was not acceptable and that if cheating ever was to happen I would be out. A month later I found a lipstick stain on a glass in my dishwasher so I searched his car and found a pantyhose sock with the same lipstick colour underneath where his spare tyre goes and condoms underneath his driver seat. He said the lipstick on the cup could have been mine, the sock could have been his mums since it was his mums old car but we had cleaned it out and the condoms he said he wanted to use with me when we went on like a bush adventure. I believed him, well I tried to but it was difficult.

A few months later I went out for the day and he said he was going out with friends which he never did so I encouraged him. He only came home at like 1am that night and was crying saying that he had a lot of drugs, went to a massage parlour and there was a girl grinding on him but he didn?t end up doing the deed. He was worried that he might have herpes because he was seeing bumps on him but I didn?t see anything. I took all of my things and left the house. The next day he told me he couldn?t have done that to me and he was just hallucinating. He showed me $100 note that apparently was all that he had with him (we used joint bank accounts). I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt since he was definitely hallucinating the spots so maybe he had hallucinated the whole thing.

I went back home and things were good for a few weeks until he told me to stop asking him about it even though I was still trying to wrap my head around the whole incident. It obviously still affected me. He had his location on for a little bit to help with trust but it was occasionally off he said because his phone was dead and he eventually turned it off because he didn?t believe in that sort of relationship.

He started to become suicidal in October last year and was telling his parents that our marriage wasn?t working out anymore. He practically blamed his unhappiness on me. He eventually decided to quit weed and thought that going to Bali for a few days would be a good place to do that. He was looking at detox retreats as well.

He told me that he wouldn?t leave me at home alone if it wasn?t that bad and that he was only doing it for me and that was the only thing getting him through it. Little did I know that on top of four condoms that were missing from our bedroom that day, he had also been to the pharmacy to purchase condoms and delay gel.
He sent a long message to a girl on his way to the hotel, tried calling her 6 times and then facetimed me an hour after writing the message. He told me he was going to walk around the hotel and then go watch soccer.

He proceeded to ignore me the entire day while drinking and spending time at the pools. He then called me the next morning telling me that he doesn?t know what happened the previous night, that he had downloaded tinder, checked the cameras and a woman went to his room for 20 minutes, and was scared of having herpes on his lips which again I couldn?t see. He said he drank 36 beers and tried to swim out into the ocean to drown himself but a lady pulled him back out and he woke up on the shore. He then again ignored me the following day continuing to drink until he worried his loved ones. He said that he was trying to commit suicide and said goodbye to his family. The hotel reception staff told me that he was ok, he had just made a mistake with his wife. Above everything, all I cared for was his wellbeing and sent his brother to go and get him. The next day he was crying at the bar calling me to go and get him because he was in such a bad state and scared of himself. His brother went to get him.

When he got back I got him hospitalised for 2 weeks until he started antidepressants. We bonded a lot during that time and I was there for him everyday. I confronted him about the missing condoms from our house. He said he intended to cheat but when it came to it he didn?t end up doing it.

After a few weeks of being back home we started having arguments and he was threatening me with getting a second wife. I shut off towards him emotionally and decided to finally go through his phone which is when I found the message he sent to the woman wanting to commit to her. I took all of his things to his parents house but he came home and I confronted him about the message and he said yep. I asked him about the massage parlour incident and he said yep that day I embarrassed myself because I couldn?t perform I had too much drugs. For me that was it so I left.

Now a month later I have cut all contact but he is sending me emails saying that he never cheated on me and that he was drunk when writing that message and that he only admitted to the massage parlour incident because he was angry that day because my dad was threatening him.

Tldr; my husband keeps saying he cheated and then takes it back.

To be fair, she was a virgin. She seems to lack a lot of life experience. The second wife thing also made me think there were cultural influences at play. Couldn't be for certain. Doesn't mean any of the comments are wrong. it may mean that o girl likely needed to grow up and have some life experience before jumping into marriage. In other words, she didn't know any better.

So, as a cushion, I would say, forgive yourself, learn from the experience, and do better next time.

It's a stupid thing to do but unfortunately some young women think the world is operating according to their mating strategy of being sociosexually restricted and then make bad decisions but you've got to be more wary then that. This is also why having friends to vet people can be useful.

I know this kind of thing (moving in together and getting married after no time at all) is common in the sapphic/lesbian community and it works out sometimes like this couple but even then it's a rush:



Lesbian women are way more likely to be into hypermonogamy than gay men hence the differences in these cultures where gay men struggle to find long term relationships and open relationships are super common. (Some people boil this down to a sex difference or men and women thing and I understand why and it makes sense when limiting to heterosexual relationships most of the time but it's a lazy cognitive shortcut, ignores the mostly heterosexual and unrestricted bisexual women and men and really these differences are fascinating I think so flattening it to just male and female is so boring, and so I will not be doing so.) Though part of that is hypersexual unrestricted men saying they're gay who define the culture but aren't the whole of the culture. Feminine homosexual men are as a group more restricted. Eg this research:

Bisexual women exhibit personality traits and sexual behaviors more similar to those of heterosexual males than heterosexual women, including greater openness to casual sex and more pronounced dark personality traits. These are less evident or absent in homosexual individuals.

This reddit comment cracked me up so I'm including it:

That title really reads like being bi turns women into awful people. You know, like men.

Yes that is how society functions. Thank you for noticing.


They also included 'mostly heterosexual' women since a lot of women won't use the label bisexual. Which cracked me up too tbh (not the only study I've seen doing this recently. Though some find differences between bisexual and 'mostly heterosexual' women so they're not technically entirely the same group depending on what you're studying.)

When examining sexual orientation differences, the researchers found notable patterns, particularly among females. Mostly heterosexual and bisexual females demonstrated elevated levels of sociosexuality and sexual excitation compared to their exclusively heterosexual counterparts. They also scored higher in psychopathy.


"There are now several replications showing that mostly heterosexual women are higher in trait psychopathy than other sexual orientation groups," Semenyna noted. "Psychopathy in this context just means being less concerned with other people's feelings, social expectations, and having lower impulse control. Mostly heterosexual women score more like heterosexual men on this trait, but it's not clear why. It could just be that these women are less concerned about what others think of them, and less constrained by social mores that would view same-sex attraction or behavior negatively."

interestingly, exclusively homosexual females did not exhibit the same increases in sociosexuality and sexual excitation, indicating that mostly heterosexual and bisexual females form distinct groups.

Among males, the findings were somewhat different. Mostly heterosexual males showed higher levels of sexual excitation compared to exclusively heterosexual males. However, there were no significant differences in sociosexuality or Dark Triad traits between homosexual and heterosexual males.

Homosexual males did exhibit higher levels of sexual inhibition, aligning more closely with female-typical patterns. This indicates that while mostly heterosexual and bisexual males may be more sexually excitable, exclusively homosexual males show increased caution and inhibition in sexual contexts.

From wikipedia about some previous research:

Richard A. Lippa proposed that there exist two dimensions of sexual orientation: a gender typicality dimension, and a monosexuality dimension. With the gender typicality dimension being associated with the heterosexual-homosexual distinction, while the sociosexuality dimension has many behavioral effects. He proposes someone who would be at any point in the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum will become bisexual if they are high on the sociosexuality dimension. This dimension being associated with higher sociosexuality, higher neuroticism, lower agreeableness, lower honesty-humility, higher openness to experience, and a minor degree of gender nonconformity.[70] He proposes this as explaining phenomena such as increased juvenile delinquency among bisexuals,[71] increased mental health issues and substance use disorder among bisexuals,[72] and increased dark triad traits among bisexual women.[73] Critics of this theory have described elements observed as coming from experiences of biphobia,[70] but Lippa counters that these phenomena are present even among heterosexual identifying people with some same sex attraction, who would likely be heterosexual passing.[70][74]

And even in a sapphic relationship this is risky as hell. Plus there are lots of women who only look for casual sex with women and won't commit but then have long term relationships with men (hence the never ending discourse.)

You can see how varied people's experiences are here (despite evidence showing that bisexual men are more into casual sex, a lot of bisexual women have the idea that heterosexual men are more sexist, less willing to commit, more masculine and things like that which you can often find discussions about which don't really hold up to scrutiny when you look at research like the above or look on certain parts of reddit with people complaining LOL):

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/uha...eer-women-myth

It took me one month to tell my then girlfriend, now wife, that I love her. I'd been out and dating for two years by the time we got together but it was the first time I'd said it, or felt it, for anyone. While it was as true then as it is now, over six years later, the speed with which I aired my feelings has become a running joke. Set-up: "Why did I say 'I love you' so fast?" Punchline: "Because I'm a lesbian."

Lu, a 25-year-old [BEEP] woman, agrees, telling me: "I LOVE joking about the stereotype of lesbians and [BEEP] women buying a house together on their second date, especially with one friend who decided to go away with her girlfriend for a week on her second date." However she doesn't think it's necessarily exclusive to women dating women or non-binary people. "I know a hell of a lotta heteros who have done the same thing, and I also know a lot of [BEEP] women who have run a mile at commitment and broken a lotta hearts along the way."

There is even research to disprove the idea entirely. According to an American study done by Stanford University in 2018, lesbian couples did not shack up any faster than heterosexual pairs. They surveyed 3,000 couples (including 220 female couples) and came to the conclusion that "contrary to popular conceptions of lesbians as eager to commit, our results indicate that after controlling for couple age there are no significant differences in relative rates of cohabitation among couple types." However, almost everyone I spoke to said that, at least anecdotally, the stereotype holds up.

This also seems to be true for the bisexual women I spoke to. Miriam, 25, tells me: "In my relationships with women and non-binary people things have moved much, much faster... I don't think I've ever been in a relationship with a non-man where it's taken more than a month to say 'I love you' (usually less with women I've dated) but in my last relationship, which was with a cis straight man, we were together for nearly a year and he point-blank refused to say it... I think that evasion of commitment is pretty normal for men, particularly heterosexual men. My current partner is bisexual as well and actually with him it has been different, and I do think his sexuality is part of that."

It's actually the opposite lol. Think they started removing the posts from guys asking for validation for their desire to cheat on their wives with men because it became so prevalant on the bisexual subreddit and there were many threads complaining about the men doing this. They think they found a loophople to cheating because they're oppressed by homophobia....

I'm very biased because it would bother me more if someone I was in a relationship with had sex with a guy than a woman because I'm annoyed that the universe didn't give me a dick. Unless they topped then I don't care as much again. I also don't care as much if it's a trans woman because it's not actually about the dick part exclusively. This is all hypothetical too obviously and based on my imagination + reading posts and seeing what bothers me. This is possibly idiosyncratic though, or maybe it's not and people just aren't this honest usually lol. I think the reason it bothers most women more though (as it seems to,) is because they find it feminine (if it's a guy I mean obviously,) and I don't relate to/give a [BEEP] about that.

Also my first ex-boyfriend who was heterosexual (I assume,) said he loved me after 4 months or so? I didn't reciprocate though. The whole relationship didn't really feel right to me tbh which is why I broke up with him but he was the one escalating things most of the time (sexually and relationship wise,) not me.

Oh and I don't know that most bisexual women who argue these things even really believe that. I think part of the reason they do is that they have an identitiy thing where they don't feel '[BEEP] enough' because the community keeps telling them they're straight and so they date bisexual men as a way to feel more connected to the LGBT+ community. They do similar stuff with trans men. Which is understandable because of how Human psychology works and they probably have more in common (personality/interest/culture wise like you all like music 'art films,') you're goths and met at a Drab Majesty concert



You listened to My Chemical Romance as a teen.



You can't sit on chairs:



OK I'll stop.

But like ... They're not more likely to commit come on now lol.

Anyway by rushing things like that it's like you're operating in another era which the current low trust unrestricted dating landscape is not suited for.

It's a real pain though I know. The psychological differences and almost nobody gets what they want. And people are choosing bears over Humans and every generation is getting more mentally ill and-

It's very suspcious for someone to have done a bunch of drugs in the past which she knew, and then be rushing into marriage with you Suggests they are not from a conservative/restricted culture (and lack that temprement/personality type,) and probably aren't restricted but are instead impulsive, so then you shouldn't jump into marriage with them.

He's obviously mentally ill if true though and needs to cut out the drugs.

[Nyctophilia]

This is an amazing video because 🍋:





I've invested a lot into lemons. Not economically mentally.

[Nyctophilia]

"Don't get me wrong Trump has already started out doing all the worst things we feared. Gutting DEI programs although I need y'all to understand that DEI was always trash. The main people going to get hurt by DEI programs are white women and I don't wish bad upon those white women but understand the real purpose of DEI was never being that anyway."

(I assume he means DEI programs being removed will mostly hurt white women.)

They know this really. I see many on social media bring that up. They view liberal white women as being in charge of the left (tm) so they have a particular deep hatred and fear there.

Took me 2 seconds to find this from days ago lol (it's a constant conversation on twitter really):

Liberal white women are a threat against western civilization!

Are the 92% of black women who voted against Trump also a threat to democracy or only the White women? Are you saying black women are too ineffective to be a threat, or that White women are uniquely more threatening, or something else? Just wondering.

I read a paper that basically seemed to suggest when black women are competent they are seen as better leaders than black men and white women. White women are seen as more ruthless and pushy and just have higher visibility really. Competency has no impact on perception of authority for white women though, so it makes sense if/when white women decide not to play that game.

So in other words yes. They do percieve white women as more threatning.



I can't really blame them:



I don't think this is that paper but it seems to reference it and other things:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....78023119836000

In support of hypothesis 1, Figure 1 shows that the white woman receives a significantly greater dominance penalty than the Asian American woman, white man, and Asian man (p values < .05). In other words, regardless of whether the candidate's behavioral style is dominant or communal, participants perceive a highly competent white woman as more "pushy" and "ruthless" than her Asian and male counterparts. These results also do not differ by race and gender of the subject.

Recent research challenges the universality of the dominance penalty and suggests that race and gender intersect to differentially shape reactions to authoritative behavior. In particular, research that takes an intersectional account has highlighted distinct reactions to dominance behavior exhibited by black Americans compared with white Americans (Livingston and Pearce 2009; Livingston, Rosette, and Washington 2012; Pedulla 2014). For example, Livingston et al. (2012) showed that black women who demonstrate high levels of competence face less backlash when they behave authoritatively than do comparable white women or black men.

White women are the most dangerous type of women. They kill you with their infinite empathy.

They are both a threat. White women just have larger numbers.
For the most part, women (and men with low T) are a threat to civilization (yes, not all women)

I think the implication is that everyone knows the deal with black women so it doesn't need to be said. At least he added "liberal" to the white women bashing

I think the implication is you're willing to break the sexism taboo but not the racism taboo. Some of your ingroup think you're a bit weak and pathetic for that.

I don't really care as both those things suggest you're unintelligent and uncreative and why would I want that? You're not even nice - because you're posting on twitter so that alone means you're at least somewhat disagreeable and these days usually very disagreeable (and seeing as many intelligent people are assholes - especially online - that's usually some kind of hypothetical plus.)



#himborights

It's never like that on twitter (because they're not himbomaxxing. They're just tweeting about "Kanye humilating his 'Italian wife' (who seems to be Australian)" but I have no context for this story. And how white women deserve bad things or whatever for dating black guys.) Also I just realised Jason is Floridaman:



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37615303/

Creative mindset reduces racial ingroup bias in empathic neural responses

Our findings suggest that creative mindsets may reduce racial ingroup biases in empathic neural responses by undermining spontaneous racial categorization of faces.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....20221241238321

Conservatism Negatively Predicts Creativity: A Study Across 28 Countries

Previous studies have found a negative relationship between creativity and conservatism. However, as these studies were mostly conducted on samples of homogeneous nationality, the generalizability of the effect across different cultures is unknown. We addressed this gap by conducting a study in 28 countries. Based on the notion that attitudes can be shaped by both environmental and ecological factors, we hypothesized that parasite stress can also affect creativity and thus, its potential effects should be controlled for. The results of multilevel analyses showed that, as expected, conservatism was a significant predictor of lower creativity, adjusting for economic status, age, sex, education level, subjective susceptibility to disease, and country-level parasite stress. In addition, most of the variability in creativity was due to individual rather than country-level variance. Our study provides evidence for a weak but significant negative link between conservatism and creativity at the individual level (β = −0.08, p < .001) and no such effect when country-level conservatism was considered. We present our hypotheses considering previous findings on the behavioral immune system in humans.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-iq...s-complicated/

People in the study with lower intellectual abilities tended to dislike minorities they perceived as liberal. People higher on the IQ scale exhibited more prejudice toward conservative groups such as religious fundamentalists.

"Because our study finds this on both ends of the cognitive ability continuum, it suggests this isn't just something that's unique to people with low cognitive ability," said Mark Brandt, a psychologist at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who conducted the research along with Jarret Crawford, a psychologist at The College of New Jersey. "The simplest explanation for this result is that both people with high and low cognitive ability seem to express prejudice towards people they disagree with."

Ehhh yeah sometimes (that explains why conservatives and liberals don't usually get along,) but also as you can see in this post the far right guys actually also hate outgroup men who think a lot like them in a lot of ways lol. Like non-white conservative or religious fundamentalists from around the world.

They found that low-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were both perceived as liberal and that people have little choice about whether they join, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and gays or lesbians.

Higher-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were perceived as conventional and that people seem to have more choice about joining, such as big businesses, Christianity, the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists​ and the military​. It was somewhat surprising to see prejudice among liberal-leaning people, Brandt said, as liberals tend to be high in the personality trait of openness to experience.

"Even people who are high on openness to experience, openness to new ideas -- they show this link between perceiving somebody as having different attitudes than them and expressing prejudice," Brandt said. "It's kind of depressingly robust." [How to Talk About Race to Kids: Experts' Advice for Parents]

There are exceptions. I don't think I'm very intelligent (I've taken two intelligence tests in my life with very different results but only one in person when I was 11, and that one I scored pretty low in - 94.) But I'm pretty biased against the military (which apparently is a liberal thing..) Well... I think that militaries shouldn't exist universally actually. As a thing.

I also think some people are biased against some racial groups but not others so this seems simplistic but it's looking at broad group trends I guess rather than individual variation in bigotry.

White women are uniquely bad due to white peoples extremely documented out group preferences. Every other race on the earth has an in group preference except white people (white women in particular). So yea they act in their worst interest in most instances.

Why would it be white women in particular? From what I've read women in general have a ingroup preference for being women that is greater than men's ingroup preference for being men.

Obviously there are more insulting tweet responses about black women as well that I'm not quoting.

Women should have zero rights or leadership roles if you want a thriving civilization.

Have you thought of moving to a Muslim country? It seems more to your liking.

I'm always saying this.

There are lots of countries like Saudi Arabia that are like that, but they wouldn't be part of the ethnic majority there so they are not interested. Like the guy in the above video said they're 'bratty subs' I guess.

Under Saudi Arabia's male guardianship system, every woman must have a male guardian who has the authority to make a range of critical decisions on her behalf.

Traditionally, a woman's male guardian from birth is her father and once she is married her guardian becomes her husband. In other cases, such as when a woman's father or husband has died, a brother or even her son may serve as her male guardian. All women in Saudi Arabia are subject to this practice.

Until August 2019, women in Saudi Arabia were universally treated as legal minors, requiring a male relative's permission for a range of critical decisions, such as working, obtaining family records, and applying for a passport. Women who traveled abroad were required to be accompanied by a male relative, including if they were attending school. Women also could not serve as legal guardians of their own children.

Imagine your son having control over your entire life. The only reason he's even alive is because she chose not to abort or otherwise kill him...

edit: It's like this tweet I just found same kind of thing where the people they are most similar to are the people they hate the most (well aside from Jewish people where applicable but that's just envy mostly):

We were probably the last country on Earth (besides China?) that required permanent resident applicants to get COVID-19 vaccine, despite its ineffectiveness.

If you were one of those people waiting in Europe to start your consular processing, you can do it now.

I really can't stress how much of a deterrent this was for good immigrants, btw. A deliberate move by Biden to keep anyone White from entering the country. I've gotten a lot of emails from people in UK/AU/DE wanting to come to the US but not wanting the shot.

It was actually mostly ethnic minority people who were avoiding getting vaccinated in the UK and probably the US too but weird far right white guys are always an exception to this rule:

After adjusting for differences in age, the ethnic groups with the lowest proportion of people continuing to a fourth vaccination were Pakistani (34.8%), Bangladeshi (36.3%), and Black African (41.8%), compared with the White British group (78.1%); the Pakistani and Black African groups were among the lowest uptake of the third vaccination (40.9% and 42.4%, respectively), and far fewer Bangladeshis had continued to a fourth dose (53.1% receiving three doses).

Among the eligible population, people identifying as Jewish had the highest proportion of people continuing to a fourth vaccination (80.7%), with those identifying as Muslim having the lowest continuation from third to fourth dose (36.6%).

People living in the most deprived areas were least likely to continue to a fourth vaccination (63.8%), with vaccination rates increasing as deprivation reduces. Similarly, people in higher managerial occupations had the highest continuation from third to fourth dose (80.7%).

Online survey data was collected from US adults (N = 2,022).
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy odds greater for younger, women, & Black respondents.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy odds greater among Independent and Republican affiliation.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy odds increased with experiences of racial discrimination.
Social processes in the Increasing Vaccination Model should include racism.

Worldwide, racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 with increased risk of infection, its related complications, and death. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy may result in differences in uptake. We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants who volunteered to take part in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 2020-February 2021) and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of vaccine hesitancy and uptake. In the U.S. (n = 87,388), compared to white participants, vaccine hesitancy was greater for Black and Hispanic participants and those reporting more than one or other race. In the U.K. (n = 1,254,294), racial and ethnic minority participants showed similar levels of vaccine hesitancy to the U.S. However, associations between participant race and ethnicity and levels of vaccine uptake were observed to be different in the U.S. and the U.K. studies. Among U.S. participants, vaccine uptake was significantly lower among Black participants, which persisted among participants that self-reported being vaccine-willing. In contrast, statistically significant racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake were not observed in the U.K sample. In this study of self-reported vaccine hesitancy and uptake, lower levels of vaccine uptake in Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout may be attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.

^ so this basically found the US and UK had similar levels of hesitancy but because access is better in the UK uptake was still higher for minority groups in the UK compared to the US because it was actually just more difficult to get in the US (say if you don't have insurance I'm guessing.)

I remember there was this conspiracy being spread from a religious black guy in... Luton of course (my hometown.) The Luton part is important. Just like Ohio etc.

A recording spread around the world at the end of March, purportedly featuring a former Vodafone executive claiming to let the public in on a secret that the coronavirus pandemic is cover for a global plot to install 5G mobile phone masts, track the world's population through vaccines, and then destroy human society as we know it.

In reality, the Guardian can reveal, the voice on the tape making the baseless claims is an evangelical pastor from Luton who recently tried to convince Zimbabweans to use cryptocurrency in their economy.

"It has nothing to do with biological warfare but is our bodies reacting to radiofrequency radiation," he told listeners to the 38-minute recording, claiming the real cause of global deaths was new mobile technology causing cell poisoning. "They are using coronavirus to try to hide the fact that people are dying from the 5G frequency."

Edit: ^ this guy is kind of himbomaxxing but it's so dangerously stupid it's not cute. He himbomaxxed too close to the sun imo.

Also he's not a conventionally attractive slim guy who eats lollipops and likes pikachu so. There was an attempt but no.

Also there's the thing where:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6890261/

The total regression model indicated odd beliefs/magical thinking, trait Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy were significant, positive predictors of belief in conspiracy theories. No other predictors reached significance. Results of the current study highlight individuals who might be more susceptible to believing conspiracy theories. Specifically, these results indicate that the individual more likely to believe in conspiracy theories may have unusual patterns of thinking and cognitions, be strategic and manipulative, and display interpersonal and affective deficits.

Results provided partial support to the prediction that trait psychopathy would predict belief in conspiracy theories. Interestingly, results showed only primary psychopathy was a significant (positive) predictor of belief in conspiracy theories. As discussed in the introduction, primary psychopathy is characterised by traits such as social dominance, self-confidence, selfishness, manipulation of others, and a callous nature [26, 27]. This more composed, confident nature of primary psychopathy contrasts the impulsive, destructive, and volatile nature of secondary psychopathy (Evita March, Jordan Springer, 2019)

As characteristics associated with primary psychopathy such as social dominance, exploitation, and manipulation have all been associated with belief in conspiracy theories [14, 15, 19], it is not surprising that primary psychopathy was a significant positive predictor. The lack of utility of secondary psychopathy to predict belief in conspiracy theories suggests that such beliefs are less associated with impulsivity and emotional reactivity, and may underpin a careful, structured, and detached interpersonal style where relations with others are based on dominance and manipulation. This speculation is supported by the significant role trait Machiavellianism plays in predicting belief in conspiracy theories.

I mean I'm sure I would score higher than average on psychopathy too.

Spencer Reid managed to himbomax while being a genius (cause he's a conventionally attractive slim guy who eats lollipops):



^ Well that can't be embedded. So



But yeah anyway real life isn't TV. Or even worse not a music video. Except when I'm walking around St. Pancras International while listening to My Dying Bride:



The people don't move in tempo with the music.

The responses just get more 'creative' after this:

Long hair = Trust
Short hair = No trust

I agree that's why this is my number one political position:

Together I really do believe. We can bring back long hair.

I won't rest until a cute guy with long hair and glasses knocks on my door to misdeliver me someone else's pizza.

Don't trust anything that bleeds for a week and doesn't die.

That does make people with periods pretty cool/badass.

Most certainly And there's an ARMY of them🙄
Never want to be mistaken for that kind of beast! Embarrassment to the intelligence and spirit of American women everywhere!

Oh no I think you're confusing liberal white women (tm) with BTS fans. Or Loki's fanbase.. Think that was called army too back in the day. Either way they're all still (mostly white) liberal women when it comes to American fans so.



Their South Korean fans seem especially insane though tbf. I've heard stories.

In the millenia long battle between the Feminine/Collectivists and the Masculine/Individualists, this meme encapsulates both the conflict and how it must be resolved.

Well done!

Gilgamesh would be nowhere without a woman who birthed him, wiped his ass, and who for years kept him alive, so that hey may reach adulthood.
You be nothing without your MawMaw, who may or may not be a liberal white woman.

I don't get it really. For example. How is Inanna collectivistic?:

In the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, Ishtar appears to Gilgamesh after he and his companion Enkidu have returned to Uruk from defeating the ogre Humbaba and demands Gilgamesh to become her consort.[319][i] Gilgamesh refuses her, pointing out that all of her previous lovers have suffered:[319]

Listen to me while I tell the tale of your lovers. There was Tammuz, the lover of your youth, for him you decreed wailing, year after year. You loved the many-coloured Lilac-breasted Roller, but still you struck and broke his wing [...] You have loved the lion tremendous in strength: seven pits you dug for him, and seven. You have loved the stallion magnificent in battle, and for him you decreed the whip and spur and a thong [...] You have loved the shepherd of the flock; he made meal-cake for you day after day, he killed kids for your sake. You struck and turned him into a wolf; now his own herd-boys chase him away, his own hounds worry his flanks.[102]

Infuriated by Gilgamesh's refusal,[319] Ishtar goes to heaven and tells her father Anu that Gilgamesh has insulted her.[319] Anu asks her why she is complaining to him instead of confronting Gilgamesh herself.[319] Ishtar demands that Anu give her the Bull of Heaven[319] and swears that if he does not give it to her, she will "break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion [i.e., mixing] of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of the dead will outnumber the living."[321]

Anu gives Ishtar the Bull of Heaven, and Ishtar sends it to attack Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu.[318][322] Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill the Bull and offer its heart to the sun-god Shamash.[323][322] While Gilgamesh and Enkidu are resting, Ishtar stands up on the walls of Uruk and curses Gilgamesh.[323][324] Enkidu tears off the Bull's right thigh and throws it in Ishtar's face,[323][324] saying, "If I could lay my hands on you, it is this I should do to you, and lash your entrails to your side."[325] (Enkidu later dies for this impiety.)[324] Ishtar calls together "the crimped courtesans, prostitutes and harlots"[323] and orders them to mourn for the Bull of Heaven.[323][324] Meanwhile, Gilgamesh holds a celebration over the Bull of Heaven's defeat.[326][324]

I think the direction they went in with Sylvanas character from WoW is a bit similar.

Her most popular story is actually when she attempted to take over the underworld which was ruled by her sister Ereshkigal. This story is a bit like the Greek story of Hades and Persephone:

The Descent of Inanna into the Underworld (or, in its Akkadian version, Descent of Ishtar into the Underworld) or Angalta ("From the Great Sky") is a Sumerian myth that narrates the descent of the goddess Inanna (Ishtar in Akkadian) into the Underworld to overthrow its ruler, her sister Ereshkigal, the "Queen of the Dead." However, following the removal of her adornments, she perishes and her corpse is suspended on a nail. The god Enki intervenes indirectly, restoring Inanna to life. However, on her return journey, Inanna is required to deliver another living human in exchange for her freedom. She selects Dumuzi, her spouse, who is abruptly transported to the Underworld. In response to the pleas of Dumuzi's sister, Geshtinanna, his circumstances are somewhat ameliorated: he is permitted to remain in the Underworld for only a portion of the year, with his sister assuming his role for the remaining duration.

Paul Thomas, a scholar of new religious movements, has criticized the modern portrayal of Inanna, accusing it of anachronistically imposing modern gender conventions on the ancient Sumerian story, portraying Inanna as a wife and mother,[396] two roles the ancient Sumerians never ascribed to her,[396][28] while ignoring the more masculine elements of Inanna's cult, particularly her associations with warfare and violence.[396] Gary Beckman, a researcher of religions of ancient Near East, calls neopagan authors "not revivalists, but inventors",[397] and notes that they often "incorrectly view all historically attested female divinities as full or partial manifestations of a single figure,"[398] and highlights that while Ishtar did overshadow many other deities, she was never a "single Goddess".[399]

I have long been interested in Mesopotamian literature and I know that there are practitioners in this subreddit, but there is something about it that's bothered me deeply. It has to do with Inanna's depiction in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where she said to bring her lovers to horrible fates, threatening a zombie apocalypse and sending the Bull of Heaven to destroy a city, and killing Enkidu. I do not mean to offend but this does not sound like a benevolent deity to me. It's especially egregious when you consider Gilgamesh helped her by getting these demonic creatures off the Hulappu tree and fashioning a bed out of her. That sounds deeply ungrateful at best given her later actions. Elsewhere in myth, she steals all the good and evil aspects of civilization (the mes I think) from Enki, the god of wisdom, by getting him drunk. That would mean she is responsible for everything good and evil in human society.

Now, I don't ignore some more noble aspects ofar her, like punishing a farmer for? let's say "having his way" with her in her sleep. Still, she comes off as deeply self-centered and fickle.

I know Inanna/Ishtar is popular in this subreddit, and if I offend, I apologize. What do you guys make of this? How do you guys deal with this information?

A common theme in the ancient world was the emasculating fear of being pursued by a goddess and being forced to succumb to her. This is notable in Hellenic myth and the motif of a vengeful goddess who is spurned by a mortal lover is nothing new. In one myth, Aphrodite demands retribution from Zeus for receiving such treatment.

*modern world.

One thing to understand about the epic of Gilgamesh is, Gilgamesh's reject of Inana is actually traditionally understood to be one of his failures as king. As king of Uruk, part of his religious duty is as consort of Inana, and the way he rejects her being especially disrespectful, doesn't help his case. It's part of his learning experience, and what leads to the death of Enkidu.

I don't know if that's true but I think it would explain a lot about Western culture. Or American social media culture.

Canada is actually the biggest threat to the USA:



I'm backing Canada atm. I like their flag more.

It's no Welsh flag (which I dislike aesthetically actually - but it has a dragon on - so wins purely based on that,) but it's still pretty good.

It's giving Mirkwood realness.