careful, the breakfast throne is sticky.
(From pancake syrup, get your mind out of the gutter)
(From pancake syrup, get your mind out of the gutter)
Define support. Most of the men I've helped had to put themselves in gear more than anything, and stop thinking there was something else or someone else that was going to do it for them.
The best way to show you intend to succeed is to have some idea of what comes next afterwards. Very few people are actually incels once you cast off the chains that keep them from their potential.
The best way to show you intend to succeed is to have some idea of what comes next afterwards. Very few people are actually incels once you cast off the chains that keep them from their potential.
Yes, there's also some reddit-alikes with lemmy and lotide which are also both fully federated as well. Lots of great options, and because they're federated you can join discussions with others with your own instances.
I'm a big fan of the community on wolfballs.com and participate a lot from my own lotide instance, but there's lots of different instances out there, and they're interoperable unless someone goes out of their way to make them not interoperable -- which goes to graf's point.
I'm a big fan of the community on wolfballs.com and participate a lot from my own lotide instance, but there's lots of different instances out there, and they're interoperable unless someone goes out of their way to make them not interoperable -- which goes to graf's point.
Nick was on verified.af, one of dick masterson's instances, but it went down and dick never bothered bringing it back.
Which was sad, watching madcucks fight with spinsters was hilarious.
Which was sad, watching madcucks fight with spinsters was hilarious.
Countries like Japan keep on borrowing because they have low inflation, but countries like Zimbabwe need to stop borrowing because inflation drives feedback mechanisms that stop the expansion of debt.
Let's swing this over to more human terms. You might predict that poor people have more debt than rich people. After all, the rich are rich and can afford to pay it off so you'd think they would, and the poor are poor and can't afford to pay it off. Therefore, it seems intuitive that the poor would have more debt than the rich. That's absolutely untrue, however. In reality, the wealthier one is, the more debt they tend to have.
Why? Because they can. They can convince the bank to give them huge amounts of money at a reasonable interest rate because they're rich and they can afford to pay it back. Meanwhile, a poor person will struggle to get anyone to give them any sort of loans at any interest rate because they're poor and will struggle to pay it back.
Some people actually do make the mistake of assuming this means that in order to be rich you must be in debt, or that if you want to get rich you must become incredibly debt laden first. That's getting the cause and effect backwards.
Let's swing this over to more human terms. You might predict that poor people have more debt than rich people. After all, the rich are rich and can afford to pay it off so you'd think they would, and the poor are poor and can't afford to pay it off. Therefore, it seems intuitive that the poor would have more debt than the rich. That's absolutely untrue, however. In reality, the wealthier one is, the more debt they tend to have.
Why? Because they can. They can convince the bank to give them huge amounts of money at a reasonable interest rate because they're rich and they can afford to pay it back. Meanwhile, a poor person will struggle to get anyone to give them any sort of loans at any interest rate because they're poor and will struggle to pay it back.
Some people actually do make the mistake of assuming this means that in order to be rich you must be in debt, or that if you want to get rich you must become incredibly debt laden first. That's getting the cause and effect backwards.
(why would anyone call this beanpole fat?)
Besides himself because he's an asshole like that. :P
Besides himself because he's an asshole like that. :P
"I deserve rape? Awww, that's the nicest thing anyone ever said to me! Thank you so much!"
Why on earth would debt forgiveness be deflationary?
A bunch of money would be created, then handed to universities (and book stores, and land lords, and grocery stores, and liquor store, and bars). Then, instead of the individual paying it back and reducing the money supply, the state paid it using state debt which will not be paid back during our lifetime. The places that got the money won't have to pay it back, so the number of dollars in the system which would have shrank over time if student loans were paid back will stay the same in the base case since the dollars that would have been removed from the economy by paying back the loans will not ever be paid back, and in the worst case will be inflationary since the individuals who previously were encumbered with debt might then go out and take out additional debts to buy all those things that student loans were preventing them from going out and buying.
A bunch of money would be created, then handed to universities (and book stores, and land lords, and grocery stores, and liquor store, and bars). Then, instead of the individual paying it back and reducing the money supply, the state paid it using state debt which will not be paid back during our lifetime. The places that got the money won't have to pay it back, so the number of dollars in the system which would have shrank over time if student loans were paid back will stay the same in the base case since the dollars that would have been removed from the economy by paying back the loans will not ever be paid back, and in the worst case will be inflationary since the individuals who previously were encumbered with debt might then go out and take out additional debts to buy all those things that student loans were preventing them from going out and buying.
Ironically, I do have a book, and attraction is one of the chapters (of many).
I start off with a lengthy warning about the dangers, that you can mess up your life if you thoughtlessly go messing around.
Then I talk a lot about evolution and our place in the universe. I talk about the fact that we developed from a 50 person society and that our fears are inherited from there, and that those concerns aren't accurate today.
Next, I talk about the dangers of becoming more attractive to yourself instead of to the person you want to be attracted to. There's (cishet) men who become the perfect women and (cishet) women who try to become the perfect man, and that's stupid. Heterosexual men are attracted to one thing and heterosexual women are attracted to another.
Then I go through the old "find, meet, attract, close" framework with an emphasis on examples.
I talk a lot about calibration and by extension consent. All that leads into a discussion on oneitis and putting someone on a pedestal passively instead of just pulling the trigger and either being accepted or rejected. Then I tell stories about target fixation and the bad stuff that comes from that.
Then I point out that dating is a 2 way street, and you're trying to find out if you like her just as she's trying to find out if she likes you, it's not just a robotic drive to be accepted.
I spend a lot of time talking about what men and women find attractive and busting the myth that you must be an Adonis or Adonette to find love, and the realities of what it's like to be a beautiful woman. That's an eye opener for lots of men.
Then more warnings. Be careful to calibrate and get consent each step of the way. Careful of narcissists, or borderlinesz or people who are fun but dangerous, or perpetual victims. But then I point out it's not all bad and there are diamonds in the rough out there. Since the book is to my son, I talk about his mother. That leads into a discussion of economics applied to dating (remember I've said some economics isn't about money?)
I actually do warn as you've said about pick up artists and dating coaches taking your money long after you don't need them anymore, and that you need to remember to be yourself and not a pua robot.
I end the chapter warning that picking up women shouldn't be the point of your existence. It can make you temporarily happy always having a new girl hanging off your arm, maybe even into your 30s, 40s, 50s, but soon you're just the old guy who banged a lot of women (or the old lady who banged a lot of men) and this idea refers back to two chapters that I think are the core of the book, about building something real and thinking ahead about your life and death.
So yeah, no strange nlp hypnosis stuff, just some basic ideas and advice that I think could help get started so you're not stuck in incel mode waiting for the universe to provide you a girlfriend for your positive karma...
I start off with a lengthy warning about the dangers, that you can mess up your life if you thoughtlessly go messing around.
Then I talk a lot about evolution and our place in the universe. I talk about the fact that we developed from a 50 person society and that our fears are inherited from there, and that those concerns aren't accurate today.
Next, I talk about the dangers of becoming more attractive to yourself instead of to the person you want to be attracted to. There's (cishet) men who become the perfect women and (cishet) women who try to become the perfect man, and that's stupid. Heterosexual men are attracted to one thing and heterosexual women are attracted to another.
Then I go through the old "find, meet, attract, close" framework with an emphasis on examples.
I talk a lot about calibration and by extension consent. All that leads into a discussion on oneitis and putting someone on a pedestal passively instead of just pulling the trigger and either being accepted or rejected. Then I tell stories about target fixation and the bad stuff that comes from that.
Then I point out that dating is a 2 way street, and you're trying to find out if you like her just as she's trying to find out if she likes you, it's not just a robotic drive to be accepted.
I spend a lot of time talking about what men and women find attractive and busting the myth that you must be an Adonis or Adonette to find love, and the realities of what it's like to be a beautiful woman. That's an eye opener for lots of men.
Then more warnings. Be careful to calibrate and get consent each step of the way. Careful of narcissists, or borderlinesz or people who are fun but dangerous, or perpetual victims. But then I point out it's not all bad and there are diamonds in the rough out there. Since the book is to my son, I talk about his mother. That leads into a discussion of economics applied to dating (remember I've said some economics isn't about money?)
I actually do warn as you've said about pick up artists and dating coaches taking your money long after you don't need them anymore, and that you need to remember to be yourself and not a pua robot.
I end the chapter warning that picking up women shouldn't be the point of your existence. It can make you temporarily happy always having a new girl hanging off your arm, maybe even into your 30s, 40s, 50s, but soon you're just the old guy who banged a lot of women (or the old lady who banged a lot of men) and this idea refers back to two chapters that I think are the core of the book, about building something real and thinking ahead about your life and death.
So yeah, no strange nlp hypnosis stuff, just some basic ideas and advice that I think could help get started so you're not stuck in incel mode waiting for the universe to provide you a girlfriend for your positive karma...
There's a fantastic blog on Canadian real estate and investment at https://greaterfool.ca/ which covers a lot of these subjects.
But let's say that foreign investment is 20% of homes in Toronto. That means that 80% are owned domestically. For all those seven-figure sales, a Canadian goes to a Canadian bank, borrows Canadian money, hands it to another Canadian.
But let's say that foreign investment is 20% of homes in Toronto. That means that 80% are owned domestically. For all those seven-figure sales, a Canadian goes to a Canadian bank, borrows Canadian money, hands it to another Canadian.
It's no accident that some of the most expensive places to live in the world are commonwealth nations: England's London, Canada's Vancouver and Toronto, and Australia's Melbourne.
All three countries have faced a collapsing industrial base, and in the face of that, real estate was a quick and politically easy way for governments to keep people feeling rich despite not being rich.
In Canada in particular, I'm well acquainted with the tens of thousands of dollars in free money available to buy a house, and that's on top of artificially low interest rates propped up by the central bank (and one of the central bankers who led the charge into housing, Mark Carney, ended up as the head of the Bank of England, unsurprisingly). Political parties fell over themselves to come up with new ways to prop up the housing market. If I wanted to, I could go to the bank tomorrow, and borrow a million dollars to buy a house in Toronto (assuming I could buy a house for that little). That's absurd, I simply shouldn't be allowed to do that, but I am. People want to blame foreign investment, and that's certainly a small part of it, but access to unlimited credit has been the primary driver of real estate, and most purchasers of real estate are people living in those cities. In Vancouver, there's an absurdly high tax on buying places to live and not living in them, and I think in Toronto there's even a foreign investment ban, but there's still people buying houses for a million bucks.
The absurdly high house prices are basically the genesis many of the other parts of the high cost of living. People living in those areas need a lot more money to live because just renting an apartment is absurdly expensive.
This isn't because the conservatives spent a lot of time in power in Canada, at least. The liberals are known as "Canada's natural ruling party", and there are no term limits, so they were totally in control of the government from the late 90s through to the late 2000s, then eventually got power in 2015 and have formed the government ever since (meanwhile housing costs have done nothing but rise). For most of that time, the liberals were in charge of Ontario, and the liberals or NDP were in charge of BC.
As I recall, Melborne has incredibly beneficial tax incenentives for purchasing property which people take advantage of to purchase multiple properties.
As for the UK, I believe the biggest thing in London is it's a great place to launder your money, and real estate is one of the ways to do it. It's been a while, but I think that was the big thing.
A Canadian (Doctorow) claiming that high cost of living is because of the eeeeevil conservatives just doesn't track. I mean, they contributed, but it was a team effort.
Now, energy is another thing, and it's a lot simpler. It comes down to a few little things:
1. "green" policy that just means we "stop using fossil fuels" by transferring those activities to dictatorships that don't care about being green and only allow those dictatorships to drill for oil;
2. the covid lockdowns and the government response;
3. central bank money printing; and of course
4. shtickinittaputinbrah
So it's a complicated thing, but a lot of it starts with monetary and fiscal policy and banking regulations and taxation.
House prices are starting to drop now, and it appears to be happening exactly because interest rates are finally starting to rise in response to inflation. That should give a great clue as to where the solution will be.
All three countries have faced a collapsing industrial base, and in the face of that, real estate was a quick and politically easy way for governments to keep people feeling rich despite not being rich.
In Canada in particular, I'm well acquainted with the tens of thousands of dollars in free money available to buy a house, and that's on top of artificially low interest rates propped up by the central bank (and one of the central bankers who led the charge into housing, Mark Carney, ended up as the head of the Bank of England, unsurprisingly). Political parties fell over themselves to come up with new ways to prop up the housing market. If I wanted to, I could go to the bank tomorrow, and borrow a million dollars to buy a house in Toronto (assuming I could buy a house for that little). That's absurd, I simply shouldn't be allowed to do that, but I am. People want to blame foreign investment, and that's certainly a small part of it, but access to unlimited credit has been the primary driver of real estate, and most purchasers of real estate are people living in those cities. In Vancouver, there's an absurdly high tax on buying places to live and not living in them, and I think in Toronto there's even a foreign investment ban, but there's still people buying houses for a million bucks.
The absurdly high house prices are basically the genesis many of the other parts of the high cost of living. People living in those areas need a lot more money to live because just renting an apartment is absurdly expensive.
This isn't because the conservatives spent a lot of time in power in Canada, at least. The liberals are known as "Canada's natural ruling party", and there are no term limits, so they were totally in control of the government from the late 90s through to the late 2000s, then eventually got power in 2015 and have formed the government ever since (meanwhile housing costs have done nothing but rise). For most of that time, the liberals were in charge of Ontario, and the liberals or NDP were in charge of BC.
As I recall, Melborne has incredibly beneficial tax incenentives for purchasing property which people take advantage of to purchase multiple properties.
As for the UK, I believe the biggest thing in London is it's a great place to launder your money, and real estate is one of the ways to do it. It's been a while, but I think that was the big thing.
A Canadian (Doctorow) claiming that high cost of living is because of the eeeeevil conservatives just doesn't track. I mean, they contributed, but it was a team effort.
Now, energy is another thing, and it's a lot simpler. It comes down to a few little things:
1. "green" policy that just means we "stop using fossil fuels" by transferring those activities to dictatorships that don't care about being green and only allow those dictatorships to drill for oil;
2. the covid lockdowns and the government response;
3. central bank money printing; and of course
4. shtickinittaputinbrah
So it's a complicated thing, but a lot of it starts with monetary and fiscal policy and banking regulations and taxation.
House prices are starting to drop now, and it appears to be happening exactly because interest rates are finally starting to rise in response to inflation. That should give a great clue as to where the solution will be.
The key here is that if there's an honest truth to be told, represent it with the truth, not with cherry picked or out of context data.
It breaks good arguments.
It breaks good arguments.
It's great that you can get electricity cheap in what -- Norway? Sweden? But if you're not in Norway or Sweden and instead you're in Germany or Italy the fact that they drag the average down is cold comfort.
Sorta seems like cherry picking data. "Oh, look how bad england energy is!" Meanwhile German energy bills are up 20x...
Blaming capitalism for consequences of the largest worldwide government intervention in everything possibly ever seems disingenuous. If that is capitalist, I guess nothing isn't. We could nationalize every industry and when there are shortages, despite having no private ownership of capital we'll all just scream "damn you, capitalism!!!"
Blaming capitalism for consequences of the largest worldwide government intervention in everything possibly ever seems disingenuous. If that is capitalist, I guess nothing isn't. We could nationalize every industry and when there are shortages, despite having no private ownership of capital we'll all just scream "damn you, capitalism!!!"
It helped me, so I can't agree entirely.
I'm a driven professional, so I didn't date in high school or college because I was focused on my goals. I just didn't develop those skills, and it was really frustrating when I finally got on my feet and wanted to move on with the parts of my life requiring more soft skills. I found the materials by accident and they helped connect a lot of things I already knew and dispel things I was mistaken about in part because of mass media. It helped me to get out of my comfort zone, and one of the nights I went out I ended up on a path that would eventually lead to my marriage and my son.
The dehumanizing parts of the pick-up arts aren't about the women, they're about understanding that men have emotions and despite the act many men are fragile and terrified of rejection. Getting rejected by a woman is traumatic -- at one point in history in the 50 person society, it could mean the end of your life or the end of your bloodline, and yet to become any good with women you need to just get used to it. There needs to be some tools to deal with the fact that you're going to approach someone you think you'd really really like knowing that there's a massive chance you're going to screw it up and get rejected.
I can't disagree that there's a lot of people trying to get more money. Even when you watch the videos of the seminars, a lot of it is just shilling the next one. That's where you need to come in, take what you need, and get out. It may be a "community", but it's like water wings -- before too long you take them off because you've learned how to swim without them and they start holding you back.
One of the key things about the pick-up arts is that it isn't about "deserve". There are lots of deserving guys out there who don't get the girl and lots of undeserving guys out there who do. The difference is who knows how to be attractive and who doesn't. It's a tool, and the character of the use of the tool depends on the character of the person using the tool.
I'm a driven professional, so I didn't date in high school or college because I was focused on my goals. I just didn't develop those skills, and it was really frustrating when I finally got on my feet and wanted to move on with the parts of my life requiring more soft skills. I found the materials by accident and they helped connect a lot of things I already knew and dispel things I was mistaken about in part because of mass media. It helped me to get out of my comfort zone, and one of the nights I went out I ended up on a path that would eventually lead to my marriage and my son.
The dehumanizing parts of the pick-up arts aren't about the women, they're about understanding that men have emotions and despite the act many men are fragile and terrified of rejection. Getting rejected by a woman is traumatic -- at one point in history in the 50 person society, it could mean the end of your life or the end of your bloodline, and yet to become any good with women you need to just get used to it. There needs to be some tools to deal with the fact that you're going to approach someone you think you'd really really like knowing that there's a massive chance you're going to screw it up and get rejected.
I can't disagree that there's a lot of people trying to get more money. Even when you watch the videos of the seminars, a lot of it is just shilling the next one. That's where you need to come in, take what you need, and get out. It may be a "community", but it's like water wings -- before too long you take them off because you've learned how to swim without them and they start holding you back.
One of the key things about the pick-up arts is that it isn't about "deserve". There are lots of deserving guys out there who don't get the girl and lots of undeserving guys out there who do. The difference is who knows how to be attractive and who doesn't. It's a tool, and the character of the use of the tool depends on the character of the person using the tool.
Has not worked and will never work, you're not cutting off the fuel.
You're just selling kids into slavery so you don't have to pay for government services.
The only thing that would make that work is to abolish government debt.
You're just selling kids into slavery so you don't have to pay for government services.
The only thing that would make that work is to abolish government debt.
ngl, I'd be pretty contemptuous of any court that was considering the question of whether I should be charged with incorrect pronouns.
You won't be abolishing anything if you don't abolish anything. You'll just be racking up more debt faster.
Spending debt you intend to never pay back then pass down to your children is no different than slavery.
Spending debt you intend to never pay back then pass down to your children is no different than slavery.
That's where I see pick-up arts as a path away from becoming an incel. Yeah, you can look cringe while you're trying to hit on women unsuccessfully, but fundamental idea is that the reason you're not successful with women isn't that you just don't have a certain skill set rather than because there's something fundamentally unattractive about you that can't be solved because you are God's chosen failure.