Closedshop
話說天下大勢,分久必合,合久必分
No bio...
User ID: 894
I was no “chad”, just a short skinny effeminate guy. I had an awful personality, little interest in women and still a few hook-ups and flings just happened from going with the flow.
Nice humblebrag. Now I understand that was most likely not even meant as one, but that's how it comes across because that's how awful it is for most men nowadays. I'm not going to rehash Radicalizing the Romanceless, but it's even worse nowadays than when that article was written. Men are suffering.
And I think you're right in that it's worse in America, especially compared to East Asia, where I and my family were from originally, but with how widespread the American ideological contagion has become, I don't see thing getting better any time soon.
That part is not about working, but about taxes.
The existential dread that you've truly wasted the one life you were given on this Earth, and there is no going back.
As opposed to the existential dread that you've wasted the one life you were given by working? And not even for nothing, but to actively fund the destruction of everything that used to give life meaning.
Then you die. Or at least many do.
Everyone does.
Clubbing is just another thing that gen z has killed, I'm afraid. I've never been to a club in my life, so I can't relate, but if you just search on youtube, you'll find dozens of videos that lament how the clubbing culture from the 10's is completely dead.
I've been to a single music party (concert?) though, and I have to say that I don't think I've ever felt more out of place than I did when I was there. The music was alright, but I don't take drugs and I don't dance so it was just awkward for me to be there. Didn't help that the friend that actually invited me canceled at the last minute.
If you’re a regular straight person, everything is basically designed for you. You can ask out basically any single member of the opposite sex. People try to set you up with their friends/co-workers/whatnot. You can hook-up with random strangers at a party if the chemistry’s right without having to worry if they’re in the <5% that’s attracted to you, if you’re sexually compatible, or if you’re trans and passing, that they won’t react violently.
I have to ask what you're basing your statements off of because none of these statements are true for the "average" man, and they haven't been for at least the last 10 years. Full disclosure, I'm a late millennial/early zoomer (late 90s to early aughts) straight male.
You can ask out basically any single member of the opposite sex
You can do that in the same way that you can run through a minefield and not get blown up. The fact of the matter is simply that the consequences for running into a vindictive, cruel, or simply insane woman is now much greater than it ever was in the past. They used to tell you that the worst thing they can do is say "no" (this was never true, but it was true enough to be good advice maybe 15 years ago) but now the worst thing they can do is pull out their phone and start blasting your face all over the internet. And that's not even the worst thing they can do. If she calls the cops on you, you'd really be in hell.
People try to set you up with their friends/co-workers/whatnot.
First of all, dating at work is on of the worst things you can do to yourself. Again, it's simply not worth the risk. You're not putting just your reputation on the line, but your career as well. Secondly, maybe this is just because of my circles, but I've only ever once seen someone else even attempt to set up their friends. It happens so rarely, that I have to seriously doubt that it ever happened at all, even before the current climate.
You can hook-up with random strangers at a party if the chemistry’s right without having to worry if they’re in the <5% that’s attracted to you, if you’re sexually compatible, or if you’re trans and passing, that they won’t react violently.
You can hook up with strangers at a party (Personally, I'm not sure where these parties are or who's going to them. I haven't been to a single party outside of work events after college). This is one that might be colored by my own experiences, but I have never hooked up with a stranger at a party, even when I was going to them back in college. I have to assume that it's due to my deficiencies because it apparently happens enough to other people for it to be a prevalent thing.
Plus most straight men seem to be attracted to most women? I don’t understand it but it should make your life easier to not be picky.
In my experience, it's not my pickiness that's the problem. Or maybe it is. I don't consider myself unattractive (I give myself 6/10 simply because I'm tall and not overweight and I don't have any physical deformities), but according to at least a sizable minority of women, most men are unattractive, so in reality a 6/10 is probably actually a 2/10.
All in all, I legitimately don't know on what basis you're making your claims because they run almost completely counter to what I've experienced as a straight male. I have to assume that they must have been true in the near, or even distant, past, otherwise they wouldn't be so oft repeated. The only people who talk about how supposedly easy it is to date are either old and out of touch or have at least one attractive trait that is above average (looks, charisma, or money). None of the people who I consider "average" have the experience of dating being "easy".
where and when it is supposedly the situation?
AFAIK it was never ever in no location considered the way you claim
The other poster is too narrow in saying just sex, but for most of known human history, men trade resources for sex and offspring. What exactly do you think a man is doing when he provides for his wife? Divorcing your wife because she was barren, while frowned upon, was completely acceptable. Maybe it's different in the enlightened 21st century (I don't think it is), but historically, most, if not all, marriages were entered into to support tangible, real world gains. Love was something you developed later, if it developed at all.
There seems to be this presumption that disagreement must stem from misunderstandings or poor messaging rather than sincere values differences.
Or even worse, it's because you're stupid or evil (or both).
you can't possibly believe that illegal immigration is bad for the country so you must actually be a secret racist trying to get rid of brown people
For my part, I'm disgusted that so many people seem to think it's okay to cyberbully celebrities
Saying mean things about someone online is not cyberbullying, especially when she specifically searched her name to see all the mean things people said. Also, her entire business is attention, so negative attention is just a part of the bargain she made. I have no sympathy for someone who literally courts attention receiving negative attention.
look into the face of a god
deny its existance
Just how based can one man get?
I suppose that’s not quite the same, as there isn’t the presumption of agreement.
That's the real difference for me too. There's less of this "voting against your interest" messaging on the right. It seems that if you disagree with the left, in their eyes, you're either stupid or evil.
tumblr in anno domini 2025
But yeah you completely articulated some of my feelings on this subject. Great writeups.
Then she goes basically says later (can't find it now) that though she knows she's breaking taboos, she thought being kind and honest and data driven would be enough to break the stigma and have people treat her with respect, basically. And to be fair to her she does seem to be doing that stuff.
Idk if this is actually a thing, but I'm recognizing a pattern here (lol). There seems to be a group of people that I've noticed, broadly on the left, that apparently think that saying something I find completely reprehensible in a nicer way, it would make me agree with it more. Like if they asked me nicely enough to rape my daughter, that I'd somehow be convinced (purposefully hyperbolic example). Outside of Aella, the whole SAM (Speaking with American Men) initiative is indicative of this line of thinking. SAM seems to be focused on how to "market" Democrat's ideas to men instead of finding ideas that men actually want. I don't know if this is just me or if anyone else noticed this or if I'm just recognizing too many patterns. To me, it's back asswards, but what the hell do I know.
To be honest, it's only had the opposite effect for me. The riots have actually made me more authoritarian inclined simply because riots are bad and we should stop the riots. Never in my life have been more open to the idea of simply shooting rioters dead (with the exception of the BLM riots). To be clear, I still don't support killing rioters, but I am now less against the idea than I was in the past.
Vintage Sam Hyde 2070 Paradigm Shift TED Talk: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4jRoatZizQ0
Sam Hyde on The Ladies: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SPRupa0oShs
Fantastic sketch Officer Maggot: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7qJqEgWRTQ8
MDE Moms sketch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cS0jTbzd8Q8
Sam Hyde's thoughts on Self Defense: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q4Ui8BdIYRk
The Idubbbz documentary must be enjoyed on both sides, especially after recent Idubbbz revelations that have come to light. Chronologically, Sam put his side out first, but I think Sam's video serves as almost a commentary track on Ian's:
Ian's video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5jTdu3FI7vo&t=5s
Sam's video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xn52d_vTtSk
The Mind of Samuel Heydrich: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5LfAu-evUl8
I'm trying to find the World Peace episodes online, but I can't. Here are the first 2: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFmy7ubUEy0KNr27q7yLDLvLBX_6wtIg0
Finally, watch Fishtank. The season 1 edited episodes aren't that good, but the season 2 edited episodes are kino. Season 1 you're going to have to piece together through commentary and recap channels if you want the full experience:
Season 1 official: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnvpt5I0X2oyiViFuwi995k8JNJgdS0CN
Season 2 official: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnvpt5I0X2oxdWx0V94TxNKJWMKTuMOwr
Purely in terms of career, Bill Maher had a successful 20 year long running show before what you mentioned. He's a legitimate C to B list celerity. He's not a Colbert or Fallon, but he's not nobody.
I don't think he's actively trying to gun for that spot, just trying to create good content. Even if he was, he should know that his association with Sam Hyde (aka the Ghost of Kiev, aka the Tiger of Jerusalem, aka the Sandy Hook Mastermind, aka The Candy Man) would preclude him from any serious talks of being a lefty Joe Rogan. Adam gets to not care right now because he's still relatively niche. If he gets a legitimate push toward the mainstream, it'll take 20 minutes for clips of him hanging out and shooting the shit with one of the biggest leftist boogeymen to surface and sink him straight into hell.
Light Blue is quite nice, but I'm a bigger fan of Eau Intense. They also release new versions every year, some of which are great. Light Blue Forever and Light Blue Summer Vibes are tow that I've enjoyed. I've actually never smelled Coach for Men, but I can't imagine hating it just from the note breakdown. I'll check it out the next time I get a chance.
I've never read Jitterbug Perfume, but I'll check it out.
Just out of my own curiosity, which criteria did my perfume post fit?
Any time. I'm surprised something like this even made the Quality Contributions haha. Hope you enjoy Jazz Club
In my experience, it depends on what type of deodorant you use. If you use spray-on, it may interfere with the scent as those are designed to be smelled a little more. If you use rub-on, I haven't noticed a real difference. Get unscented if you're really worried, but I haven't noticed any interference from rub-on deodorants.
Any time. I just added L'homme A la Rose to the formal occasions list as well. Enjoy.
Tbh it doesn't sound like you need any more "rounding out". You got one for warm, one for cool, and one for dressing up. I haven't smelled the Comme de Garcon or Serve Lutens fragrances, but they sound very lovely. I don't own Red Tobacco because for whatever reason, it turns on me when it's on my skin, but I've smelled it in the air and it's nice. If you're looking to explore more, I can suggest a few beyond what I've already posted. I'll again only suggest what I've smelled.
All of your fragrances sound pretty heavy, so if you're looking for something on the opposite side of the spectrum, beyond the spring and summer frags I've suggested:
-
Jo Malone Blackberry & Bay EDC. This one is really really light, being an Eau de Cologne. It's fruity and soft, and in summer, I just go to town on this. At retail it's a little expensive for what you're getting, but I'm a fan and I own a full bottle. Another one from the house is Grapevine & Cypress. This is more of a generalist, but it's very masculine to my nose. I'm a huge fan of it and will be getting a bottle in the future.
-
Acqua Di Parma Arancia di Capri. This is the same line as Fico di Amalfi and it's similarly geared for summer. For me, I'm spraying this for the opening, which is zesty citrus all the way. I reapply this every couple of hours just to get that opening.
It also seems like you're looking for something for formal occasions so I'll suggest a couple of those as well:
-
Mancera Cedrat Boise. Also from the house of Mancera, this one has similarities with Aventus. Really easy to wear and likeable, and wouldn't be out of place in a suit. There's an intense version that I haven't smelled, but the consensus online is that it's also very good. Mont Blanc Explorer is another fragrance that's a twist on Aventus. I own Mont Blanc Explorer, but not Cedrat Boises. I already own Aventus and Explorer so they're a little redundant in my collection
-
Creed Green Irish Tweed. In my imagination, this is what James Bond smells like. It's sophisticated, elegant, and gentlemanly. This was what Creed made their money off of before Aventus came along and for very good reason. Davidoff's Cool Water EDT has a lot of similarity to this (there's drama behind that, if you can believe it). I own Cool Water and Will be getting GIT for a special occasion.
-
Edit: I just remembered this one, but Maison Francis Kurkdjian's L'homme A la Rose is an amazingly elegant men's rose scent. To me, it's a very realistic rose scent that works really well in a suit or tux. This is another one that's on my list.
Finally, since you love Red Tobacco, I'll suggest a couple that you might like as well:
-
Parfums de Marly Layton. This one dials up the spiciness and leaves the tobacco note behind. It's also a heavier fragrance, so during summer, definitely go lighter on this. I will get a bottle of this soon.
-
Viktor & Rolf Spicebomb Extreme. This one turns the spiciness way way up, and kind of leaves everything else behind. Technically, it's got rum and tobacco as notes, but they're more undertones to my nose. Definitely wear this during winter. You'll be choking people out during summer with this. A lot of people say that it's been reformulated so it's not as good as it was when it first came out, but try it and see if you're a fan.
I'm a fan of the entire Blu Med line tbh. I have a couple of bottles and will be getting more in the future. My favorites are Fico and Arancia di Capri
I know Sauvage has a rough reputation lol but the Elixir is a completely different fragrance to me nose. I don't smell any Sauvage until maybe 10 hours in. By then I'm ready to shower off.
Edit: spelling
Sad to hear about your Covid. I was lucky when I got mine that my smell came back within a couple of weeks.
- Prev
- Next
I don't know if there's a term for this, but it's something I've noticed. Suppose you have the head of an agency called the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency, and the whole point of your agency is to regulate Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. What many people would expect is that the head of the agency would naturally be an expert on Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Instead, what we see in the real world is that the head of said agency is not an expert on any single one of the things that he's supposed to help regulate, let alone all three. I think this becomes more pronounced the further you move up the political chain, all the way to the President. No senator can be expected to be an expert on economics, nuclear power, firearms, and The Middle East, but they are all expected to weigh in, and potentially vote regarding all of these issues. The President gets this worst of all, as he's supposed to execute on every single issue Congress votes on. This seems to be built into the system from the start.
Perhaps it's just another sign of how completely warped the federal government has become compared to what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
More options
Context Copy link