site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 251356 results for

domain:jessesingal.substack.com

Flip the script

Is that from mystery method or what?

You can just avoid shit tests entirely, the new meta so to speak by guys like fastlife is to avoid shit tests altogether. Also you are right about not wanting such girls around though the advice to leave is not good. If you wish to spend the night with the girl and her remarks are not completely crazy in a serious way then you should burn the set to the ground, at least then you would know more about what your own standards with this stuff is and if your own approach had issues.

op mentioned how he would talk to unattratcive girls without the intention to flirt, that cant be helpful unless you are simply building state.

yes, she knows whats up, you know whats up and you hiding it is a complete turn off. You dont have to explicitly verbally agree to stuff but your subcomms and intent should.

A while back a girl asked me if I fancied her, I gave a non answer and was hesitant, trying to act cool which I should not have.

Quite possible, I live in one of the nice but not elite areas of zone 2. Demographically speaking it is probably similar to the other nicer parts of inner London, low in white British but relatively high in general white population via Americans/Europeans, more (2nd gen/upper class) Indians and Chinese than Pakistanis/Bangladeshis etc. My exposure to the recent arrivals then are mostly through service job interactions and the swathes of food delivery couriers, and the tube. I have practically 0 interaction with the NHS, so this could be correct. Nigerians I think are almost certainly more balanced demographically. Given the huge changes in HMO licensing and rental patterns, I don't think that these new mostly male Indian arrivals have wives or girlfriends at home, but rather live 8 to a flat with other single 20-something men. A lot of the time the landlords for these properties are themselves upper class and/or 2nd gen Indians who extract/exploit the maximum they can from these new tenants.

Take the recent scandal from Jas Athwal, the labour MP recently as a slum landlord in East London. Anecdotally, a property I used to rent a long time ago I saw has been converted from a 3 bed to a 5 bed (by turning everyone room except the kitchen and bathroom into bedrooms). The landlady is (unsurprisingly) a 2nd gen East African Gujarati who rotates between London/Dubai/Kenya. This is quite a common pattern that I have seen from parents of friends and colleagues.

Time blindness is very very real, especially for those like me with severe adhd.

The charity failure in cartman's comment was that WhiningCoil argues that children consenting to sex acts is analogous to children consenting to treatment for reasons of sex or gender preferences, i.e. "if children can't consent to sex acts then children can't consent to puberty blockers, hormone treatments, or sex-altering surgeries, and if parental authority does not extend to vicarious consent for sex acts then it also does not extend to vicarious consent for puberty blockers, hormone treatments, or sex-altering surgeries."

People can argue about whether that analogy is a good one. But if one person builds their argument on the validity of the analogy and another person builds their response on the invalidity of the analogy, then they are not really talking to each other, they are just competing for who can make their take on the analogy into the consensus by being loud and insistent about it.

This is a complicated thing to moderate because we moderate on tone rather than substance, but like most informal fallacies, it's hard to recognize this one without some grasp of the substance of the argument.

Not much? It still makes sense because what is there even to be gained by attacking Taylor Swift?

I think a much more controversial pre-election argument to tackle is the rejection of the Dem immigration bill. A whole bunch of people were basically saying "you should take anything anti-immigration that's on the table". Now, there's no guarantee that the issue will be effectively handled in the following years, but it does seem like it was a political winner.

There's not an ounce of humor in that.

Any S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fans out there? 5 days until release of the long-awaited sequel. The newly updated system requirements dashed my hopes for launch, unfortunately.
But GAMMA's latest update is launching on december 3rd, and it's a big one. Huge changes to artifacts, gear, damage system. And tooltips that are actually accurate and descriptive, for the first time ever.

Why are you convinced of that? Is she that sympathetic to normies?

I think Gorsuch would fall on the side that the 8th covers punitive damages. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-177_d0fi.pdf

Here is a compilation video of them:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=A45XMOC7aPE

Is there a way to crawl profiles for pronouns? Just ran into a therapists saying she noticed it as a wider trend in her profession

If a general wins a war, does that mean every decision he made was the best one? By the way, I don’t think this has a clear answer.

You have had Musk posting a video of Jeffrey Sachs giving the Russian perspective on Ukraine. ..and what hawkish Republicans are now even there?

Didn't they all sign up for Never trump? Is Trump stupid enough to give them a chance once more?

Whereabouts do you live? You’re probably correct but I wonder if it’s balanced out by large numbers of female NHS etc workers now that Filipinos and Poles are being joined by both Nigerians and Indians in larger numbers.

Is it not charitable anymore to honestly state your opinion on the analogy a user made

Never has been?

I might honestly think a lot of things people post here are absolutely retarded, but I am not allowed to say that. Also note that the ban went to the parent comment, and this is just a warning to not make the conversation worse.

I have always found her untrustworthy. Nor sure why.

It's not about politics- I generally approve of what she's for she just does seem to be too calculating in what she says.

went out with my dad for the reception of one of my dads ex-student (2nd marriage, first was 5 years ago). My dads a senior prof in the uni I went to, got his job at 22, would teach blow off social science classes in an engineering school so he is super popular with students. UNlike other people he was nice to them would have many over for drinks every week for a few decades. My senior invited plenty of alums and they all got drunk, I did not since I take concerta. Their stories were mostly about ragging or fagging or hazing depending on where you live is good, how they liked it, how the seniors and juniors developed a bond because of it. Also stories about beating up people from other schools, flrting with research scholars and mostly missing old times.

We dont hav any rituals at all here. I am not sure how good this stuff was.

My uni experience was different, most dudes look like wusses compared to these guys, we had zero interactions with seniors, the only thing people did after class was watch movies, all the dudes hated me because they thought that I was someone who was good with girls.

Also listened to some more music from the past. Pendulum recently uploaded their cover of the taylor swift song anti hero. Electronic music peaked in the early 2010s given how little new stuff we have coming out that is any different.

Is it not charitable anymore to honestly state your opinion on the analogy a user made (as opposed to their beliefs or character)?

Myanmar is 90% Buddhist. It's unavoidable.

Hello, and welcome to the Motte!

This response is not sufficiently charitable. You may note that I have banned the user to whom you were responding; one big problem with rule-breaking comments is that they tend to proliferate by encouraging further rule-breaking responses. But responding to a rule-breaking comment in a rule-breaking way does not excuse you!

...actually, looking through your rather fresh comment history, you seem to have a remarkable knack for sussing out problematic posts and making the discussion even worse by responding, not to the substance of the post, but to its rhetoric. Somehow that is, actually, most of your posts! The odds of this are so low as to not be worth contemplating.

Still, in the interest of charity, I will hold off perma-banning you as a suspected alt until the next time I notice this peculiar pattern. Once, after all, may be happenstance.

I can buy that cis allies were the majority of participants just due to relative sizes of each population, but if you're telling me that trans people were sitting it out, I'll need something tangible. Like, if I go to some trans subreddits and look up what they were saying about Gina Carrano's bip/bap/bop joke, do you think the prevailing sentiment is going to be "who cares"?

I'll also need a definition of "actual trans person" that is accepted by the trans community itself. If you're angling for limiting them to trans-meds, that is already dismissed as bigotry by the trans community itself.

Really? "Fail to support" transition, or "try to block their kid from accessing the relevant medical treatments"?

In the state of California there was a bill governing custody disputes between divorced parents, which would make a parent's decision to affirm the child's stated gender identity (or not) a factor to take into consideration in said disputes. Essentially, if a married couple gets divorced and their child has announced that they are trans, if one parent affirms the child's stated gender identity uncritically and the other parent is more sceptical and prefers a watchful waiting approach - all things being equal, the judge is meant to rule in favour of the former parent.

What do they mean by "affirmation"? "Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being." - so this isn't as simple as providing a child with medical treatment which has been recommended by a qualified professional.

This bill was voted on and passed in both houses, before being vetoed by Governor Newsom. Elected representatives in the state of California believe that if a child announces that they are trans, the correct position for the child's parents to adopt is to uncritically affirm the child's gender identity without question.

This isn't even "making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike", it's just plain making things up.

This is not sufficiently charitable. Specifically,

we ask that responders address what was literally said, on the assumption that this was at least part of the intention. Nothing is more frustrating than making a clear point and having your conversation partner assume you're talking in circles. We don't require that you stop after addressing what was literally said, but try, at least, to start there.

It's fine to raise questions about source veracity, but if you're going to respond to others, you need to actually be responding to the substance of their posts--not ducking into your motte when they raise points you don't care to substantively address. Actually several of your comments in this thread do the "law of merited impossibility" and "Russell conjugation" thing, where you oscillate between "this isn't happening" and "it's good, actually" while rhetorically re-framing specific concerns. This kind of engagement creates frustration and lowers engagement quality, even though it basically keeps to the rules on tone. If done deliberately and repeatedly, it amounts to a kind of trolling. Please engage with what people are actually saying, rather than substituting your rhetoric for their substantive concerns.

In lefty circles in the UK (and I assume the US is similar) the dogpiles were led by clueless cis allies and tumblrgendered headcases, not by actual trans people living as the opposite gender to their birth sex.