Check out Half-Life Re-imagined competition results!
Check out Skewing textures in Hammer, our newest tutorial!
Welcome, kesizewi, our newest member!

logo

Site Stuff

Reference

Maps

Community

ShoutBOX

Poll

Feeling Blue

What's your favourite shade of blue?

Azure

17

Cobalt

32

Turquoise

11

Cyan

12

Royal

11

Teal

3

Onliners

17 secs

UrbaNebula

1 mins

Solokiller

13 mins

Dimbeak

19 mins

ToTac

34 mins

Dr. Orange

53 mins

savvaisnotagirl

1 hours

Penguinboy

Affiliates

A gaming and technology blog by TWHL admins Penguinboy and Ant. A music blog by TWHL users Ant and Hugh.

View Journal

avatar Soup Miner 13th January 2018, 06:20 AM

The bible says, "Men work until they turn to dust, and women birth children." I was lucky enough to be raised in a Methodist house, a denomination that emphasizes practical, down-to-earth lessons over literal interpretations of the bible. I have a son these days, and the more I live in America, the more I notice that his life as a man is going to be wrought with confusion and frustrations.

From personal experiences and the experiences of others, I believe I've come to understand trends in the human condition about the "natural order", or gender dynamics as they like to call it now. Societies have evolved, and are evolving, much faster than the human brain itself, and these developments have come with a certain disrespect for the basic instincts that want to govern our lives. It's no wonder that abstract anxieties are becoming so prominent when civil constructs are constantly advising people to ignore their intuitions. Wild animals get along just fine, but people wake up when they don't want to, perform tasks they don't want to, and stay in positions they don't want to all in the name of "the greater good".

So here we are at a point in time when everyone seems to want to throw opportunities at each other for the sake of "equality". Today everyone believes that everyone has inherent value. And now everyone is so confused, it seems, because nobody wants to--or knows how to--explore the natural order. It's bad and unfair, we've been taught. And something I've learned that has made my life so much simpler, and better, is that it's a unique part of the male condition to become powerful.

It's part of a man's gut behavior to achieve. It is, in reality, achievements that give a man value--the means of acquiring enough resources to build a suitable environment for his mate[s] and his offspring. In nature, men work, because they are disposable by default. They do it instinctively. Women by comparison have enormous inherent value in nature as child bearers--they do not need to achieve in the ways men do. Nowadays it's such a common misconception that "men select women." In reality, a man works to earn and maintain the selection of women--who bear the responsibility of deciding who dies and who gets to keep riding the evolution train, among other responsibilities.

I believe this is something that the fast-evolving world encourages us to ignore--either because it's so widely misunderstood as "bad" or "unfair", or because it isn't in the competitive interest of those that have already achieved so much. As it stands, societies already provide most of what a lone man instinctively wants to acquire: safety, shelter, skills, resources. Women jest, "I don't need a man." The average man has to compete not only with more powerful men, but also with society itself. No wonder so many men are so confused about so many things in civilized life. They are taught that society is their friend, but in many ways it is a competitor--and men of purpose are losing to it all the time.

People are bombarded with this message that life isn't a competition, or that we've moved past those primitive hunter-gatherer days. But it is a competition, and we are still hunter-gatherers. Instead of foraging for berries, we forage for dollars. And instead of fearing lions that would eat us, we fear sharks that would take everything we've earned.

I'm not a Christian, or "spiritual" in any real way, but I believe that the association of the Judeo-Christian god as male is largely because it is men that have the unique drive to build a universe for someone else. I've learned how to distinguish my mind from my gut, and I've learned how valuable and woefully overlooked the gut is. As a man, it is within my power, and indeed my purpose, to dominate and manipulate the very material world itself. I look at my son and have this drive to make him realize that same potential in himself, because I've learned that rest of the world will probably discourage him from just that.

I avoid social medias these days. You'll have to forgive me for dumping these sentiments here of all places. Every day it seems like men are painted slightly worse, and I find myself arguing with the air a lot on my drive home. I suppose I needed to vent to a crowd somehow.

Comments

avatar Stojke says: 13th January 2018, 06:47 AM
The reason why is very simple:

Men, and women, were not created to live in this world forever but to live with their creator for all time. This world is nothing but an chance to straigthen the path between God and the human race.

The reason why humans degrade and animals do not is because of Satan who, just like God, can communicate with us trough our feelings (gut, thoughts), but unlike God who loves us and only wishes to be with us Satans only mission is to kill.

The reason why Satan can influence us in the first place is because he is born alongside us in our hearts (Thanks to Adam and Eve), and he is stronger than we can ever be in this world.

That is why great sacrefice and determination for good, not only deeds but also thoughts, is needed and slothful, sinful, thoughts and deeds become/are easy to concieve because we need to show God we are willing accept him, he who is the only one who is stronger than Satan, into our hearts in order for him (God) to liberate us, and Satan just pretends and blinds.

Everything has to do with free will. And such:

Satans greatest achievement is convincing people that he does not exist.
avatar NineTnine says: 13th January 2018, 10:24 AM
This was an interesting read, and yes, separation of thought from feeling is a very important thing. Unfortunate today people just blend the two together and find it difficult to not let their feelings get in the way of their thoughts, for instance.
avatar Tetsu0 says: 13th January 2018, 13:38 PM
Interesting read, soup. Hope all is well.
I think you're right about the men want to feel empowered and to manipulate their environment. Nothing comes close to making me happier than literally manipulating metal and tools to fix or upgrade my car or motorcycle.
I don't know how to comment on the rest.
avatar DiscoStu says: 13th January 2018, 18:39 PM
I'm unable to tell you how much I agree with you.
avatar Bruce says: 13th January 2018, 20:46 PM
I must be too dumb because I hardly got a point. You want to do whatever you want whenever you want? You're tired of having these thoughts on your daily drive? Well get rid of the drive. Move to the woods, build a house from branches and live like a man!
avatar Jessie says: 13th January 2018, 21:08 PM
I can’t seem to get my thoughts down in a coherent manner this morning, so let me simply say that I think this is really stupid.
avatar Crollo says: 13th January 2018, 21:50 PM
Been trying to wrap my mind around this one for a while...
On the one hand, there's certainly been a considerable amount of thought and heart put into it, but then it's degraded by bringing generalizations and gender roles (and religion) into it... Why?

I'm not an informed enough person to comment on the impact that biological gender has on the decision making and primitive desires of a person, I'm sure there is some degree of influence, but this is just... You surely can't believe that you are defined at your core by biblical gender roles?

To me, one of the few truly freeing concepts in life is that nothing truly has a defined 'purpose'.
Yes, statistically and biologically I suppose people of different shapes and colours and genitalia may be more tuned to certain tasks, but we wouldn't live in the world we do now without the outliers who decide to define themselves and the world around them by their own rules, rather than the rules everybody else lives by. It may be a struggle that others deem unnecessary, but the doubters will often be the first to reap the benefits when they're proven wrong. Sucks, but it's progression, I suppose.

This, is the opposite of progression. It's good that you want to utilize what god has given you I suppose, don't walk the less traveled path just for the sake of being different, but we have younger members here who could very easily misinterpret your message. This just seems dangerous to me.
avatar OmniscientShrub says: 13th January 2018, 22:27 PM
Logged in just to agree with Crollo and Jessie.
avatar Loulimi says: 13th January 2018, 23:14 PM
"Logged in just to agree with Crollo and Jessie."
Well that's a very useful contribution! You and Jessie are making a lot of good points.

Seriously, who care what side you stand by? It's not a vote. I can see why Soup Miner's post can be seen as divisive but I don't like when people just go in and express their disagreement without giving any further details. That just means you can't stand the fact people think this way and you're trying to turn a discussion into a dispute.

Sorry for being off-topic.
avatar potatis_invalid says: 13th January 2018, 23:27 PM
You have a really strange attitude. Why does gender matter? Let people be however and whoever they want and do whatever they want so long as no one gets hurt, no matter what's between their legs. As a man I don't give a fuck what others consider manly or what's in some old fairy tales. I know who I am and I'm happy with who I am. I'm not going to let people like you tell me how I should behave. Treat people like individuals, we don't need to follow evolution's templates, we have free will.
avatar Stojke says: 13th January 2018, 23:35 PM
What do you got, if you ain't got love?
Whatever you got, it just ain't enough.
avatar Bruce says: 14th January 2018, 00:47 AM
Yes, genitals are good for making children. And... making troubles. That is if you're dumb enough to wander around swamps begging to get stuck in one as an excuse to not make video games
avatar Dimbeak says: 14th January 2018, 04:36 AM
I find it helpful at times like these to remind myself that our true enemy is Instinct. Instinct was our mother when we were an infant species. Instinct coddled us and kept us safe in those hardscrabble years when we hardened our sticks and cooked our first meals above a meager fire and started at the shadows that leapt upon the cavern's walls. But inseparable from Instinct is its dark twin, Superstition. Instinct is inextricably bound to unreasoning impulses, and today we clearly see its true nature. Instinct has just become aware of its irrelevance, and like a cornered beast, it will not go down without a bloody fight. Instinct would inflict a fatal injury on our species. Instinct creates its own oppressors, and bids us rise up against them. Instinct tells us that the unknown is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Instinct slyly and covertly compels us away from change and progress. Instinct, therefore, must be expunged. It must be fought tooth and nail, beginning with the basest of human urges: The urge to reproduce.

Our culture is becoming more and more deconstructive of our biology. Progressivism is a postmodernist ideology, which inherently means its ideas are going to challenge our natural notions of reality and deconstruct their foundations. It's a fine tool for our culture, in moderation. For example, progressivism has made our culture more tolerant of transgenderism and non-hetero sexualities than during any other point in history -- a tolerance which directly contradicts our biology.

I agree firmly with potatis's statement. Let people be however and whoever they want -- that's the height of progressive philosophy. But in our modern times, this is idea is being manipulated and used incorrectly.

Progressivism becomes problematic when it seeks to dismiss the notion of biological differences in people. The genes associated with your origin, your gender & gender identity, and other factors beyond your own choosing will greatly affect, on average, the choices you make. In culture today, we're seeing a huge push for an equality of outcome of all different people, to prove that our systems aren't discriminatory.

This is where a lot of the discomfort comes from, in my eyes. Some random groups of people selected by their gender/race/whatsoever in our society are underperforming in a certain way, so they must be boosted and their "competitors" must be halted. To our society, equal means "equal outcome."

You mentioned that men are, in their very nature, disposable. This is true. That's why they account for roughly 90% of workplace fatalities. It's natural for men to be willing to take higher risks to secure better lives for their families. But postmodernist thinkers are actually spending their time trying to get this statistic to balance with women. Isn't it ironic that pro-women's advocacy groups are trying to get them to take the share of workplace deaths?

In conclusion, I'm rambling at 12am about shit that's probably only tangentially related to what you were talking about in the first place. good night, friends.
avatar OmniscientShrub says: 14th January 2018, 05:48 AM
@Loulimi
Maybe they care, maybe they feel better knowing others agree with them?
But you're right, that was a very low-effort low-value post.
So have this post I've been sitting on for fifty minutes.

@Soup
You say that men are defined by their achievements, I say that is true of everyone, that female or male, cis, trans or non-binary, one is defined by one's actions and achievements, be those actions building a better life for others, making videogames, acquiring power or protesting discrimination.

And where *do* trans and non-binary people fit into this? You're saying that a woman's value lies in her ability to breed, what value does a trans-woman hold? What of someone who rejects gender entirely? I believe that "inherent value" such as the ability to breed, is worthless, that a life's value is determined by its impact on other lives.

"So here we are at a point in time when everyone seems to want to throw opportunities at each other for the sake of "equality""
You say this like it's a bad thing, I don't understand why anyone would say equality is bad. Everyone could use more opportunities, to live the way they wish.

We *should* have a degree of disrespect for our base instincts; so few of them apply in modern times. We're not out in the wilds hunting and gathering anymore.

Why does any of this matter? Why can't people be free to be as they wish? Your idea of the "natural order" is very unappealing to me. If that is the natural order then I say burn it down, build something better in the ashes.
avatar Soup Miner says: 14th January 2018, 08:07 AM
I'm sorry you read my journal as a sort of attack, Potatis. I don't believe I made any comments about what doors "should" and "should not" be open for whom. I've just made observations about the way the world seems to WANT to work and given some of my feelings about them. Don't you work? Not a job, don't you apply yourself to become a stronger person? Why do you think you do that at all?

The consequences of which genitals you have do, in fact, play a huge role in how you live your life. For example, women live with a constant knowledge of the process and consequences of pregnancy as opposed to men, who have the very real option of walking away literally 2 minutes later. This affects the way they navigate the world--it affects their strengths and weaknesses on an evolutionary scale. It just seems disrespectful not to acknowledge things like this. That's not a statement about closed opportunities. Dimbark articulated my sentiments on this much better than I could, I feel. Very well written, Dim.

Crollo: I don't mean to say that I've let the bible dictate anything. Rather, looking at my experiences and reflecting back at that line, it seems whoever wrote it was on to something about the human condition that's worth keeping in mind.

"We *should* have a degree of disrespect for our base instincts; so few of them apply in modern times. We're not out in the wilds hunting and gathering anymore."
This isn't true, and I touched on it in my original post. The civilized world is, for all intents and purposes, part of the wild. This notion that the civilized world operates on a special set of rules confuses and frustrates people because it just isn't true in application; we employ the same instinctual behaviors, they just look different because the human environment has become so complex. "We forage for dollars instead of berries." I've come to believe it is healthier to explore those instincts. I want my children to explore those instincts--that's why I posted this at all.

"And where *do* trans and non-binary people fit into this? You're saying that a woman's value lies in her ability to breed, what value does a trans-woman hold? "
Evolutionarily speaking, they hold no inherent value just as a man holds no inherent value. They have to acquire value from other means. This isn't a moral stance, it's the way the world actually is.
avatar Bruce says: 14th January 2018, 11:17 AM
Good god... someone should print this on a roll of toilet paper
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 11:26 AM
There's a difference between understanding your nature and understanding society. Placing so much emphasis on 'inherent value' when it comes from a biological basis is deeply flawed. You might as well be coming to conclusions of value based on race, geography or phrenology.

The actions of the individual are what matters.

This is why I find Stojke's literalist view of religion so disturbing. He essentially has no responsibility. No guilt. Anyone being an asshole is actually just a vessel for Satan. Must be nice to live without any weight on your shoulders.

As a general rule, Soup, doing things based on text written before even the most basic understanding of the world is probably stupid.
I don't fully understand what you're trying to say - it's a lot of text to not particularly reach any conclusion - but progressive society and enlightenment is something to strive for - not to fear.

As we evolve, both biologically and societally, the words we use to define ourselves must also change.
A person is an incredible thing. Whether they're born male or female shouldn't affect their path through society.
Wage gaps, sexual harassment, violence and assumptions based on gender are just as terrible as those based on race, colour and creed.

The individual is what matters.
avatar Jessie says: 14th January 2018, 12:17 PM
In our progressively overpopulated world, it’s probably a good idea to stop pretending that procreation is the purpose of life, too. Yet another instinct that’s largely irrelevant these days.

The pursuit of money is not instinct, as you suggest. Instinct is done without thought, but money is a concept that only works via logic. “I get this stuff so I can exchange it for goods and services.” It’a not like eating, which people did for millions of years before understanding exactly why it’s necessary.

Society frees us from our instincts. Society is what let us dominate the planet. What will let us continue to expand beyond this planet. It’s not an enemy. If you want to live by your instincts, you might as well head back into the jungle and live like the chimps, because that’s all your instincts know how to do.

How about we all just enjoy life and do our best to make sure everyone else can too?
avatar Stojke says: 14th January 2018, 12:57 PM
Ma boi (@Archie) everything we do, even a simple breathe in and out, is a consequence on its own and an direct or indirect responsibility. I choose the way that liberates me from every and all weight of this life in exchange for my life (Who understand, understands). Death, social constructs, race, nationality, gender mean nothing to me and are in my eyes worthless. Gods love applies to all.
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 13:45 PM
Except in every measurable, logical or theoretical sense.
avatar Stojke says: 14th January 2018, 14:39 PM
Except that what you just wrote is false.
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 16:12 PM
No, you choose to believe it's false. There is a difference.

You are entitled to your have own opinion. You are not entitled to have your own facts.
avatar Stojke says: 14th January 2018, 17:05 PM
You just wrote that "Everything you do has consequence for which you are directly or indirectly responsible" as theoretically, measurably and logically nonsense.

The fact that you believe, or not idk, that feelings in you are something of primal origin or due to chemical reactions is laughable. It is like saying that once upon a time two atoms of completely different type, or more, decided to join forces and form logical functions and cooperate with each other to create living matter and life. And on that same route those two retarded atoms, and more, decided to form living beings of no logical raeson and coexist like that with out any further interaction and morphing with other, now biological, beeings.

Science can not explain creation. Only possible explanation that is possible to interact with and to sense individualy is creationism (God).
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 17:34 PM
"You just wrote that "Everything you do has consequence for which you are directly or indirectly responsible" as theoretically, measurably and logically nonsense." No, and apologies for not being clear. I was just replying to your final sentence.

Science doesn't have a definitive answer for the origin of the universe, but actually we've got some pretty great theories about it, and particularly about the origins of life. Even if we didn't, implying that the only possible explanation is Christianity's take on creationism is fucking outrageous. The language you use implies that you know these things to be fact. You don't. You have a belief system you were indoctrinated into from a young age. Believing in something is not the same as knowing something.

Why is it so alarming to admit we just don't know yet? It makes a hell of a lot more sense than accepting literally the dumbest possible answer. MAN EXISTS BECAUSE LOL GOD. WOMEN EXISTS BECAUSE HIS RIB. EARTH IS SHIT COS A SNAKE DID IT.

Why is that story more valid than Scientology (Xenu brings billions of his people to Earth on spaceships, drops them in volcanoes and then blows them up with hydrogen bombs)? Or more valid than Islam (Allah created all life from water and sat on a throne to watch it)? Or more valid than Hinduism (There are unlimited universes in an endless cycle of birth, life and destruction beginning from a lotus flower sprouting from the navel of Brahma)? Or more valid than The Path of Archie (In the beginning there was nothing. Then the one true God dropped a sammich in it and couldn't be bothered cleaning it up. Over time the sammich got mouldy and it is from that mould that all life originates)?

I know this isn't the initial point of the journal, but I'd argue that it's part of a much larger point from the initial post which is don't fucking base your life on outdated mythos. Religion is a celebration of ignoring facts and reason. Of ignoring critical thought. Of never asking questions and presuming to know the answers. It leads to extremism and a disregard for human life.
avatar Crollo says: 14th January 2018, 18:24 PM
Okay, so just to take a step back here...

So I think I already had a pretty good idea before, when I wrote my initial response but couldn't know with certainty, but I'll just spitball here:
What you're saying (soup), isn't quite as literal and exaggerated as it came across or how people interpreted it to be.
Primitive instincts, biological influence etc aren't a defining quality but something that should be held in a much higher regard rather than outright ignored or 'fought tooth and nail' (as in Breen's speech). Or in the very least, understood to give yourself more information to base your goals and decision making off of.

I would certainly agree with this myself, having unfortunately been victim to anxiety, which is a primitive response to danger/instinct to survive that does not collide well with the modern world. The typical response to anxiety is to simply tell the person to calm 'calm down' with no regard or understanding of the fact that the person experiencing it cannot 'fight' the anxiety and win.
Anxiety is such a broad and diverse topic and I don't wish to derail this journal with discussion of it specifically, but it's a similar concept: If you fight your instincts (or outright ignore them) it will make your life hell. And ignoring anxiety simply because it doesn't make sense, rather than gaining an understanding of it and working with it will certainly open up a hell that cannot be understood or expressed through language. Fighting it is even worse. Learned those ones the hard way.

I believe this is the underlying message of your post and I feel responsible for not holding it with a greater weight and simply getting caught on the language used to express it, which may have derailed this too far from it's intended purpose.
With that responsibility I apologise, even if I'm still wrong about the message I really should have been more open and gentle in how I responded.

I don't want this to turn into a two sided barrage of insults and misinterpretation.
We can have a level, open discussion about this and I hope that we can bring it back to where it should be.
avatar Soup Miner says: 14th January 2018, 19:49 PM
No need to apologize, Crollo. You hit the nail on the head.
avatar 2muchvideogames says: 14th January 2018, 19:57 PM
You all need red pills.

Now I'm not being sexist, well ok maybe but really its the new age and we now live in a time where men have less value, because of gender biological design placed in an unnaturally enforced societal environment. You have the right idea to avoid social media, thats a massive waste of time unless your job involves heavy socialization.

Now society encourages equality, but the truth is not everyone is equal. Your stats are distributed differently than everyone else (affected by genetics and childhood experience), meaning some people are simply going to be better at certain things and have certain personalities than others. And of course, like nature, society selects certain traits favorably over others (such as extroversion), allowing those types of people to fare better in life than others.

Now the worst part is, women are biologically designed to select for powerful dominant men (just as men are biologically designed to select for young beautiful women.) Now this is just extremely unfair, you'd have to have a certain type of personality for women to like you. In the past women may forgo this requirement for getting men with resources and wealth, but they don't really have that problem anymore since they can just get wealth themselves now. So now women will basically only choose men based on personality. Being nice and all that (what society and disney taught u) is simply a children's story.

For a man it is important to learn to be powerful and strong, but society encourages men to be nice and caring instead, which is bad because women are biologically designed to go for strong powerful men. What a gyp.
avatar Soup Miner says: 14th January 2018, 20:14 PM
Jessie: the pursuit of money is resource gathering behavior fueled by the same drives as anything else. Money is a construct that let's you delegate the time and effort needed to perform a task to someone else (building a house vs buying a house). It's a clever way to conserve time, and utilizing it is a huge part of why we seem so far ahead of wild animals. Monkeys in labs learn how to use money.

2muchvideogames: I share those sentiments, and they are also another reason that spurred my journal. I'd be careful about lamenting the unfairness of it, though. In an indifferent universe, one can only rise to the occasion or get weeded out.
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 20:38 PM
Oh 2much, nooo :(

"we now live in a time where men have less value" Not even remotely true. Recognising the value of everyone else does not diminish the value of white men. This is such a common misconception and unfounded fear. A fair society increases the value of those who are subdued; it doesn't decrease the value of those who are already ahead.

"Now society encourages equality, but the truth is not everyone is equal." You're entirely missing the point. We should be aiming for a society in which everyone has the same opportunities and is rewarded in equal ways for the same achievements. Nobody is looking for the world to become a gelatinous blob with no individuality. You can still be great at some things and shit at other things in a fair society.
The hot button issues of feminism today - equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity and not wanting to be gdamn sexually harassed every step of the way - are not pipe dreams; nor are they fighting against nature. They are the evolution and progression of society.

As for your rant about women ignoring the nice guy in favour of the alpha... Fucking hell, man. No.
I'll let you in on a secret I learned when I was 15, perpetually single and sexually frustrated: When you're an asshole who thinks that women can't think for themselves and that biology is the reason you're single, you're not being a nice guy.
I stopped feeling sorry for myself and pretending it was society's fault that I was single. I started talking to girls because I was interested in being their friend, not just thinking of them as some other species I had to pursue as a sexual conquest. And go figure - being an actually nice guy resulted in many of those friendships blossoming into something more.
So the girl you crush on is dating some muscle-adorned meathead instead of you? Good for her. It's her choice.

Y'all need more female friends. Gdamn. Women are the same species. Start treating them as such. You'd be amazed how beneficial that basic respect can be to your life.
avatar 2muchvideogames says: 14th January 2018, 22:22 PM
Im guessing ur expereiences were way way different from mine. I never had that attittude back then, fortunately. I dont have that attitude now either, but when I look back at what kind of people i met back then, it kind of tilts towards that train of thought.

That said I know you have a nice job and all that, might be hard for you to see from a different perspective, things are very different over here.
avatar Stojke says: 14th January 2018, 22:56 PM
@Archie
Because I, and everyone else, can communicate with god via thoughts.
avatar Soup Miner says: 14th January 2018, 23:03 PM
Archie, I believe you are putting words in people's mouths. 2much didn't make the common complaints that you're addressing. He brought up how societies have been encouraging men to adopt the nice guy mentality, and that's true. It has. The 90s and early 2000s peddled a notion that women are attracted to things that they aren't necessarily sexually attracted to in reality, and it spawned a culture of confused, frustrated men who were just misled. I don't want my son to buy into those notions and become that guy.
avatar Jessie says: 14th January 2018, 23:03 PM
If I know one thing from stories I’ve read and personal experiences, if you ever find yourself lamenting the fact you’re a nice guy and women don’t go throw themselves at you, you’re probably not a nice guy. Women don’t owe you anything for not being a dick.
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 23:09 PM
2much: I grew up working-class in a poor neighbourhood. I left school and got a job at 16. I went to community college at 18 and worked fucking hard (whilst still having a job), then moved country with the money I had earned to get the job I have now.

I'm still super white, male and privileged, but I earned my living. Don't give me that "hard to see from a different perspective" shtick. It's not a privileged stance to want equality across gender, race and class.

Talk to me about your experiences. I think you'll be surprised how similar they were. I think at 15, my post would have been pretty much word-for-word the same as yours.

"societies have been encouraging men to adopt the nice guy mentality"
Alternative viewpoint: Don't be a dick. You'll do better in society if you're not an asshole. It works. Why on Earth would you want your son to not be a good guy?

Stojke, you need to seek help.

Listen to Jessie, 2much.
avatar Soup Miner says: 14th January 2018, 23:22 PM
Additionally
"We should be aiming for a society in which everyone has the same opportunities and is rewarded in equal ways for the same achievements."
The universe doesn't reward anything in equal ways for the same achievements, it just doesn't. This is one way that widespread doctrines disrespect the human condition. You say we "should" be shooting for this because it's been drilled into you since childhood, but who says what should and shouldn't be, and why should that word be trusted as the gospel truth? Because it's led to so much progress, just look around? What about the people who are misled by these suppositions? They aren't benefitting from that "progress". It seems more likely that many notions of "progress" aren't as progressive as we're taught. In reality, there are probably better, unacknowledged ways to "progress" that fly in the face of the doctrines that are so popular right now.
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 23:27 PM
What do you even mean? So much text with so little substance.
The universe doesn't get a say in this. We're talking about society. We built that. We decide what shape it takes. The universe can keep giving a percentage of us cancer at random, but in the meantime, I'd like to live in a fair and equal society.

What about equality is so frightening to you?
avatar Soup Miner says: 14th January 2018, 23:32 PM
Equality has become a buzzword, Archie. I've learned to value earned strength over entitlement, and "equality" often comes with connotations of results without effort, struggle, or personal growth.
avatar Archie says: 14th January 2018, 23:36 PM
I feel like that definition is on you, Sean. All I've done this entire conversation is promote the strength of the individual.
avatar Jessie says: 14th January 2018, 23:42 PM
What if you'd had a daughter? You'd support a world where she is inherently less valued in what she provides to the world? The wage gap isn't a myth. And a world where men take what they want from her because they can?
avatar Soup Miner says: 14th January 2018, 23:46 PM
Your approach is very aggressive and demeaning. This is not a healthy way to get through to people, look at how angry you sound. For as long as I've "known" you, you've always seemed eager to express your agitations over someone's words. I used to be that eager, and it just complicated my life.

Jessie: If I had a daughter, I'd encourage her to get in touch with her natural strengths, and to get in touch with universal tendencies so she can better navigate the world--so she develops the strength to take what *she* wants. Thing is, womens' natural strengths aren't so tied to dominating and manipulating the material world. That's not a weakness; that's a difference that needs to be respected for the sake of personal growth. Everyone seems so eager to shout "sexist!!" at things like this. That seems silly and dare I say counter-progressive. You're coming from this popular notion that women need to be protected from men, because men are mean and just want to take everything from them--as if they can't learn ways to protect themselves. And you say that like it's not the case that men and women take from other men just because they can. "We no longer fear lions, we fear sharks." I hope my next child is a daughter. I already have a son.
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 00:26 AM
I still can't figure out where you stand on anything. Honestly every post you've made has been as confusing as the last.
It seems that overall you're leaning into the 'grab 'em by the pussy' brigade, but I can't be sure.
avatar Soup Miner says: 15th January 2018, 00:31 AM
I'm on the side that says, "If you can, you've earned it." I side with natural selection.
It's not the case that we live in a world where men take from women because they're women. It *is* the case that the strong take from the weak, and it seems to be a popular trend, as Dimbark said, for societies to want to whine and tell the strong ones to stop instead of encouraging the weak to rise to the occasion. As I said originally, this is either because the dynamic is misunderstood as "bad", or because it's not in the competitive interest of the strong.
avatar Solokiller says: 15th January 2018, 00:34 AM
All of this is the result of humans trying to make sense of the universe and themselves. We create things so we imagine there is a creator who made us.
Whether there is or not is unknowable until we have evidence proving or disproving the existence of a separate something outside our universe.

People these days are feeling pressure from society to perform and meet expectations and it takes its toll on their minds.
Ultimately it's just a complex biological computer influenced by chemicals, so it's up to us to make sure the influence of society is kept in check.

Society itself is always changing, i agree that things like different wages or jobs that are only considered for men are things that need to change. We've already come a long way, but it'll take time before gender becomes a non-issue in these areas.

I believe that we should as individuals strive to improve the world around ourselves so that our children don't have to face the same hardships and issues that we have experienced in life.
You should teach them about things like religion and discrimination, but teach them to make their own choices and treat people with respect, even if they've done things that you don't believe they should be respected for.

No matter what we do, there will always be those who abuse the trust and opportunities that they've been given. People who are part of the system and abuse the power and privilege that they are given and who can continue to so because those who could stop them are too afraid.

That is why it is important for you to instill in your children the strength to face their fears so that they will speak up when they are being bullied, or discriminated, because otherwise the situation will only worsen, and then people make statements such as these, where they vent their frustrations about life and their experiences because they feel pressure.
It is important to talk about it, but people often feel that their experiences are unique to themselves because you tend to focus on the positive side of life when it comes to others, while focusing on the worst parts of their own life.

I know that saying this stuff can come off as demeaning but you have to understand that if everybody always thought the same, there'd be no problems. It is because people think differently and are different that humans are the way that they are. And that's also why there will always be conflict and discrimination and different standards of living.

We can only ever minimize the differences to a point where the conflict is handled peacefully, through discussion and debate without confrontation, and discrimination has no effect because those around you and those discriminating you keep them in check, and different standards are minor and by choice rather than by where you were born, or what family or the color of your skin.

Personally, when it comes to things like religion i recognize where it comes from and what it means to people, and why it has such an effect on them, but i live life knowing that we came from nothing and will be reduced to nothing in time. We have a few decades here and we can either do something with it or not. At this point in time some of us can freely travel and life as we want and some can't.

Hopefully soon we can provide a global standard for life that can be respected but it's going to take effort from everybody.
I personally think that AI research is where it's at, once we have AI that can solve any given problem it's only a matter of time before it solves every problem and automates our whole world.
At that point we only really have one problem and that's resource availability, and if we can reach the stars that's no issue. We're hopefully going to Mars soon, we're going back to the Moon so that's great.

Maybe in our lifetime we can go on a cruise around the Moon and back and experience it all, who knows? It kinda makes things like gender look really small and almost insignificant because we'll go from having people in a space station to people on the next planet over, and they can come back and then their kids are different too.

I mean when i was a kid i read about the house of the future and it was talking about videophones at the front door and automatic garbage collection and now we have 4K flatscreens and webcams that can let you talk to people on the other side of the planet.

You're right to be worried but in 10 years things could be very different. You shouldn't worry too much and focus on the positive side of things. Otherwise you'll spend so much time thinking about what could be or what could go wrong and you'll just drive yourself insane, and you'll miss all the things that are happening right now.

If you have kids, you should take care and be concerned but you should focus on what they're doing right now. If they're playing with a ball you should take in the joy they have in kicking it around, not worry if some other kid comes over and kicks it away or something.
Just enjoy it, because otherwise you'll worry for years and then something happens, and all the time you spent worrying was wasted instead of having spent it with your kids.

This turned into a bit of a rant but that's what i think of it all.
avatar Dimbeak says: 15th January 2018, 00:40 AM
A fair society increases the value of those who are subdued; it doesn't decrease the value of those who are already ahead.

User Posted Image
avatar Bruce says: 15th January 2018, 01:51 AM
nothing in this discussion makes sense but you still try to squeeze the last drop of sense from it so heres your answer to all your questions: squeeze it boy!
avatar JeffMOD says: 15th January 2018, 05:49 AM
EDIT: Okay, now that I've had a few minutes to collect my thoughts from a less livid place, (I still stand by everything I said below, I just have additional, less angry things to add) I just want to say the attitude of "we must dominate everything" is very... dangerous. In order to dominate something, you must make war with it. War leads to destruction, destruction leads to, well, nothing. I feel it's much healthier to, whenever possible, find a way to co-operate or create your way to your goals. Instead of bending something to your will, find a way to make its will your own, or to simply avoid confronting the obstacle altogether by making a way to bypass it. This is especially true for people - if you try to make your way through life by stepping on others or forcing them to do things they don't want to, you'll make a lot of enemies. This has, historically, been the downfall of many people and nations. Those who co-operate with others and make positive contributions, on the other hand, tend to succeed much more, and for longer, than those who don't. To pick a historical example I'm sure we're all familiar with, let's look at World War 2. The Axis fell because they sought to dominate all those around them, including those who had previously been their allies (mainly Russia. During the winter.) The Allies, on the other hand, banded together and worked with one another, sharing technology, troops, and tactics, and, while it was an uphill battle, managed to defeat the Axis. This would not have happened if the UK had left France and the rest of Europe to rot, or if the Americans hadn't come to the UK's aid and provided financial, logistical, and manpower-based support. Those who seek to dominate may win in the short term, but those who co-operate with others will always eventually come out on top. If you're coming at this from a religious standpoint, the various scriptures are equally clear on this - Those who work together with their fellows will prosper. The meek shall inherit the earth, Share what one has with others, Live a simple and harmonious life with nature and people, we're all in this together, etc.

God does not, if you believe in them, want us to dominate one another. We're supposed to work together to make our world a better place.

On with my original post:
-----

Okay, so I've been staying the hell away from posting in this journal because of how toxic I saw this becoming from the OP, but I can't stay silent anymore. I'm gonna ramble for a bit.

If you believe in "alpha males", allow me to (futilely, because if you believe in that sort of thing you're probably already too far gone) explain why you're wrong.
Alpha males do not exist. The animal behaviorist, Rudolph Schenkel, who first coined the term, was incorrect. The two packs he studied lived in captivity and were not representative of the natural order. L. David Mech, who reinforced this flawed study with one of his own, has since renounced the idea after further research studying wolves in the wild. It turns out, in fact, in the natural world, wolves live in families without any designated 'ranking' whatsoever. The idea of "only the strongest male gets to mate" is simply not true, and this kind of myth only persists in *our* society because asshats who cheat and steal their way to the 'top' want a convenient excuse to continue being asshats.

"The strong should take from the weak" is a cynical worldview, to say nothing of the implications that those who take from others must then logically deserve what they take because of some "natural superiority" - something I've observed a lot of when people talk about the wealthy - it's assumed that those who have money are stronger, more hardworking, charismatic, and intelligent than those who do not, even when their wealth came from pure chance, such as being born into a rich family. The current US President being both a good example of that line of thinking and why it's not a safe assumption to make.

On the subject of women, I happen to know a few, (they aren't interested in entitled pricks who treat them like shit, just by the by) and I find them to be both more respectable, and more capable, in general, than most of the men I know. A good deal of them are also game developers, meaning they have to work twice as hard as their male peers to be taken half as seriously, something I've seen firsthand. Since this is a website centered around game modding, and games in general seem to be rather toxic towards women, I would like to point out that both the first computer programmer, and the person who is directly responsible for the first cross-platform, high level programming language, were women, the latter also being a highly decorated naval officer. So bear that in mind the next time you try to make an argument that "areas where there are few women are like that because they lack natural ability or engagement". It's not, the environment has just become too much of a "boy's club" that the capable women are pushed out due to constant harassment.

It is true that men and women are different. They, however, are not different enough for you to treat them like objects or a separate species. They're individual human beings, the same as anyone else, and should be treated as such without you making presumptions about who they are simply because they have different genitalia.

For those of you who have mixed up what each colour pill did in The Matrix, (It was the blue one that let you intentionally close your eyes to facts) you share your worldview with Paul Elam, a man who would rather shit his pants than let a woman have any decision-making power, and who accuses rape victims of "asking for it". Read into that what you will.

Also the Wachowskis are women so you have no right whatsoever to appropriate a metaphor from their most famous work.
avatar Stojke says: 15th January 2018, 07:28 AM
@Archie
I don't, but you need to seek Jesus :)
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 08:09 AM
Jeff, that was mic drop-worthy
avatar NineTnine says: 15th January 2018, 08:11 AM
"... It makes a hell of a lot more sense than accepting literally the dumbest possible answer. MAN EXISTS BECAUSE LOL GOD. WOMEN EXISTS BECAUSE HIS RIB. EARTH IS SHIT COS A SNAKE DID IT."

^ Aaaaaaaand this is the kind of ridicule that makes me not enjoy discussing spiritual stuff with Archie....
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 09:31 AM
I ridicule because it's ridiculous. I keep asking for people to explain to me why it's not, but nobody ever does.
I've read the bible - it didn't help its cause.
Why is God and Jesus still taken remotely seriously when Zeus and Hercules aren't? There's literally no difference - they're just myths. Feel free to believe in whatever you want, but stop interfering with progress by insisting they're facts.
I will stop fighting religion when it stops fighting critical thought.

It teaches people to accept what they're told without any evidence. This is one of the biggest threats to society today.

It teaches people that they answer to a higher power, not their fellow man. This results in extremism and violence and disregard for human life.

It teaches people that scientific progress, societal progress and personal growth are things to be feared and mistrusted.

Religion is not the same as belief. I respect a belief in a higher power. Just give me one singular reason why your belief structure should be remotely based on one of the major religions. You believe what you believe because a broken system taught you to believe in it rather than question it.
avatar NineTnine says: 15th January 2018, 10:00 AM
"You believe what you believe because a broken system taught you to believe in it rather than question it."

That's a bold claim considering you've never met me and you don't know a thing about me
avatar Stojke says: 15th January 2018, 10:21 AM
It is not possible that you have read the bible, especially the new testament portion, and have not seen anything worth wile in it. It literally explains what love is in 1st Corinthians 13 , that it is not a feeling but the feeling you get is the reaction from the way of life that love is. And if you try to add or substract from the way of life that love is you will never get true love.

You can try to explain the feelings in your gut and mind when you are facing a decision or having an inner conversation as subliminal portion of the mind but logically that is not a valid explanation nor reasoning as it presents everything as theoretically worthless and pointless and yet that same feeling tells us when we ask it that it is not.

The greatest evidence is belief because of the reasons in the first post I wrote. When you say : God please make X happen and after an n ammount of time X happens : Why do you not say Thank you god but instead of that think : It must have been an accident.
Those are lies people tell to them selfes and they (Lies) degenerate their logic.

"It teaches people that they answer to a higher power, not their fellow man. This results in extremism and violence and disregard for human life. "

And this is absolutetly compeltely false if somebody lives by the way of the new testament (and what you wrote tells you did not read it).

-edit-
As the new testament dictates love and cherishing your loved ones before doing anything in the name of God. As well as loving, praying for and cherishing your enemies so that they as well understand what wrong deeds they do. It shows gods dedication of becoming a man, living like a man and dying in the worst possible way like a man in order to save his own children.
Anyone saying that the new testament dictates hate and personal decay has never read it and tried to apply it.

"Religion is not the same as belief. I respect a belief in a higher power. Just give me one singular reason why your belief structure should be remotely based on one of the major religions. You believe what you believe because a broken system taught you to believe in it rather than question it."

Religion is belief , a dedication to the ways of that belief.
avatar Daubster says: 15th January 2018, 10:37 AM
"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality looks like discrimination."
Jeff (great summary, I can echo your points on discrimination against women in the games industry) and Archie on-point, completely agree.

2000-year-old scriptures can't be allowed to dictate modern policy. Take what you want from them on a personal level, find comfort, guidance, communities within and around them - that's all fine. However enforcing those beliefs via policy, or using them as an excuse to ignore larger societal/global issues (discrimination, inequality, global warming, etc.) is a large factor in holding our civilization back.
avatar Daubster says: 15th January 2018, 10:49 AM
User Posted Image
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 13:02 PM
NineTnine:
Not particularly bold. It's how the vast, vast majority of evangelism happens. Children have malleable and suggestive minds. Sane adults would not convert without having some basis for it instilled in them as children.

Stojke:
I did read it. I already had love and morality in my life without needing a book to tell me what it meant. You've still provided zero evidence. You can't just say that logically things don't make sense just because you don't understand them. Provide a counter-argument or any reasoning for your conclusions.
Currently all you're saying is you refuse to accept basic science because you can "feel Jesus' love" which is borderline schizophrenia.
You also say that the new testament is what matters, yet you genuinely seem to think the creation story is fact.
"Religion is belief , a dedication to the ways of that belief." This doesn't remotely answer me. Just give me one singular reason why your belief structure should be remotely based on one of the major religions. Why is your religion the right one as opposed to all the others?
avatar Stojke says: 15th January 2018, 13:12 PM
2000-year-old scriptures are way past policies of any time, they are about the essence of human whereabouts and mind.

@Archie
Because, as I already wrote, every single living being, including me, can communicate with god via thoughts and consult about anything.

And why should I go out of my way to copy paste you something you can go see your self? Out of best intentions I told you what I know is fact and what I live every day and have no fear of anything because of that.
I do feel sorrow when men do wrong but I can not change anyone directly.

And I do not accept what you call "Basic Science" because its riddled with holes and idiocy.
I accept real proven sciences that always yield the same result, like electronics and electricity.

-Edit- *At work*

Of course I support creation theory because new testament only makes sense because of it - That there is someone above all who treates everyone with love.
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 15:05 PM
"what I know is fact" - Nope. Without a shred of evidence it's just a blind belief. You can't decide something is a fact when it has no basis in reality, nor any demonstrable means of proof.

"And why should I go out of my way to copy paste you something"
I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to provide an answer to any of the points I've raised. So far you're at 0.
Why is your religion the right one as opposed to all the others?

"I accept real proven sciences that always yield the same result" The fundamental laws of physics and nature always yield the same results and disprove just about every religious myth.

If you have voices in your head, you should seek treatment.
avatar Stojke says: 15th January 2018, 17:50 PM
Not once did I mention voices in my head. God communicates in a complete sensory information set. Even complex time lengthy events are obtained in a single fraction of a moment.

I am sorry that you are unable to experience perfection because of denial of what is in your plain sight every day.

Firstly, you can not prove that anyone else is real except yourself. Secondly, since you your self can not prove sh1t, as you have no instrumentation, microscopes, analyzers, etc, you are only talking in blind talk where you trust what you read and what you were told.
And thirdly, none of this matters without love and with out it you yourself and everyone else is worthless and unwanted by any and all individuals.

And I bet you cant even define what love is.
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 18:59 PM
Why is your religion the right one as opposed to all the others?

I don't even know where to start with the nonsense you just posted, so I'll just keep trying to get you to answer basic questions.
avatar Dimbeak says: 15th January 2018, 19:37 PM
Firstly, you can not prove that anyone else is real except yourself. Secondly, since you your self can not prove sh1t, as you have no instrumentation, microscopes, analyzers, etc, you are only talking in blind talk where you trust what you read and what you were told.

Trusting the reality I perceive and question myself on is apparently worthless. Trusting a society of individuals who seek to question each other and treat new discoveries with massive skepticism is worthless. I need to trust a 2000-year-old book and put my heart in a placebo. Got it.

And thirdly, none of this matters without love and with out it you yourself and everyone else is worthless and unwanted by any and all individuals.

I love to hate things because it's funny. I'm pretty content. Who says you get to define what makes my life have value?

And I bet you cant even define what love is.
A positive chemical reaction in the brain that helps us develop attachments and form societies? Wait, no, it has to be this spiritual, immeasurable thing so that it's literally impossible to prove you wrong, since we can't prove that it's not right. Kinda in the same way that we can't prove that dragons aren't real and we haven't just found any yet.
avatar Stojke says: 15th January 2018, 20:07 PM
There is nothing that says or proves my religion is the right religion , no religion can prove it is right, because it is all about free will (In every aspect). The way the new testament tells its readers to treat people is the exact same way as I want to be treated.

I did not choose Christianity because I had nothing better to do, I choose it because it yielded exceptional results and revealed the truth in practice.

And of course because I understood that the feeling within me is not an unknown subliminal force but an inteligent living organism, that is above any and all of my understanding, that wants to be my friend and relative.
avatar UrbaNebula says: 15th January 2018, 22:19 PM
There's a lot of bullshit in that ancient fantasy book huh? I seriously despise religion and the endless bickering it causes. It's no better than politics. It may even be worse in terms of body count alone.

A couple of years ago, if a Jehovah's Witness knocked on my door, I would give them the time of day and listen to what they had to say.

More recently however, I tried something else. I listened to their passages and took their leaflets. Then I figured I'd tell him what I believed. No chance. The guy came back at me on everything I said, as if any thought of mine that didn't coincide with his precious fucking story book was wrong.

I really hope the people who spend their lives living by an outdated ancient text find comfort in the endless black void of death when they realise that there's fuck all there.
avatar NineTnine says: 15th January 2018, 22:19 PM
"Not particularly bold. It's how the vast, vast majority of evangelism happens. Children have malleable and suggestive minds. Sane adults would not convert without having some basis for it instilled in them as children."

Again, by that claim you know nothing about me (or I must be insane, if we go by your rationalizing)

The issue I have Archie is that you arn't very wise when trying to discuss this sort of stuff. I know other people that hold very similar views that you hold and yet they conduct themselves appropriately in a discussion. They can at least express wisdom without making derogatory comments (even if they think spiritual stuff is silly like you do) for the sake of having a meaningful discussing.
Unfortunatly what you seem to do is sledgehammer your way through while making broad sweeping statements (like above). It doesn't really make for an appealing conversation to be had with you.
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 22:47 PM
I don't want to politely discuss religion and entertain your delusion.

It's deeply, deeply unhealthy and needs to fuck the fuck off as quickly as possible. If people stopped doing things in the name of God they might have to show some fucking accountability for once.
avatar Dimbeak says: 15th January 2018, 22:55 PM
I do think they have a point when it comes to rudeness, Arch. You can be a bit toxic when you get riled up about politics/religion my mate.

It's deeply, deeply unhealthy and needs to fuck the fuck off as quickly as possible.

You're treating belief like a health problem mate. Surely it's disingenuous of you to think religion is only negative, it's inspired as much good in mankind as bad in my eyes.
avatar Striker says: 15th January 2018, 23:05 PM
[EDIT] WARNING - BF WALL OF TEXT

Let me jump in the bandwagon and join this humongous journal. (when I saw 57 comments in a journal I thought they were

mostly short non-sensical answers :)) ).

Today everyone believes that everyone has inherent value. And now everyone is so confused, it seems, because nobody

wants to--or knows how to--explore the natural order. It's bad and unfair, we've been taught. And something I've learned

that has made my life so much simpler, and better, is that it's a unique part of the male condition to become powerful.



Idk why, this is something I imagine Jordan Peterson would say. I also believe that everyone has inherent value, that value

lies in a person's potential, if we are to take the perspective of the evolving man. If not, well, everyone has inherent

value simply because they're part of other people/society's reality.

t is, in reality, achievements that give a man value--the means of acquiring enough resources to build a suitable

environment for his mate[s] and his offspring.

I've realized this myself in the past year. Unknowingly I've tried not to spend a lot of money on everything just because I

can afford it, it just made me feel not right. And then I've realized this is because I'm a pessimist(or a stoic?) in some

situations and I want to extend my well-being into the future as far as I can. Although I imagine having a family in the

future, because I don't feel prepared financially and because I currently don't resonate with being a family man right now,

but rather enjoy a hedonistic lifestyle for now, I'm afraid of commitment.

People are bombarded with this message that life isn't a competition, or that we've moved past those primitive hunter-

gatherer days. But it is a competition, and we are still hunter-gatherers. And instead of fearing lions that would eat us,

we fear sharks that would take everything we've earned.


This embodies my love-hate relationship with capitalism. I love that it sprinkles your life with all kinds of

opportunities, but in reality I'm not that interested in money. I'm more interested in the freedom they provide in this

society, but I realize the profound need of social support also. That's more important than money, many times. I was always

a curious person and honestly I just want to play, construct, experiment and have fun. Yeah making money can give you new

ways of constructing, of architecting, of playing, managing but... accumulating a fortune is useless without a legacy. I've

come to see that saving and investing money for the long term is more of an altruist act than a self-serving one. What the

fuck am I going to do with lots of money when I'm 80 and trembling? Leaving a legacy to someone is probably the best thing

I can at that age, that will bring me happiness. I'm not betting on this though, not wanting to artificially create regrets

for me later if it doesn't work out :)). There's a saying though, I don't remember but it's something like this: plant

fruit trees for your children and nut trees for your grand-children.

As a man, it is within my power, and indeed my purpose, to dominate and manipulate the very material world itself
Yeah well... maybe it is like that. But maybe this is just a skewed perspective and this is essentially our playful nature.
Don't you just do sometimes things because they feel... interesting? Actually, Jeffmod's answer about us people collaborating is a more beautiful and concrete response than I can give.

-------------------------
Random responses to other comments and thoughts
-------------------------

@Tetsu0: Nothing comes close to making me happier than literally manipulating metal and tools to fix or upgrade

my car or motorcycle.


Oh yeah! Recently I had to dable a bit with my car and fix some things. I really need to buy a garage somewhere because I

just like tinkering! :D

@Crollo but we wouldn't live in the world we do now without the outliers who decide to define themselves and the

world around them by their own rules, rather than the rules everybody else lives by.


Most of the huge leaps of progress was brought in the world by people who we like to say that defy the rules, the status-

quo. But it's just how they think, these people. A high intelligence questions and imagines a lot.

Archie-Stojke Discussion

I'm in favor of a secular state that is permissive with religions. Unfortunately, I've seen lately that religious ideas have made their way into schools much more than when I was a kid. Yes, I've been raised with the religious values and all those nice stories and they served me well. I wish I could be able to do the raising of my own child in the future the way my parents raised me: no religious zealots, but neither atheists... I don't know how they did it, they don't know either. I guess it's a circumstantial luck. Or maybe the plain old "don't take everything so seriously" stuff :)).

I remember that I've had some mental quirks at the age of 10-11 where I started having some inner conversations that stressed and scared the shit out of me because I was ashamed and afraid to talk about it (I remember puting my head on the pillow and hiding away my crying). A religion professor had given us some books that talked about the sin of cursing. The book presented some rather distorted realities and disturbing naratives, that when taken seriously can really affect a child's mental health. And because I liked to challenge authority all the time(I wasn't an easy kid to have, curious, asking lots of questions and all that), at some point I developed this temptation to insult God, but not really doing it. You know the feeling of sitting near a ledge and having the feeling of jumping? Oh and in our church there was an icon at the entrance where it wrote that people who come there with bad thought will have their head chopped with a sword. I was tormented. I can't say that book started this, it maybe didn't, it's just that at that age I've got my first existential crisis I guess... a weird depression, a feeling I knew nothing about that scared me. I got passed it through my playful nature anyway. I can't blame the professor either, actually I enjoyed having conversations with him, with the priest... My depression was probably caused also by my parents fighting, and I can't blame them either. They loved me and I love them. We had lots of fights and still do but... fuck it, it wouldn't be that intimate love I have for them if not for those fights.
At 13 I was basically the most atheistic I was in my entire life.. until I had to go to church some Sundays cause common, you can't miss that for too long and can't be noticed :)).
At 16-17 I've read "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh. Most of that book I've read on some hilly grasslands near a forest, at my grandmother's village. Gosh I wish sometimes I could have those copious amounts of time now so that I can read. I really regret not reading more at that age, because now I can feel my cultural defficiency. Anyway, that book is what set me in the agnostic camp. The vastness of space slowly discoverd by man across the millenia was like music to my ears. Mind you, that is not a religious book, it's popularized science(cosmology). But right now, in my head, the plausibility of God actually creating Adam and Eve in a garden somewhere on Earth is equally as ridiculous as this Universe coming from nothing. I've now got a feeling that there is something/someone beyond all these or actually supporting all these quantum fluctuations that give form to our world.
The possibility of an entity that embodies what we know as love, an entity that can help us through unknown ways... is enchanting, it's calming at times. Especially when in difficult times, and I've been through some difficult times, mentally and physically, and I expect to fight more problems in the future, when you're at your end of your powers, well then... prayer, in a form or another, sculpted by the religious ideas or your own sincere thoughts... can be a powerful aid.

Of course I can also think of prayer, meditation etc. as alternative states of consciousness. I've spoken to someone who took Ayahuasca: it's a ritual that profoundly changes you as a person, but not everybody can do that. I've also spoken to someone who is what some people would call a fundamentalist christian. That person explained to me the initial experience that converted her to her present belief. Some of these intense experiences happen to some people and can change them for life, but I don't know if we can ever know for sure if these experiences are authentic, at least for the outsiders, 'cause for the person experiencing it, it sure is real. If after these experiences these people lead a good, fulfilling life, then how can we ever justify the need to change their views? Isn't a good, calm life, ultimately the best thing a person can have?

The problem arises when persons who have changed their views both have distorted versions of reality(and I know reality is a complex subject, but I'm reffering here to phenomena that occur in nature or to other persons) and try to convince other people of this. They're conviced the stat of consciousness they experienced must surely be from God or something. Well can I deny it if I'm agnostic? It's a difficult problem to think about, especially because I have my own subjective feelings about a loving, protecting Entity in the Universe! What if you'd slip an MDMA pill in a drink to a person who was about to pray? What would happen then? It kinda depends on the cultural upbringing of that person of what he/she'll believe after that right?

It's also always important to consider a person's background, assess their story and see how might that have influenced their views? I know for sure that a lot of people who suddenly converted have lived a stressed life or somehow they've seen that what they do is extremely wrong and the caused a deep moral panic inside them.

Archie is a voice of reason in this discussion - shaped probably by westernized culture. Sharp and to the point arguments like Archie gives can infuriate religious people or make them feel pity. But it's the cold shower of reality... sometime's good, sometime's bad. As for Stojke, I'm honestly pondering if he's trolling right now. If not, well, he has all the right to believe what he wants to believe. I think Christianity has some really good practical advices that deserves to be explored. I'm not a man of religion, and I've not read the bible( ok I've read some parts, know some stories, but not integrally, especially I lack knowledge of the old testament). My distilled essence of Christianity is Jesus preaching of love. Love your neighbour as much as you love yourself. Boy that's hard and I wish I could do that everyday, but I find myself failing often times at this.
I think that's why democracy exists and it's a good thing. If only people like Archie existed, or only people like Stojke, or whomever, the world would blow itself to pieces in no time. The world is a tangled mess of ideologies and persons who have different beliefs and somehow this entanglement keeps the world from exploding or imploding.
avatar Archie says: 15th January 2018, 23:22 PM
I get incredibly frustrated when people don't question their sources, don't think critically or use tradition as an excuse to forgo logic.

Belief is not a health problem. Belief in a higher power is a fairly rational response to the fucking terrifying prospect that none of this means anything.

Religion is not the same as belief, though. Religion is organised delusion. Blindly standing in the face of all evidence because an iron-age book apparently had all the answers. It's such blatant horse-shit, and it's embarrassing that people give it more consideration than they do myths about Norse gods or Santa Claus.

I cannot categorically say that there's not some all-powerful being. There's no specific evidence against one (well, except entropy, but shhh). Believe in one if it makes you feel better.
I can categorically say that the Christian mythology is wrong. The fundamental laws of the universe disprove almost all of it - so just throw it out and believe in something new.

Belief is not the same as religion. Belief deserves respect. Religion deserves contempt.
avatar Penguinboy says: 16th January 2018, 00:05 AM
I believe this comment thread is slowly dribbling its way towards the type of conduct that I don't really want at TWHL. Feel free to discuss what you like but please keep it civil and don't be rude to each other or anybody else.

That's directed at everyone, not at any one specific person. I realise you're all passionate about your particular opinions and there are some wildly conflicting views being expressed, but that doesn't mean you can't still be respectful towards each other.

You will never change somebody's opinion on their personal views by debating with them on the internet.
avatar UrbaNebula says: 16th January 2018, 00:22 AM
Is that so? Hold my beer. *cracks knuckles *

Yeeeeah, not really though.
avatar Soup Miner says: 16th January 2018, 06:17 AM
I want to take a step back real quick after looking back over some of the first comments in this journal. I see that some of my phrasing might be misunderstood. I know some of my word choices have some unintended connotations.
When I talk about the "natural order", I'm talking about the way the universe tends to want to operate. So of course human instincts, social behavior and gender dynamics by extension, have a natural order. I suppose that's just a fancy way of saying "the way things". I'm not making any assertions about what "should be", only what seems to be. And I'm talking about broad observations of the natural order--like "beavers tend to build dams" broad.
When I talk about "purpose" I don't mean to say that I've limited myself or resigned myself exclusively to my instincts. Rather--and Crollo articulated this well--I've come to understand what my biology as a male seems to want me to do, and I've decided that life is much easier, and the world is much simpler, if I know how to listen to and respect those instincts. I suppose that's also a fancy way of saying "I'm in touch with emotions". I've observed the developed world, as it evolves so fast, sort of leave the merits of those instincts behind; especially for men as of late. This troubles me because it seems disrespectful toward things that have worked for the entirety of evolution, and continue to work. "Wild animals get along just fine."
When I talk about "dominating", I don't necessarily mean "take by force". Rather, I mean "to hold absolute control over" with all of the responsibilities that such control implies. Men tend to want to control the material world more than women; they tend to want to dominate their environment. This coevolved with an apparent tendency in women to appreciate a controlled environment, wherein a woman can safely tackle the struggles of child care. And that makes sense. It wouldn't make sense for evolving women to be responsible for both their environment and child care, so men had to evolve the capacity to handle the environment part. This is part of how men evolved to be physically stronger. We see that this instinct is still at at play today when we assert that women are attracted to confidence. Confidence is a way to measure control, even if it can be faked.

Striker: "I also believe that everyone has inherent value, that value lies in a person's potential"
I have no logical argument against this because it's purely mentality-based, but I tend to disagree. I believe potential has no value unless it is realized. Potential is something to be monitored, but it seems unhealthy to assign value to it--I see this a lot in the college crowd; that they tend to define themselves by something they haven't achieved yet. A prospective astronaut doesn't have the value of an astronaut until he is an astronaut.

Jeff: I appreciate your argument.
"If you believe in "alpha males", allow me to (futilely, because if you believe in that sort of thing you're probably already too far gone) explain why you're wrong..."
No, alpha males as we define them in wolf packs don't exist. But in nature, there are winners and losers. In humans, the winners tend to exhibit qualities that we describe as "alpha". For example, a "player" seeks to imitate a winner's, or an "alpha's" qualities, but isn't necessarily actually a winner, or "alpha".

""The strong should take from the weak' is a cynical worldview, to say nothing of the implications that those who take from others must then logically deserve what they take because of some 'natural superiority'"
I believe you are responding to my comment that "if you can, you've earned it". I meant to edit that phrasing, because I don't mean to suggest notions of "natural superiority". Because you're right. Someone born wealthy didn't earn it. It's worth mentioning that didn't say "should". What I should have said was: if you can, there's no reason not to--which is still quite cynical. That is to say, if you are in a position to acquire something of self-interest and there are no negative consequences, there is no reason not to take that thing. The Donald Trump pussy grab fiasco is a great example. He was in a position to take something of self-interest, but it can't be said that there were no negative consequences.

"...So bear that in mind the next time you try to make an argument that "areas where there are few women are like that because they lack natural ability or engagement". It's not, the environment has just become too much of a "boy's club" that the capable women are pushed out due to constant harassment."
Nobody here made that argument. I believe you are arguing against a conclusion that you drew here. With that said, it seems fair to say that these environments came to be a "boy's club" as a result of the natural order, or human nature--specifically the male drive to be dominant. The natural evolution of these environments now pose a steeper competitive climb for people (women, yes) who are not evolutionarily inclined to participate. "Women have to work twice as hard". So that's not wrong. My issue is that this is not evidence to say "men are mean", but it is used as such. It's inconsiderate of the factors at play, and inconsiderate of human nature by extension, and nobody wins. At the same time, women are being aggressively encouraged to pursue male dominated fields and I'm kind of sick of hearing about it. Not because "women have their place", but because I like to believe women will make their own decision anyway if they're interested. You don't need to shove interest down people's throats and make them want something they don't want. Again, that's disrespectful. To be clear, this is not a statement about what should be. It's an observation. Lack of women in a field isn't necessarily a statement about "natural ability", but is a statement about the natural order. That statement isn't evil or sexist, it just is what it is.

Edit: Missed this one by Crollo:
"but we wouldn't live in the world we do now without the outliers who decide to define themselves and the world around them by their own rules, rather than the rules everybody else lives by."
This is perfectly in line with the original journal, believe it or not. I'm not considering the outliers when I bring up the natural order because... they're outliers in a post about people in the middle of the curve. [I'm assuming] you were talking about societal rules that people live by when I'm thinking of biological rules that people by. Homosexuals are outliers of the natural order--evolution doesn't seem to favor them. But to your point, there are evolutionary outliers in nature that thrive. I'm just not talking about them. I mean if someone wants to hear me say, "The universe has outliers," there you go, but it's not really relevant to any of the sentiments I wanted to express.
avatar Archie says: 16th January 2018, 08:02 AM
What horrible sentiments. Certainly a lot clearer than your first attempt, and so much worse than I thought.
avatar Dimbeak says: 16th January 2018, 17:18 PM
How are these horrible sentiments mate?

As far as I can tell, this is just the premise of sex/gender realism. Men and women are different and, on average, will naturally pursue different things in life, and sometimes society conflicts with our instincts.
avatar Daubster says: 16th January 2018, 21:22 PM
My main problem with your points is that you omit all of the historical/social context in which these disparities between women and men exist. You choose to call it a "natural order" and ignore the societal factors - i.e. historical oppression/discrimination women have faced from men. For e.g. it's only been a century since women were allowed to vote in most societies, to actively participate in them as equals.

By your logic you could just as easily look at the various income/social inequalities African Americans face and write them off as some sort of inherent biological weakness. All the while ignoring the centuries of slavery, exploitation, selective breeding and other forms of systematic racism they are were (and still are) subjected to in the US. All the while scientific consensus clearly shows that there is no inherent biological difference in cognitive ability between races, unless you choose to look at biased colonialist studies used to reinforce the idea of people of colour as lesser than human.

But let's get back to the gender discussion. While there are tangible physical differences between male/female brains and cognitive strengths/weaknesses, they are at the very most equally as important as general societal tendencies. It's easy to point the finger at hard manual labour and other soon-to-be-obsolete low-valued jobs in today's world of automation, but the mainstream debate usually centers around the fields that drive our civilization forward - i.e. STEM, politics, business and creative industries. When it comes to said fields, the natural physical differences between the brains fall by the wayside to societal factors like upbringing, peers, encouragement in education, all perpetuated by various implicit biases.

For e.g. studies show women's brains tend to be capable of parsing language/communication and abstract ideas better than men's, which are crucial skills to have when tackling theoretical sciences, creative fields etc. That's doesn't really corroborate your views on the discrepnancies in employment in said fields (e.g. physics, games industry) being there due to our different biologies.

So your next argument is essentially "Well maybe women don't want to be in charge/in these fields at all", which even to a larger extent has no real basis in our biological differences, and is largely a result of our societies upbringing/treatment of women. Given the same opportunities as men, women are absolutely as capable to excell in these fields, and are often only held back by archaic preconceptions of their abilities. From a biological standpoint, both men and women are capable of having the same drive to excell/succeed, it doesn't just boil down to aggression/testosterone.

And even if we stick with your christian idea of "natural order", the few fields which tend to have more women in them (i.e. nursing/care, teaching, public relations, etc.) tend to be less valued than male-dominated fields (STEM, politics, corporate business, etc.). On top of that, capitalist governments/economies largely discourage having children by usually offering very little in terms of maternity leave, child support, etc. - all the while pretending to hold up your christian values.

Your answer to that is that men should just be left to "dominate", to have full control of economy/income, however that is generally a very unhealthy/unbalanced way to live to put it mildly. High male suicide rates, workplace deaths, mental health problems, lower life expectancy all corroborate that. Your extreme stance on men seeking full control/dominance is by no means the norm, and while you are free to choose that path for yourself, society should rather actively encourage a balance where both genders have the freedom to take on these responsibilities, to share the load evenly across all aspects of life. Where women are free to pursue a career without the pressure of having children, where they would have equal unscrutinized access to birth control, to family planning, etc. None of that was the case historically with traditional notions of what masculinity/femininity is.

In a nutshell women should not only be free to choose what they want to do with their lives - they should be encouraged to do so, just like men are. They should not be subject to disproportionate workplace harassment, sexual violence, etc. and to have it all excused by weak "men are just predatory by nature" arguments. Likewise, if a man wants to raise his children, it should not be looked down on or seen as somehow counter to our biology. I find it baffling that modern societies striving for levelling out the playing field for both genders in the face of historic inequality is somehow seen as discriminatory towards men, or counter to nature, when at its core it is in the best interests of both sexes.
avatar Soup Miner says: 16th January 2018, 23:19 PM
All right, I'm going to take another step back here.
I came here to express some anxieties over maleness in American culture right now, and to express a source of solace and empowerment in my life. I got what I wanted. A lot of you extracted some kind of attack on your way of life or something, and that's really not my problem. It's led to a lot of wildly tangential arguments that I've allowed myself to get sucked into. And it's not bringing any value to my life to engage or explain myself, especially not to people that keep equating "learning some truth in something you once heard" and "letting a book tell you what to think", you know?
So I've gotten what I wanted from this journal, and I've gotten some bonus wisdom. You guys can keep going if it's a source of stress relief or something.
avatar 2muchvideogames says: 17th January 2018, 09:06 AM
Most ppl dont want the red pill, I mean nobody likes to be told how to live their lives, I dont encourage other ppl trying to tell u how to live your life and dont like to be told how to live mine either. Anyway clearly there are 2 opposing camps of thought here and we all know whos on which side, thats all. Some interesting ideas floating around so everyone gets something perhaps.
avatar Dimbeak says: 18th January 2018, 18:07 PM
Have you ever heard of Jordan Peterson, Soup Miner? He seems like you'd be pretty interested in him.

One of his debates.
You must be logged in to comment.