Questions for the Men

[DarkSelene]

Ok, so everything I say here is just from my perspective, I can be very wrong because I don’t have enough information on the overall situation -- just what you guys give me -- but I think that’s enough.

Everything you have is the assumption of what this person that you have this romanticized view of should be attracted to. According to your own paradigm, the fact that she is in this relationship is wrong -- but there’s a reason for her to be in it.

And maybe there’s nothing wrong with that type of relationship or the guy she’s attracted to, but let’s assume there is for a second.

When you’re in a relationship with someone, it’s very easy to build up this image in your mind that they could never hurt you or act in certain way where you’d feel deeply betrayed. Most of the times you’re close enough to know that there’s no real reason for them to do those things and you also feel secure because of the level of expected trust between you two, but they do it anyways and it’s like the whole image you had of them was shattered. 
When you’re not in a relationship with that person, your image of them is not completely shattered because you’re too far (even if you’re close friends) to be as affected by it -- as in, you never developed that level of expected trust since you can’t ask anything of them. Especially if you’re a male, because then you’re not supposed to be affected by third party **** and you’re not supposed to expect anything from anyone.

So, they do something you don’t expect them to because it doesn’t fit the image you made in your mind of them, but it still doesn’t affect you enough to shatter that paradigm and see the reality because it wasn’t directly at you.

Most people would also say that this is unfair to women, because you’re the one building up the image in your minds and you’re the one falling for it and it’d be mean to blame women as if they did something to you (some people do that, that’s real bitterness), and yeah that’s kinda correct. But it’s also a social problem, because females are usually more valued in society than males -- it comes down to biology but it transformed into something cultural overtime and it’s very toxic, it shouldn’t exist anymore -- so, instead of the image being corrected to “we’re human, humans are messed up” it gets corrected to “I’m bitter and a loser, that guy is better than me (i.e, I should strive for that), she’s still just ‘perfect’” (I’m not saying you think of her as perfect, just trying to illustrate the point).

It’s too easy to say “you can’t justify who you’re attracted to” but that’s only real on a very superficial level, and it’s a very easy excuse to make yourself feel better about the fact that your romantic view of this person was wrong and to deceptively hide the fact that you were once blinded by infatuation.
I’m not trying to pretend like males are retarded going after what their dick is pointing to, I’m just trying to say to stop putting the pussy on a pedestal. 

That's not to say that there's something inherently wrong with this woman, but only that when one builds up a certain image -- it's often incorrect. Also, the example was around ardour’s post, but this fits in everything Ska ever said to me.
(Also, really sorry if I sound crude -- it's just easier that way)

 

[user 115627]

Men tend to struggle more with the recognition of flaws in women's behavior, but in the dating/romantic relationship scenario it will become most visible. The attribution to biology and its influence on culture is correct as far as I'm concerned. None of that would be a problem if there was at least a mitigating force that would educate young men in particular that women can be reckless as well and even malicious - it is something I personally see lacking. We have no issue granting men this "permission"...often skipping the part where they are merely framed as "flawed" and going for the attribution of bad intentions right away. And not just focused on individual men but the entire collective.

So far all I am seeing is that men need to get hurt first (or multiple times) before they recognize any of this. Even that does not necessarily pan out and they kill themselves over their cognitive dissonance, never being able to let go of the romanticization and idealization of a specific person or god forbid, women as a whole. Either that or they become disillusioned and/or hateful.

Whose fault and consequentially whose responsibility is it to fix this? Is it even supposed to be fixed? I do not know. Plenty would say there is not even a problem. I am not a determinist and I am certainly no optimist either, so all I can do is give hints to individual people. The fact that men continuously put each other down is not helpful either.

 

[MisterLonely]

Lots of hard truths in this thread, especially by Selene, I'd just like to say that you're still perfect to me!

(I know I just made a farce off this whole thing for nothing more than some comic relieve but damn it! I really wanted to make that joke )

 

[Xpendable]

Romanticizing females because you like them doesn't help.

Society has been romanticizing women since forever. Ironically, you can't demystify them either because NAWALT.

 

[DarkSelene]

I couldn't agree more. I can see how this could get better, at least a little bit, for future generations if responsible mothers were open to educate and overall accountable women were in stock -- but for that, a big cultural shift would have to occur and I'm not apt enough to get into that part.

As for the adults... It's incredibly difficult to train yourself to see certain things objectively when there are a lot of other factors contributing to it, especially when you and everyone around you have been adding to this misconception that females are on some other level -- unreachable -- all your life. It's not like this is obviously illustrated all the time, but it's still noticeable enough to be pointed out.

Like you said, there's always the chance that by the time one learns their "lesson" they've been hurt so many times that they give up completely... I don't wanna see that happen anymore.

The fact that men continuously put each other down is not helpful either.

This sucks the most.

 

[MisterLonely]

I couldn't agree more. I can see how this could get better, at least a little bit, for future generations if responsible mothers were open to educate and overall accountable women were in stock -- but for that, a big cultural shift would have to occur and I'm not apt enough to get into that part.

As for the adults... It's incredibly difficult to train yourself to see certain things objectively when there are a lot of other factors contributing to it, especially when you and everyone around you have been adding to this misconception that females are on some other level -- unreachable -- all your life. It's not like this is obviously illustrated all the time, but it's still noticeable enough to be pointed out.

Like you said, there's always the chance that by the time one learns their "lesson" they've been hurt so many times that they give up completely... I don't wanna see that happen anymore.

The fact that men continuously put each other down is not helpful either.

This sucks the most.

In this society where men are made to compete to get a women it's very understandable men put each other down, when one is out that's less competition, funny how when you look at our civilized society you'll see the core mechanics of any group/pack society in the animal kingdom is still so present, and that brings me to another question about this, isn't this how nature intended it to be?

When you look into the animal kingdom, it's the males that have the pretty plumage, it's the males that build a nest, it's the male that courts, it's the male that fights to be the leader. In return it's the more camouflaged and better equipped for survival females that get the choice with whom they mate.

This isn't just effecting mankind, it's a recurring theme in nature itself, are we as a species even capable of growing beyond this? I'd like to think we are, but for now it seems like we haven't figured out how to do that, individuals have, but not the species as a whole.

[youtube]IQfwgzoiq4c[/youtube]

 

[M_also_lonely]

In this society where men are made to compete to get a women it's very understandable men put each other down, when one is out that's less competition, funny how when you look at our civilized society you'll see the core mechanics of any group/pack society in the animal kingdom is still so present, and that brings me to another question about this, isn't this how nature intended it to be?

I don't think that they are made to compete. Competing is the instinct, the dominance instinct, the very nature of males. Sure, it will have different forms of expression, but it is always there. And dominance doesn't always mean a violent form of dominance. The reason why we see dominance synonymous to violence/(some other but similar negativity)  is because everything related to male nature and behavior has been and is being demonized. Otherwise, it is just natural. As you said in your next paragraph,  it's the male that fights to be the leader   i don't think that some individual or instuition makes them do it, but they do it naturally. The desire to be the best male will be there, even in form of positive approaches. 
So yeah, I don't see any problem in men competing for female if we see from reproduction's point of view. Competing, its totally fair. But...

This isn't just effecting mankind, it's a recurring theme in nature itself, are we as a species even capable of growing beyond this? 

Yes, we have been gifted with higher intelligence in general. We have the ability to compromise, sacrifice and adjust, not just for ourselves but for other living ones. This ability is not given to every living organism, most will adjust, but only for themselves. 
So yes, it is possible.

 

[MisterLonely]

I don't think that they are made to compete.

Ofcourse you are right here, forgive my bad choice of words please, we choose to compete, but we are driven/pressured to do so as well.
Not too long ago I heard a girl at a party talk about an ex, she said he was sweet and kind, but lacked drive in life and wasn't going anywhere in his sales rep job, he also wasn't very sporty, he just gamed a lot and hung with mates. This was enough for her to break up, the given reason was that he wasn't undertaking enough and lacked interests.

She apparently has plenty of choice to leave a good guy for another that will fill her criteria, but here's the kicker... She herself works in a clothing store, has no hobbies, and does no sporting. I didn't know the guy or the girl, but from the given info the guy was ahead of her or tied in every one of those fields.

Yes, we have been gifted with higher intelligence in general. We have the ability to compromise, sacrifice and adjust, not just for ourselves but for other living ones. This ability is not given to every living organism, most will adjust, but only for themselves.

I'll play devil's advocate here and say that in theory this is true as well, but there are still a whole lot of us that do not abide by the rules we set out as an intelligent species but instead seem to follow a primal animalistic instinct. So one could state that thusfar our attempts to "grow" beyond our inherent nature is only partially successful.

 

[user 115627]

In this society where men are made to compete to get a women it's very understandable men put each other down, when one is out that's less competition, funny how when you look at our civilized society you'll see the core mechanics of any group/pack society in the animal kingdom is still so present, and that brings me to another question about this, isn't this how nature intended it to be?

Yes, quite so. But that line of reasoning is called appeal to nature and especially in our modern "egalitarian" first-world society it is moot, because if you made the same appeal with regards to the "natural" legitimacy of male authority, you'd get labeled an -ist of your choosing.

When you look into the animal kingdom, it's the males that have the pretty plumage, it's the males that build a nest, it's the male that courts, it's the male that fights to be the leader. In return it's the more camouflaged and better equipped for survival females that get the choice with whom they mate.

Funny enough, that is "only" 75% correct because the average man does not have a pretty plumage at all and the women are the ones who shine forth with their appearance. It's a curious situation concerning humankind.

This isn't just effecting mankind, it's a recurring theme in nature itself, are we as a species even capable of growing beyond this? I'd like to think we are, but for now it seems like we haven't figured out how to do that, individuals have, but not the species as a whole.

Biology is at least as important as socialization, if not more. So I expect no great leaps and bounds in these dynamics, but as I said earlier: A mitigating force would be appreciated...

Not too long ago I heard a girl at a party talk about an ex, she said he was sweet and kind, but lacked drive in life and wasn't going anywhere in his sales rep job, he also wasn't very sporty, he just gamed a lot and hung with mates. This was enough for her to break up, the given reason was that he wasn't undertaking enough and lacked interests.  

She apparently has plenty of choice to leave a good guy for another that will fill her criteria, but here's the kicker... She herself works in a clothing store, has no hobbies, and does no sporting. I didn't know the guy or the girl, but from the given info the guy was ahead of her or tied in every one of those fields.

Not unusual. And it is not necessarily wrong that she has these lopsided standards, but that the guy does not have the same ones. Guys don't care much about status (and by extension the amount of money) of their partners, to their own detriment. Because oftentimes the guy will cover for the girl if there is an issue and will not lose respect for her, but the girl will not necessarily do the same. No solution for this problem, except: Pay attention (as a guy).

I'll play devil's advocate here and say that in theory this is true as well, but there are still a whole lot of us that do not abide by the rules we set out as an intelligent species but instead seem to follow a primal animalistic instinct. So one could state that thusfar our attempts to "grow" beyond our inherent nature is only partially successful.

Intelligence has not been that relevant in our evolutionary process, it is certainly not a trait that is primarily selected for. Intelligence can lead to a high-paying job, but that relation is also pretty loose...plenty of intelligent people that cannot apply their intelligence to a financially rewarding domain.

 

[ardour]

To add to some of the depressing themes here:

Differential Reproduction in males in females in human pre-history: Is There Anything Good about Men

"Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most under-appreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."

"In percentage terms, then, humanity’s ancestors were about 67% female and 33% male"

There's an more readible article summarizing some of this here. 

Men were outnumbered, competed with each other and traveled further afield to find potential mates.

From a reproductive standpoint human societies appear to have experienced a 'surplus of men' since the advent of agriculture. It's not surprising then that many of us fall below a threshold of attractiveness, especially once cultural restrictions on women to settle disappear. (Not arguing for a return to a society where women were chattel BTW, in case anyone wants to accuse me of this.)

A growing number of us are going to have to settle for being grist for the mill and unwanted evolutionary dead ends. At least we have jobs and a reasonable standard of living.

 

[TheSkaFish]

Especially if you’re a male, because then you’re not supposed to be affected by third party **** and you’re not supposed to expect anything from anyone.
...
I’m just trying to say to stop putting the pussy on a pedestal.

I feel like this is going back to the cheesy "cool" routine, acting like you don't care about what you get, or anything.  It's all the same.  But I can't act like I don't have preferences because I do and acting like I don't just to be "cool" seems immature and it's a lie.  But then again, it's like if you aren't a star or an *******, you either don't get to have preferences or you can have them if you want but they don't matter, you get what you're given if you get anything at all.

I don't think I can be a star or an *******.  But as a guy, if you're not impressive, you're not attractive.  If you can't impress a girl, you won't get a chance to show you can relate or understand her or connect on a deep level so you won't get the sense of closeness which seems to be what you need.  But that's why I don't think I'm just meeting the wrong people, because I feel like I'd have this problem just as much if not even worse with people that I'd be settling for.  I romanticize people that I'm interested in because I want someone who seems special to me, not just anyone female.  If I didn't find them special I wouldn't notice them at all.  If I act like I prefer some women to others I come off as desperate, which is seen as lame, and I get nothing.  But if I act like I have no preference, there's no input from me at all, so once again, I get nothing.  It's a dilemma.  I just wish attraction didn't have to be so Machiavellian but I guess it's what I get for wanting to escape my social role.  

---

When you look into the animal kingdom, it's the males that have the pretty plumage, it's the males that build a nest, it's the male that courts, it's the male that fights to be the leader. In return it's the more camouflaged and better equipped for survival females that get the choice with whom they mate.

Well, I think the "plumage" is still there.  The business douche has stuff like ardour was talking about, the new Mercedes, expensive accessories.  Meanwhile, the druggie burnout goes for tattoos.  That's one reason I have a lot of real animosity for this crowd.  I feel like they're primitive, backwards people that do everything you're not supposed to do because they think it's "cool" to be a ****-up, or at least to ape them.  But it works because it's "raw", "primal", "real", "risk-taking" and "adventurous" or some ********.  

I don't have any plumage because I don't want to act like this, I think it's stupid and low-brow and I would be ashamed of myself for acting that way.  I just wish there was a way to be attractive without having to act like a damn caveman but nothing's worked for me yet.

This isn't just effecting mankind, it's a recurring theme in nature itself, are we as a species even capable of growing beyond this? I'd like to think we are, but for now it seems like we haven't figured out how to do that, individuals have, but not the species as a whole.

....

I'll play devil's advocate here and say that in theory this is true as well, but there are still a whole lot of us that do not abide by the rules we set out as an intelligent species but instead seem to follow a primal animalistic instinct. So one could state that thusfar our attempts to "grow" beyond our inherent nature is only partially successful.

That's what I thought growing up.  Wild animals don't have a choice in how they live, they're kinda stuck with the law of the jungle.  Humans in the past were in kind of a similar situation because the world wasn't as tamed, resources were more scarce, and there was more violence, less civilization, we were less willing to try and get along and understand each other.  I thought since we lived in the modern world, we could indeed grow beyond this, and I thought that since we can choose a kind and gentle world instead of a brutal one, then we should.  I thought it was the right thing to do.  And like I said, I thought it was shameful to act low-brow, obnoxious, and primitive like the machos do.  I thought I knew better.  But my experiences have shown me that acting primitive gets rewarded, and trying to be above it gets punished.  I don't want it to be true but I don't know what I can do.

Not too long ago I heard a girl at a party talk about an ex, she said he was sweet and kind, but lacked drive in life and wasn't going anywhere in his sales rep job, he also wasn't very sporty, he just gamed a lot and hung with mates. This was enough for her to break up, the given reason was that he wasn't undertaking enough and lacked interests.  

She apparently has plenty of choice to leave a good guy for another that will fill her criteria, but here's the kicker... She herself works in a clothing store, has no hobbies, and does no sporting. I didn't know the guy or the girl, but from the given info the guy was ahead of her or tied in every one of those fields.

Yeah this is another thing.  I've seen so many women on the dating sites, and that I remember from growing up, that are a lot like this girl, who don't seem like they're really interested in anything in particular.  Some have better jobs, but it doesn't make them any more interesting.  There isn't anything about them to make me curious or anything to start a conversation about.  I don't know what I'd talk to them about even if I wanted to.  And I don't feel much motivation to work hard on myself only for someone who's just like everyone else.

There's also a lot of girls on there that I might not be ahead of yet, but if I got to where I wanted I'd be ahead of them and wouldn't want to date them because I wouldn't want to be stuck on their level.  I know that I want to be capable of doing something more than working and drinking (and/or smoking weed) and watching Netflix until I pass out, even if I don't know what I want to do or what I can do yet.  I guess that's the problem.  The girls I could relate to right now (if any), I don't want to relate to because I want to do better.  But people that are ahead of me don't want to wait for me to catch up, so I'm stuck by myself.

That guy sounds a lot like me.  I throw a lot of venomous words around here, cursing out this and that kind of person because this makes me angry, but I do also try to be kind in life.  I tend to hang out with my friends and I would game a bit if I could, and I'm not very sporty myself (though I'm not overweight either).  I have a degree in something practical but I don't find it interesting and it wouldn't make me much of an interesting person.  I might seem like I don't have drive in life either, that's what people think they see but the truth is I just have this massive self-doubt about whether I'm capable of anything or not.  Most of the time I feel like I can't do much at all, otherwise it would be easier and I'd already be doing it.  It seems like I lack interests but that's not true, I'm just afraid I can't do them.  And I don't know what other interests I might have because I haven't had much chance to look into it.  I want to be interesting, I just don't know how.    

---

Intelligence has not been that relevant in our evolutionary process, it is certainly not a trait that is primarily selected for. Intelligence can lead to a high-paying job, but that relation is also pretty loose...plenty of intelligent people that cannot apply their intelligence to a financially rewarding domain.

I feel like I'm in that boat.  Growing up I was counted among the smart people, if not the smartest I was still in that category.  But I was never really into STEM.  I just found it dry.  I mean, I'm glad the stuff exists and we're not living like in the 1800s anymore but I'm just not driven to learning about that kind of stuff.  Same goes for business, for the same reason.  I wish I could apply what intelligence I do have to creativity but I'm not sure if I can, and even if I could I'm not sure I could monetize it.  And I can't monetize self-doubt.  Even if I have some intelligence it hasn't helped me make money or do anything that would impress women/make them want to connect on a deep level, so here I am.

---

It's not surprising then that many of us fall below a threshold of attractiveness, especially once cultural restrictions on women to settle disappear. (Not arguing for a return to a society where women were chattel BTW, in case anyone wants to accuse me of this.)

A growing number of us are going to have to settle for being grist for the mill and unwanted evolutionary dead ends. At least we have jobs and a reasonable standard of living.

It's just trading one cultural restriction for another.  I'm not saying women should be treated like chattel either, but that doesn't make men any more deserving of being treated like trash.  I do feel like everyone who isn't evil has value and deserves love, and no one who isn't evil deserves to be shut out like this like some kind of criminal, and it's ironic that actual criminals and their imitators do so well.  

Jobs and a reasonable standard of living isn't worth anything if you're left to languish.  I can not, will not settle for that.  A little bit of hope that I might turn it around yet is one of the few things that get me up in the morning.

---

Being nice, kind, friendly, it's natural to me.  It's how I was raised and what I believe.  I'm naturally enthusiastic about what I like.  Being cynical, sarcastic, standoffish, and pretending like I don't care about anything isn't natural to me, I don't want the world to be that way, but it seems to be what most people want so it's one more way I don't relate.

I feel like I have to do all this stuff that seems like a tangle of contradictions: I have to have a good job but I also can't be boring, I have to have a good personality but I also can't be too nice, I have to be caring but I can't act like I care too much, I have to be myself but I can't be too "unmanly", I have to be interesting, cultured and worldly, be good at something, have hobbies, conversation pieces, and have to know HOW to say things in the right way - and make it look like random chance the whole time, because you can't look like you're trying to impress anyone on purpose.  A bro or a druggie burnout just has to show up and say some ********.  I have a real hard time motivating myself to try and be this Type A person when it feels like it's probably going to be all for nothing.      

I don't want to feel like I'm here just to spend my whole life losing to other people, to be one of the frustrated or one of the resigned.  But I'm getting tired of feeling like I have to rely on luck and hope when they haven't done **** for me yet.    

TLDR Just my thoughts about all of it. Don't want to be hopeless but really starting to feel that way.

 

[user 115627]

Since I said my piece and don't want to derail this thread - as interesting as the discussion may be - I'm just jumping in a last time for the CHATTEL:

[youtube]D63WoAHj4wY[/youtube]

 

[MisterLonely]

Interesting vid Rodent, I'm quite proud I got the main theme within a minute!

I and others have talked about the "plumage" a bit in previous posts, some have suggested the plumage in humans is on the female side, others have said plumage changed, i.e. to a fatcat Merc, or tatoo's. I'd just like to look at the plumage in humans and compare them to biology in other species, the recurring theme is that MOST males have the plumage, and MOST females have the better adaptation for survival.

I think with humans it's still very much the same, it's culture that has changed our perspective, and what was once considered "plumage" has changed.
A curvy, hourglass shaped women is considered beautiful, while this is just the result of better adaptation to survival, women's physiology has adapted them so they have a higher chance to survive winters, and keep themselves warm, men have been adapted to store fat in one central place (the belly), big belly is strong male, big belly is plumage.

Women have less facial and body hair, basically the only parts that stayed are the brows and eyelashes, perfectly suited to keep rain from running in your eyes off the top of your head, and the armpit/pubic hair which probably served a scent purpose once, or just kept your bits from being exposed to the worst elements had to offer. I would consider facial/body hair in males to be plumage, I see no other purpose for it other than show.

Now what has changed in our culture is the perception of this plumage for what it is, because the whole of society has shifted to adopt the female form as the de facto standard for beauty, this had been carried over to the males of our species as well, so a flat tummy is beautiful, yet this happens to be the place males store fat first, a hairless body is beauty, so males have taken to shave their whole bodies, I was at a sporting event not to long ago and was shocked in the shower that almost everyone was "smooth". That said the trend of facial hair is now again considered as beautiful, as was the mustache in the 70's/80's I'm sure this will shift again.

Anyway, I'm derailing a little here, the point was, the biological plumage is still there, it's only not considered as beautiful anymore!

 

[DarkSelene]

Sorry, Ska, but that's nonsense. You went so far to find your point that you completely ignored mine and I really can't explain any better.

---

[...] so males have taken to shave their whole bodies, I was at a sporting event not to long ago and was shocked in the shower that almost everyone was "smooth".

Ew, so sad... All that amazing chest hair getting murdered.

 

[Xpendable]

Sorry, Ska, but that's nonsense. You went so far to find your point that you completely ignored mine and I really can't explain any better.

---

[...] so males have taken to shave their whole bodies, I was at a sporting event not to long ago and was shocked in the shower that almost everyone was "smooth".

Ew, so sad... All that amazing chest hair getting murdered.

---

Ska's point is more elavorate and thus more compelling.

 

[VanillaCreme]

I don't think I can be a star or an *******.  But as a guy, if you're not impressive, you're not attractive.  If you can't impress a girl, you won't get a chance to show you can relate or understand her or connect on a deep level so you won't get the sense of closeness which seems to be what you need.

But isn't being impressed different from person to person? What's impressive to me might not be impressive to a million other females. That highly depends on the person that would be impressed. I would imagine that's part of the reason why so many folks say to just be yourself. We're not meant to be with everyone we see. Wouldn't you rather attract the person that genuinely likes you as you really are, versus trying to impress and attract anyone and everyone?

 

[MisterLonely]

Sorry, Ska, but that's nonsense. You went so far to find your point that you completely ignored mine and I really can't explain any better.

---

[...] so males have taken to shave their whole bodies, I was at a sporting event not to long ago and was shocked in the shower that almost everyone was "smooth".

Ew, so sad... All that amazing chest hair getting murdered.

---

Ska's point is more elavorate and thus more compelling.

---

Not in any way tying to prove a point or negate Ska's point that you compare to mine, but "more elaborate and thus more compelling" is not a rule, one can type or speak a lot of words without really saying anything.

(look at us males competing amongst each other! )

 

[DarkSelene]

It's nonsense to take what he took from what I said, not his point in general, btw. I don't mean that at all.

 

[Volt]

Ska, i love you, but you're starting to feel hopeless because in this state you are. You could be so much better than this. This will be my last attempt.

Being nice, kind, friendly, it's natural to me.  It's how I was raised and what I believe.  I'm naturally enthusiastic about what I like.  Being cynical, sarcastic, standoffish, and pretending like I don't care about anything isn't natural to me, I don't want the world to be that way, but it seems to be what most people want so it's one more way I don't relate.

Almost none of this is true. Please read anything you've posted for the last two or so years to see that you're not nice, and that you are cynical and standoffish. Yes, i know you can be nice, but i wonder if any of that matters considering all of this blaming has taken you over. 

If you keep this up you will die alone at 80, and you will have nothing to look forward to in between now and that age. 

You say that everyone who is not evil does not deserve to be shut off. Essentially saying they deserve praise by virtue of not being evil. Let's assume this is true for a second. If i'd give you the embodiment of the person you envision as your nemesis, you'd slit his throat so fast that his entire family would perish with him at that instant. You definitely have evil in you, you definitely can be a "bad guy" "dudebro(that one is new to me, lol)" or whatever you call "them". That's fine though, same here. 

So with that out of the way, you say you want to be interesting. You'll never be interesting in this state because you're focussing so much on other people. There's no you in that. You mentioned: "It seems like I lack interests but that's not true, I'm just afraid I can't do them.  And I don't know what other interests I might have because I haven't had much chance to look into it.  I want to be interesting, I just don't know how."
You do know how, because that's at the start of the quote. There's something to work on there. You can spend your energy on that instead. It'll be good for you. And you will like it. Stop comparing yourself, your progress, or your whatever to other people. It will benefit no one.

" But I'm getting tired of feeling like I have to rely on luck and hope when they haven't done **** for me yet."  You might as well talk to water. If you want to get anywhere, take some responsibility. It'll be terrifying but equally liberating. Imagine not being angry anymore. All i'm reading here is everything is everyone's fault. Keep that up and you might as well go live in Siberia.

Do **** you like, build on that. Have a good time challenging yourself. The rest will come. Maybe. It certainly won't come in this state. But you'll have a great time if you try. 

---

Ska's point is more elavorate and thus more compelling.

This is ridiculous. I'm sure flat earthers have very elaborate points.

 

[Xpendable]

Ska, i love you, but you're starting to feel hopeless because in this state you are. You could be so much better than this. This will be my last attempt.

Being nice, kind, friendly, it's natural to me.  It's how I was raised and what I believe.  I'm naturally enthusiastic about what I like.  Being cynical, sarcastic, standoffish, and pretending like I don't care about anything isn't natural to me, I don't want the world to be that way, but it seems to be what most people want so it's one more way I don't relate.

Almost none of this is true. Please read anything you've posted for the last two or so years to see that you're not nice, and that you are cynical and standoffish. Yes, i know you can be nice, but i wonder if any of that matters considering all of this blaming has taken you over. 

If you keep this up you will die alone at 80, and you will have nothing to look forward to in between now and that age. 

You say that everyone who is not evil does not deserve to be shut off. Essentially saying they deserve praise by virtue of not being evil. Let's assume this is true for a second. If i'd give you the embodiment of the person you envision as your nemesis, you'd slit his throat so fast that his entire family would perish with him at that instant. You definitely have evil in you, you definitely can be a "bad guy" "dudebro(that one is new to me, lol)" or whatever you call "them". That's fine though, same here. 

So with that out of the way, you say you want to be interesting. You'll never be interesting in this state because you're focussing so much on other people. There's no you in that. You mentioned: "It seems like I lack interests but that's not true, I'm just afraid I can't do them.  And I don't know what other interests I might have because I haven't had much chance to look into it.  I want to be interesting, I just don't know how."
You do know how, because that's at the start of the quote. There's something to work on there. You can spend your energy on that instead. It'll be good for you. And you will like it. Stop comparing yourself, your progress, or your whatever to other people. It will benefit no one.

" But I'm getting tired of feeling like I have to rely on luck and hope when they haven't done **** for me yet."  You might as well talk to water. If you want to get anywhere, take some responsibility. It'll be terrifying but equally liberating. Imagine not being angry anymore. All i'm reading here is everything is everyone's fault. Keep that up and you might as well go live in Siberia.

Do **** you like, build on that. Have a good time challenging yourself. The rest will come. Maybe. It certainly won't come in this state. But you'll have a great time if you try. 

---

Ska's point is more elavorate and thus more compelling.

This is ridiculous. I'm sure flat earthers have very elaborate points.

---

Nice reductio ad absurdum. You are not willing to accept other points o view and rely on false conern as a tool.

"Keep not being like I want you to be and you will be alone until 80"
Nice encouraging, tbh. I don't agree with Ska at everything but that sounds a lot more fatal of what he says. You people refuse to accept again and again that the human species on a big "general" have pretty similar characteristcs. it doesn't really matter what the individual of the friend of a friend who everyone uses as an exception does, human are shallow animals a no naive vision of this new age thinking is going to change that. You need to separate what society says from what society does and understand that the biological rules above the socio-cultural. We should stop lying to ourselves and realize social relations are, were and will be utilitarian forever until the human race goes extinct and no wishful thinking is going to make any difference.