@Intelligent-Sir-6319

Difficulty in distinguishing between a shit test and a genuine complaint.

I once shared a community service experience where there was a girl who acted however she liked (https://trp.red/t/1dzp). Is it true that when a girl makes a big deal out of small things, almost as if big things are a problem, it's a form of a shit test? Sometimes, in certain moments, like when I was asked by another friend if I could play guitar, and I said no, the girl who acted however she liked said, 'Then learn it.' in a demeaning way. I mean, not everything can be done by us, but during the activities, she would often tease me with trivial issues that she made a problem, and I would just ignore it and act indifferent. Then, after some time, she would talk to me again as if nothing had happened.

For instance, I asked if she had prepared the attendance list for a presentation during the community service event, and she responded, 'You were called by the man (from the village in the event), but you didn’t listen?' (Even though the man was just asking casually, and my friend answered him—no big deal). She said it in an angry tone, and I was a bit confused. I replied, 'Why are you always angry?' She responded in a feminine tone, saying, 'I’m not angry.'

Besides that, she often tried to provoke my emotions with passive-aggressive behavior, but I would usually ignore her because I knew that if I reacted, she would turn the tables and act like the victim, even though she was the one who provoked me first with passive-aggressive behavior. I often ignored her, even though at first, I thought she was bringing up urgent issues. But when I didn’t pay attention to her, after throwing a tantrum, she would talk to me again in a normal tone as if nothing happened.

Is everything I’ve described a form of a shit test? Because the context is semi-formal (community service), where the team needs to succeed in the program, and as the leader, I sometimes find it difficult to separate whether her complaints are truly urgent or not. But over time, I’ve come to assume that she is more playing games with me. Compared to the other members of my team, they are more formal and present complaints in a more formal manner, unlike this girl. In fact, another female member of the team thought I was somewhat close to her and that something romantic might happen, even though I never thought about it in that way, as I was focused on the bigger objectives of the group.

Then, at the end of the event, she told me that I was too stubborn and unwilling to compromise. But if I reflect on all the tantrums and complaints she gave, they were generally informal and confusing, and again, I ignored her. But afterward, when the event was over and we had a team dinner, she said that our team was better than the others because the other team had more shortcomings. (This was somewhat contradictory to what she had said to me earlier.)

I have been applying the red pill principle for a long time, but before this community service event, I always separated my professional environment from the environment where I could act freely with women outside of the professional setting. What I found a bit challenging in this experience was context switching between being professional or playful. I don’t want to take risks if something goes wrong because I am the leader of this team.

Edit: My current answer is by maintaining frame, I always shut down her complaints by ignoring her, staying friendly and formal as formal as I can be. Don't want to risk any bigger potential problem thrown at me.

Consider investing into a reliable ready reference you can pick up and study to better prepare yourself for engaging the opposite sex. I'd suggest that you get yourself a copy of Doc Love's "The System: The Dating Dictionary". Doc Love, who until his passing was also known as Tom Hodges, wrote a weekly advice column that's archive is mirrored on several mens focused sites and a podcast. His media is a bit pricey, but it's a solid foundation a guy can branch out from in RP aware circles. I'd suggest you review his advice column to decide if his view on dating and relationships is aligned with what you aspire for yourself. To save yourself a search, give this scribed link a gander to find out if his book is something you'd like to add to your library. It should also be available on libgen.

@Lionsmane8

She wants me to marry her, but...

So, I’ve been seeing this 20-year-old regularly for close to eight months now. She’s very supportive, feminine, girly, has a great personality, and although she’s not the best-looking girl I’ve been with, she’s still very cute and really loves me—girlfriend material.

The one issue I had with her was related to sex. She’s a virgin and Muslim (I’m Muslim too), and although we avoid PIV, she still takes care of me in other ways on occasion. That said, this was a major issue early on, but because I wanted to keep her supportive energy in my life, but also not force anything on her, we made an arrangement.

Since my last breakup almost two years ago, I vowed to no longer offer exclusivity, and that’s worked great for me. I’m very honest about that fact early on with women, and unsurprisingly, it does turn a few off—but many more respect my honesty. So that’s that.

I told my girl early on that sex is non-negotiable for me and that exclusivity isn’t something I do, and she accepted.

Concurrently, I’ve been seeing another girl regularly (for about five months now). She’s 19, very bright, soft-spoken, has a relaxing presence, and is head over heels for me. She’s down for anything and everything—heck, I sometimes have to tone things down.

This little situation has been going smoothly for a few months now, with a lot of enjoyment and genuine fulfillment (love feels good). Practically zero conflict or toxicity.

However, the 19-year-old is about to leave the country permanently, and the 20-year-old has been hinting at marriage.

At first, it was jokingly—probing, obviously—joking about carrying my children, then asking about my intentions, then steering conversations toward the topic, playing relevant songs, etc.

Tonight, we went for a short night drive, and she came forward much more assertively than usual, saying, "My friends told me that you should marry me," and asking about my stance on marriage.

I told her what I usually say: "I’m not ready for that—it doesn’t even enter my mind." Which is true; I’m neither financially nor mentally ready. It’s a serious matter.

To which she responded, "When you think you’ll be ready, are you thinking of marrying me?"

Now, that’s the question I dreaded. I really like her—she’s a great girlfriend—but honestly, no, I don’t want to marry her. I still long for a girl similar to (but superior to) my previous ex. But I can’t tell her that, so I just said, "I don’t know."

She didn’t get mad or anything, and that’s what makes it hard for me. She’s really supportive and plays the girlfriend role very well. It’d be easier if there were conflict—I could rationalize ending the relationship. But that’s not the case, and I appreciate her for that.

Now, since the one-year mark is approaching, I’d already been thinking of gradually distancing myself from her—gently, slowly. I don’t want to build a life with her, marry her, or have her carry my children. I also don’t want to give her false hope, drag this out, or fool her in any way. But at the same time, I don’t want to hurt her, and I have to accept that I will disappoint her. I know what I want and what I don’t want.

Anyway, this is just a melancholic rant. You’ll all say I already know the answer, and it’s true—I do. I’m planning to let it burn out slowly. She’s smart and a woman—she knows what she wants, and she’s probably already put two and two together by now and I sincerely wish her the best, because she deserves it.

Time to take out my fishing rod.

What traits are you looking for in a female, that the ex-girlfriend you still fondly remember had you've noticed others you've dated since lacked?

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

The book offers one of the first accounts of what builds nations' wealth. It has become a fundamental work in classical economics, and has been described as "the first formulation of a comprehensive system of political economy". Reflecting upon economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Smith addresses topics such as the division of labour, productivity, and free markets.

The Wealth of Nations was the product of seventeen years of notes and earlier studies, as well as an observation of conversation among economists of the time (like Nicholas Magens) concerning economic and societal conditions during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and it took Smith some ten years to produce. The result was a treatise which sought to offer a practical application for reformed economic theory to replace the mercantilist and physiocratic economic theories that were becoming less relevant in the time of industrial progress and innovation. It provided the foundation for economists, politicians, mathematicians, and thinkers of all fields to build upon. Irrespective of historical influence, The Wealth of Nations represented a clear paradigm shift in the field of economics, comparable to what Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was for philosophy.

Five editions of The Wealth of Nations were published during Smith's lifetime: in 1776, 1778, 1784, 1786 and 1789. Numerous editions appeared after Smith's death in 1790. To better understand the evolution of the work under Smith's hand, a team led by Edwin Cannan collated the first five editions. The differences were published along with an edited sixth edition in 1904. They found minor but numerous differences (including the addition of many footnotes) between the first and the second editions; the differences between the second and third editions are major. In 1784, Smith annexed these first two editions with the publication of Additions and Corrections to the First and Second Editions of Dr. Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, and he also had published the three-volume third edition of the Wealth of Nations, which incorporated Additions and Corrections and, for the first time, an index. Among other things, the Additions and Corrections included entirely new sections, particularly to book 4, chapters 4 and 5, and to book 5, chapter 1, as well as an additional chapter (8), "Conclusion of the Mercantile System", in book 4.

The fourth edition, published in 1786, had only slight differences from the third edition, and Smith himself says in the Advertisement at the beginning of the book, "I have made no alterations of any kind." Finally, Cannan notes only trivial differences between the fourth and fifth editions—a set of misprints being removed from the fourth and a different set of misprints being introduced.

You can find mention of this book on Wikipedia, Standardebooks, Librivox, Youtube, Bitchute, and other websites.

#1776 #AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesof #TheWealthofNations #AdamSmith #World #UnitedKingdom #Scotland #Books #Audiobooks #eBooks #Economics #Trade #Commerce #Productivity #Consumerism #Business #Money #Taxation #Government #Philosophy #Ideology #Populism #Nationalism #Liberalism #Fascism #Baizuo #WhiteLeft #Atheism #Marxism #Socialism #Modernism #Internationalism #Communism #Feminism #Humanism #Conservatism #Progressivism #Globohomo #Globalism #Paganism #Freemasonry #RabbinicalJudaism #Satanism #MentalIllness #MoralIllness

@First-light

I am not sure what usury is in this context. In this case, I took it to be "unfair as opposed to fair trade in currency" If they wanted the official money, they had to pay for a incorrectly weighed measure of silver (not the true shekel weight) with a fair measure (which in those days the denarius was, it was only later that we got rampant Roman seignurage).

To take more than a fair share is greedy, is that the connection you mean?

I have often thought that unfairness is not a deadly sin and why not? To me the problem with the money changers was their unfairness to other men as opposed to their desire for money itself.

I think the answer lies in the 7 deadly sins being really about doing illicit and inappropriate things -things beyond the covenants of Yahweh- with the good things that Yahweh has provided for men. To greatly "lust" after sex with your new wife is not the sin of lust at all (unless at certain points in the church's history it was during a fast) its actually god's will that you want to mate with her and procreate. However to desire sex with the hot girl next door is illicit and no matter how much she would like it too and even if you use no birth control, its a sin. To relax on the sabbath is good. To relax when you should be working is sloth. To enjoy the fruit of your labour at the table is a good thing, to eat far more than you need in wasteful way is gluttony. To be angry at the burning of a church by infidels is virtue, to rage at your neighbour's bonfire is wrath and so on.

The 7 deadly sins are really all the same thing -the incorrect or excessive application of desire that can be good in the right place and time. This is not so much about fairness. Unfairness instead goes against the concept of treating your neighbour as yourself, which is half of the law.

I'm calling it now: President Trump's mental acuity has diminished to a point where he's unfit to perform the duties of his office. When speaking, he rambles, repeats irrelevant talking points instead of responding to questions, and makes opposing claims one sentence apart. He does not meaningfully engage even softball interviewers. He uses preschool level deflections of blame. He doesn't appear to understand the definition of a Trade Deficit or a Tariff.

Look at this transcript, and tell me during what part of this interview would you consider his performance "sharp" by any metric? Quick excerpt:

KRISTEN WELKER:

When does it become the Trump economy?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

It partially is right now. And I really mean this. I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy because he’s done a terrible job.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/read-full-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-meet-press-mod-rcna203514