@-Anteros-

This is the position I cannot agree with, and I believe misinterpretation of it by a user who is also an administrator creates a public feed (in practice governed by a single mod) who is mistaken about the practice and goals of the largest sect of the userbase, but insists he gets it while openly and actively misrepresenting the position of said largest sect of the userbase.

I do not see a circumstance whereby this does not create outgroup bias - which would be irrelevant if Anteros the user and Anteros the admin acted in different ways. This is a big reason why TRP mods have separate accounts, that is where I see the flaw. You have not shown to be neutral when you make ideological affirmative statements from the same account you issue bans.

All thoughts my own not a summary of yours

Definitions

Perverted Egalitarianism - the belief that legal/constitutional equality is insufficient, because it does not currently result in identical outcomes, especially for a now-special class of non-white, non-male, and non-straight people

College Marxist - generally describes a person common to modern universities, an ideological tyrant who believes that the only explanation for different human outcomes is oppression

TRP - Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men. (sidebar)

I cannot conceive of a more opposite position to the sidebar of GLOGANG than the above concepts. GLOGANG insists on these texts because it holds everyone to an objective standard - can you read the book and explain it?

Physique poast is the same, we don't give a shit if you are muscular, but we want to know where you are at so we can help you if you're not there, because being fit is a core element of masculinity.

It is also clear that the sidebar ideology is not a purity test. This simplest refutation is that I am an EC equivalent there and I am openly against the positions, and openly bourgeoisie capitalist. If the ideas were a purity test, I would be banned. The books are an effort test and a writing test. In my mind this is sufficient evidence that you do not understand GLOGANG which is why there is strife.

From pk_athiest, the founder:

Finally, I think our focus should always remain on ensuring that we challenge the reality we perceive and discuss precisely and objectively whether or not our beliefs line up with the testable results we can replicate. I am a firm believer that potential success can only be maximized by maximizing your knowledge of the factors surrounding your success. Keeping your eyes closed and ignoring evidence and facts will not benefit you. Opening your eyes and acknowledging everything no matter how good, bad, or painful it may seem, is instrumental in making decisions that will lead to the happiest, most successful outcomes.

GLOGANG is building a different type of university approach - one where men who care about the truth and can demonstrate an ability to contribute will share knowledge. That Evola or Zizek is the test of ability is a coincidence.

In order for the largest part of the userbase to do what is bolded above, they have to be able to state their version of the truth and be held to consistent standards. That is not happening.

How to Test Your Relationship Without Moving In Together | The Art of Manliness

Over the last few decades, it’s become more and more common for couples to move in together while they’re dating. They often opt for this living arrangement because it feels convenient, and also because they want to “test” the relationship before deciding whether or not to get married. Couples figure that by experiencing what it’s like to live in close proximity and do day-to-day routines together, they can make a better decision about their compatibility and long-term prospects, in order to avoid someday getting a divorce.

While the idea makes a great deal of sense in the abstract, numerous research studies have definitively shown that living together before marriage does not reduce a couple’s chances of divorce. At all. How can that be?

There are likely a few factors at play, but a big one is that those who cohabitate often end up sliding further into their relationship, rather than deliberating deciding to make progressively deepening commitments. They just kind of slide into living together with a casual “Why not?” feeling; then slide into staying together out of a sense of comfort and complacency; and then slide into getting married, figuring, “Well, we’ve been together this long; I guess this is the next step to take.” In living together, their lives — pets, bills, friends, routines — get so intertwined that it becomes easier to stick with the arrangement — even if the relationship is less than ideal — than to break things off. They may therefore ultimately marry someone out of sheer familiarity, rather than ardent love. “Do you, Rob, take Sunk Cost Fallacy to be your lawfully wedded wife?”

It seems that whatever positive benefit comes from getting to know someone by way of living with them, it is outweighed by the danger of staying together because of inertia rather than brilliant connection.

Are there then other ways to “test” the strength of your relationship, without at the same time significantly increasing the difficulty of breaking up? To make a better-informed decision about your future with someone, while still maintaining more of your independence before you do?

Fortunately, there are. To get some ideas on this front, I talked to Dr. Scott Stanley, a professor of psychology at the University of Denver, who coined the “sliding vs. deciding” paradigm, and has spent his career researching cohabitation, relationships, and commitment.

Article continues here: www.artofmanliness.com/people/relationships/how-to-test-your-relationship-without-moving-in-together/

#2019 #2021 #BrettandKateMcKay #ArtofManliness #Blog #Article #People #Men #Women #Couples #Relationships #LTR #Dating #Test

@firmware_pimp

I'm not sure whether the content of this "minimum standard of math" test is really that good, but it's hilarious that the test is being thrown out because it 'disproportionally affects racialized candidates'.

torontosun.com/news/local-news/teacher-candidates-win-huge-victory-over-provinces-mandatory-math-test-for-educators/wcm/712de111-2e71-46f0-aa55-11ca1b0ec9d0

It is possible that other countries suck at math? No! It's the test that is wrong!

He's a Canadian intelligence asset. This really got my attention, the text under his photo. "Richard Atimniraye Nyelade, who has his master's and bachelor's degrees from his native Cameroon and did another master's degree in Norway as well before coming to Canada in 2018, had no problems with the mathematics content questions, but didn't succeed on the pedagogy portion of the test."

His family likely works for the British in Cameroon. He's ushered along through school and college. Then placed in a few colleges in other countries, before being shipped off to Canada to be a teacher. He feeds Canadian intel on the children of households that are hostile to the diversity initiatives, so they can keep tabs on them and keep them out of gainful employment. I've interacted with enough of the demographic displacement agents to be fairly confident that they're not simply morons, but completely incapable of abstract thinking.

@Whisper I get the part about making women understand you. It’s an increasingly relevant tool with many sexually attractive age girls coming with the same software preinstalled.

I have to disagree with you on speaking their language being useless. Yes, speaking their language to imitate them is useless, but speaking their language tongue in cheek actually is a tool to show them that you know their inner workings. It has a similar effect as acknowledging their feelings in my experience. As you put it, it shows an understanding of their worldview. Also, it shows pre-selection, as mastering the art of facetiously speaking their tongue means

1. One has had conversations with many women
2. One knows the art of being cocky and funny

What I mean practically by “facetiously speaking womanese” is for example throwing in a trope women often use when they start to talk about a women-related topic. Basically fake-acting their girl best friend, then grinning and showing that you are making fun of her. A second example would be to make fun of a minor problem women often face in their daily life by imitating how a woman would complain about it (example: style, make-up or hair related problems). The method often accomplishes two out of three things:

1. Push-pull / C&F
2. Increase in perceived pre-selection
3. Passing a shit test

The shit test being passed is the friend zone test (at least I call it that). It’s when women test whether you will talk with them like a girl friend about their issues. It often happened to me in a work context, where it’s not safe to openly flirt or shit test, they then revert to more acceptable forms of testing in which category to put a male colleague. In my opinion, even if you don’t bang girls at work, it leads to better relations with women when they think you are attractive (but who am I saying this to).

Thoughts on this?

@lurkerhasarisen

This comment is pure gold from start to finish and needs to be an article.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... women are CHILDREN, but they are not STUPID CHILDREN. They are below us in their level of emotional self-control, but not (on average) in intelligence.

This means that, while they need (or at least very much want) a strong man to cling to, their evaluation of that strength is not based on stupid metrics unless they themselves, individually, are stupid.

A woman who signs out of a multi-year relationship based on one failed shit test is a retard. Most women are not retards.

Shit tests result from what I called "attraction anxiety", which is just what it sounds like... attraction multiplied by anxiety.

This means that if a woman has zero attraction for you, she will not shit test you, no matter how anxious she is about you, because anything times zero is zero. And if she has zero anxiety about you, she will not shit test you no matter how attracted she is to you, because anything times zero is zero.

The purpose of the shit test is to diminish her internal state of anxiety. This will happen whether you pass or fail. If you pass, her anxiety will diminish because she has more evidence that she is right to be attracted to you and invested in you. If you fail, her anxiety will decrease because she will be less invested in you.

When you're a young bro trying to hit on 21 year old girls, their anxiety will be super high, not only because they just met you, but because you are young and stupid, and because they are young and stupid. So anytime they are attracted to you, they will fire shit tests like a machine gun.

But, in a multi-year LTR, those shit tests start to disappear as anxiety reduces towards zero. If they don't, your women either aren't all that into you, or they have anxiety disorders.

So, if someone says "your multi-year relationship is going to be torpedoed by one failed shit test", to me that either indicates someone with zero relationship experience, or someone who is so poor at pet care that his woman is in a perpetual state of anxiety about him.

@Vermillion-Rx

As well, your perceived SMV plays a role. The higher your perceived SMV the less likely shit tests become - although you'll still get a couple.

As an example, I went out clubbing on Friday night. Went to get a drink and walked to the smoking area to find my buddies. They were stood around this table talking to a group of girls.

I just came upto the table and didn't say anything. Guy to my left is trying to talk to this blonde girl. He's gaming and she's giving him a bunch of shit tests.

We end up making eye contact and she gives me that "look" so immediately it was game over for him. She comes round to stand beside me. We exchange perhaps 2 sentences "what's your name" and I mocked her about her job. Went in for the kiss and she went feral.

I got one single shit test. Her girls went to get a drink and literally dragged her away from me. She came back to find me and I mocked her over it. She made some shit test about me being needy, which was easily deflected.

In total we exchanged perhaps 10 sentences and I got 1 single shit test before the lay. But my buddy who was speaking to her before me was being hit with shit test after shit test.

OP on Saidit.net could use your help with a simple shadow banning diagnostic

Help me test a theory on how to easily test if your comments are shadow banned on youtube

I recently heard that someone found out they were shadow banned on youtube. I figure there's a good chance I am. I've had to speak the truth at least once or twice and that gets your voice pruned in this society.

But the possibility that I'm shadow banned may explain an issue I've seen. Not being able to edit a comment. It makes sense that might fail if there is no comment to edit. And having your shadow banned comment in the database would add complexity and slow down the rendering code which is the code youtube wants to be fast. So it may make more sense to implement shadow banning by just making your comment appear on the front end client side.

So here is the test. Make a comment on youtube, wait five minutes, and then try to edit it. Report back if it worked or not. Then we can figure out if it's just broken for everyone or if about 10% of us have the issue. Then we will know an easy way to test it and we can spread the word. I'm suggesting waiting just to make the experiment consistent. To not waste time just comment on a video you want to watch, watch it, and then edit it at the end.

If you're curious to test this out, but don't have an account on Saidit.net to report the results, don't fret. Let me know your response and I'll copy/paste it to @x0x7 on saidit. If you want to remain anonymous to saidit, I'll omit your name on request. Thanks for your time gents.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

you said "in Rome" twice. That's hugely different from "in Roman-occupied Judea". The fact that you said it twice makes it obvious that you truly thought he was in Rome.

Saying I truly thought he was in Rome is an exaggeration. I have used Roman Empire previously in the same context.

I say Roman Empire to put the timelines into perspective. Jesus of Nezareth (occupied by roman militia, btw) was born right after Caesars Rule, and Augustus was born soom after Jesus resurrected

Would you say the events in Rudyard Kipling's novel "Kim" took place in Britain, or in British-occupied India?

Now that I have corrected myself, Assume I said Jesus's experience throughout the Roman Empire.

My goal in saying that is to paint a visual timeline for the reader. I am considerate in my writing.

And yes, I am well aware of what the New.Test is made up of. In fact, there are books after the New.Test that didn't make it into the Bible. Like The Gospel of Thomas.

I am not wrong for saying the New.Test centre's on Jesus. Everything is connected to Jesus in the New.T. Jesus and Virgin Mary is what separates the Old Test and New Test. It introduces the holy trinity, and God's newer and superior plan of salvation. Now gentiles are also saved. Jesus is more significant than God's chosen Prophets like Abraham, Moses and Jacob. This distinction is another major turning point of the N.T

If your goal is to be a good witness for Christ, then you are far from that goal. You come across like a Bible-thumping street preacher who hasn't actually opened and read his Bible, but just waves it around as a prop.

Seriously? Thats your take? I never claimed to be a theologian, nor an expert. I simply share what I learn and the insights I gain. I do my best to say what is true, and correct myself when miscommunicate.

I have already testified that I am completely new to the Bible. Did I not say I have read the Bible for 16 years, but see for the first time? You do not understand what I am saying to you.

The understanding I have gained in the last week of reading the Bible far surpass what I learned in the last 15 years.

It's a pity you miss all that for an insignificant typo.

How am I virtue signalling anything here? You can virtue signal about climate change, because it's a hoax and it's retarded.

Saying spreading God's word is virtue signalling is blasphamy far greater than my Rome and Roman Empire mix up.

But to conclude. You are right that my writing is full of holes and could be improved. Most of this could have been avoided had I proof read.

But had I not typed this, I would not have improved a corrected my termonology mix ups. Ya feel ?

And yes, I am attention seeking. From now, everytime you see my post, I would ask for your attention in advance. I believe I'm on to something that would benefit all. Listen or don't listen. It is up to you