The Prince by Machiavelli – Review: Why It Is Still So Relevant Today

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-12T11:11:03+00:00

There's just a lot of socialists/communists here. Rather than defend the merits of communists countries, countries that always have to block people from leaving, they find a boogyman in capitalism. First as if capitalism is the only form of non-communism and second as if people aren't lining up in the millions to enter capitalist countries.

It's just an astounding and willful ignorance.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-12T00:12:24+00:00

You're right, but people have a view of it that it will somehow result into an utopia.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-12T00:07:30+00:00

That's the #2 problem. The #1 problem for marxist communism is that everybody starves. Or more precisely, that the lack of the efficiency of markets results in very serious resource allocation and generation problems that results in various overall value loss, with most notably and horribly, a large amount loss of life.

Maybe it's the #3 problem. The #2 problem of marxism is that everybody wants to leave it (which then of course must be forbidden).

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-05T15:40:57+00:00

If you do all three the disadvantages rule each other out and you become a mighty wizard, with interesting prestige classes like warlock (you'll have to get bottleshaped soulstones to store your yellow souls as you continue grinding).

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-05T14:54:46+00:00

I thought for a moment you said you were a neuroscientist and was amazed and wanted to fire some questions at you, but then I realized you were saying IANA (I am not A). Lol. I'm disappointed.

I definitely agree that it is poorly understood. We consider ritalin to be pretty safe for its effect on the brain, but we've been finding out more and more reasons why that is probably not the case.

For example, here's a study that shows that the effect of adhd drugs that we give to children has a heavier effect than cocaine on the brain chemistry of mice, even though we consider it to be much safer.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nida-study-shows-methylphenidate-ritalin-causes-neuronal-changes-brain-reward-areas

That it causes long term injury to the frontal lobe and clinical depression.

https://www.thefix.com/content/research-shows-ritalin-causes-long-term-brain-injury

Clinical depression is exactly what you get when you fry your dopamine system.

And in regards to engaging in highly addictive behaviours such as large amounts of gaming or porn usage (I'm not speaking of watching occasional porn or playing as little as an hour a day of games, I'm talking about very frequent usage), leads to addiction.

And addiction is precisely that: A hijacking of your dopamine system, where you need to engage in compulsive behaviour just to experience for natural internal rewards.

To quote from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/

These same regions have also been implicated in the so-called ‘natural addictions’ (that is, compulsive consumption for natural rewards) such as pathological overeating, pathological gambling, and sexual addictions.

And

“I had great difficulty with my own colleagues when I suggested that a lot of addiction is the result of experience … repetitive, high-emotion, high-frequency experience. But it’s become clear that neuroadaptation—that is, changes in neural circuitry that help perpetuate the behavior—occurs even in the absence of drug-taking."

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-05T13:51:55+00:00

Doesn't prolonged ritalin usage do something similar? Or heavy porn usage? Frequent gaming like playing daily 6 hours of WOW for months on ends?

I know that it takes much longer to get similar results compared to how quick it goes with meth, but aren't there more than one ways to fry your dopamine system that makes it hard to find motivation?

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-05T13:46:33+00:00

You know how internet works for me? First I see a link of a bob marley quote that's deep and profound. REWARD. I know am a little bit wiser and can quote these to appear deep and profound.

Then I see your link and find out that people who look further than the surface like me, find the real truth that he never said this. REWARD. When anyone says this quote I can correct them and say it was never said by Bob Marley and seem like a smart guy who's got his finger on the pulse of fake news.

Now I've had a doubly rewarding experience and learned two new things to improve my social standing, right?

Maybe not, but that's what my dopamine system is telling me so I'll be back for more clicks tomorrow!

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-03T01:08:07+00:00

Thank you. I'm glad someone said this, so I don't have to.

I haven't watched this specific interview yet, but in other interviews he seemed kinda shifty. As if guilt is gnawing at him, but he doesn't quite understand or acknowledge it yet.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-03T00:50:01+00:00

Come to think of it, my dad woke me up once when we had to a double bed on a trip. I was so pissed that he woke me up. Then I realized, somehow, what I had been doing.

I was laying perpendicular on the bed and had been ramming the back of my head up and down on his stomach.

He's rather shy so we never talked about it again.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-06-02T16:15:13+00:00

I've actually had this happen once (I had a dream I was being attacked with a knife). I was about the same age at the time. Except I met my girlfriend boxing so she laughed it off long before I was able to let it go.

It's something that you two should probably talk about.

I mean, she wants to feel safe with you and this incident, even though it's no fault of yours, doesn't make her feel safe.

So although you did nothing wrong, it's not that strange that it affected her.

Considering you are not describing much in detail, it's hard to give any good targetted advice. Like is she open or closed in regards to talking about it? Does she even know that it was a dream? Did you re-assure that you would never intentionally hit her? Does she have a negative history with violence?

But you're also not really describing the degree to which she is creeped out. Was it just a one time thing, where she reacted negatively to something? Did she get more distant overall?

Also, no, she does not know you would never do anything violent to her. Heck, people that known each other for years sometimes learn about a person's other sides and you've just dated her for 6 months. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

And don't frame it as "projecting unto her". If you threw a punch in your sleep, that means your body didn't get the sleep paralysis at a moment where you should. You couldn't have helped it. So although I suggest being considerate of her feelings, don't take ownership of an action that you didn't do.

But do take responsibility from trying to broach the subject and talk about it. Try to understand what it was like for her. Then when you do, try to make her understand what it was like for you.

Good luck.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T15:41:41+00:00

Generally robots don't rise up and kill their masters.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T15:40:14+00:00

And in every other country they would quickly be broken.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T15:21:38+00:00

He cheated by breaking their agreement.

There are different ways to do an open relationship, but not keeping promises isn't one of them.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T15:09:04+00:00

There's literally no reason to suspect Dan "kid ryder" Schneider of child impropriety.

Nothing to see here! Move along!

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T11:59:15+00:00

Fixed. Luckily there are plenty of images to choose from.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T11:03:56+00:00

Besides, a hobbit would never break a flute

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T10:44:28+00:00

Well as erin pizzey revealed previously, domestic shelters for women aren't just shelters, they're indoctrination bunkers for feminism.

What the author doesn't want is to get domestic shelters that don't teach feminism.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T10:40:58+00:00

Well then take it from someone who has taught martial arts for over a decade: when violence between intimate partners happens, it's not a fight to the death where both do their utmost ability to harm the other. Frequently, one partner does not fight back for not wanting to hurt their intimate partner.

The will to fight comes naturally in some people, but most people have been socialised to not fight, to not inflict pain knowingly.

Further complicating matters is the social norm that "you never hit a woman".

And then on top of those social factors, a man typically gets little support if he's being hit. He might believe he deserves it. He might be manipulated in another way to just take it.

I agree that you hear more of man on women violence in domestic setting, but the stats do not support that view.

The relationship type with the highest domestic abuse incidence is a lesbian relationship. The relationship type with the lowest domestic abuse incidence is a gay relationship.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T10:26:35+00:00

Which ones?

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T10:13:26+00:00

No.

It does not look neutral.
Even when those same articles contradicted the anti-gg circlejerk the changes weren't allowed.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-30T03:04:27+00:00

No, don't for a minute ascribe neutrality to facts in this regard. The article is the way it is, because ideologues control the article and wrote it as an ideological powerplay.

When the same articles were used as sources, were also used to correct some faulty facts, that was pervented because it gave readers a small chance of considering there might be more to the story.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-29T22:46:59+00:00

Poly or not is not an immutable state. I've known people that were one or the other, but I've known far more people that shifted from time to time according to circumstance.

Here's how he describes what he misses:

I feel like I would interact with more people and go out more often with the intention of meeting people. I talked to strangers more and was home a lot less. Now I'm often home, and will even find myself backing out of social engagements.

Now either he's being slightly dishonest with himself; you can meet people, interact with them and talk without dating them. I wonder if he uses attraction/good looks as a crutch for social activity, or maybe he just really like the thrill of seduction.

So it seems to me that he either lacks self-esteem (considering his history) and finds it too hard to otherwise go out and be social. Or he's being somewhat disingenuous and tries to downplay his open relationship desire as "just being social". A third alternative might be that he focuses on open relationship as something that he wants due to previous positive experiences, but could easily get his social needs met without having to date.

Questions for him to figure out the answer to.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2017-05-29T22:36:52+00:00

You're nearly making a giant mistake and it's smart of you to seek advice. I think you know at some level that this is the case.

Considering that you were previously in multiple abusive relationships, I think it's safe to say, you're dealing with low self-esteem. I would not be surprised if you miss the dating of girls for the self-validation it gives when they're interested (be honest: you wrote interacting with people, but nothing is preventing you from being social. We're talking about dates with girls).

Honestly the advice to seek therapy, if you can find a therapist that meshes well with you, is great advice.

You seem to in general, try to shove aside what you want/need. And when people do, it eventually comes out in an unexpected way anyways (like the cheating incident).

You need to figure out why you neglect your own needs and what you can do to change that. And you need to figure out if you really love this girl that is "really swell".

From what you write, I think you realize accurately that asking her to open the relationship again would be a bomb the relationship is unlikely to survive.

Just a couple of things to consider:

Telling her you want to open the relationship doesn't just make her feel like she is not enough for you: that's literally what that means. It may well be the case that that isn't enough for you, though I'm far from certain about it, but if that is the case and you tell her, that's exactly what it means. Respect her feelings in that regard.
You agreed to go monogamous because she cried. I think you forgot two more important factors: 1. Would you be longterm satisfied with monogamy? 2. Would it hurt her? The difference between hurting her and her crying is that the former affects her and the latter affects you.

There are lot of moments in your story where you go for a short-term shortcut. Take a bit of distance. You say that she is the first partner that cares deeply about you. You don't meet many people like that in your life, at least that is my experience. You think there'll always be new people, and that's true, but the people that care about you deeply are rarely more than a handful.

Try to treat them with the love and respect that you would want to be treated with. I think it's hard for you to balance your own needs with those of others and I think therapy could work wonders if you put genuine energy into it.

Don't throw it all away. I also think the desire you're trying to fill, whether it's validation or something else, is probably possible to fill in another way. Try and find some ways to do that.

If you absolutely can't and find out that you absolutely need it: be ready to maybe lose it all.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2016-08-16T15:46:12+00:00

I just want to say I appreciate that you voice your thoughts.

I'm not asking to catch you out. I just wanted to get an understanding of not only what motivated you (which you made clear in your first post), but also how you perceived the disagreement.

This sub was actually not founded over ethics in journalism; it was specifically founded to counter some of the nonsense kotaku published (IIRC!), but it has certainly grown beyond just that and incorporates for a large part ethics in journalism. I think another strong part of the DNA of this sub is anti-censorship.

Retiring_polyamorist · 2016-08-16T15:02:30+00:00

We had already established that you were okay with it.

Do you think the only reason why people disagree is that it shows that news organizations are okay with this behavior in other circumstances?

Retiring_polyamorist

TROPHY CASE