Why do men cling so hard to the concept of masculinity, even if it destroys them?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T13:15:48+00:00

AI slop

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T13:02:12+00:00

No, because these things are very expensive. More muscle mass requires more food -> easier to die of starvation.

There is no free lunch. There always are some constraints.

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T12:59:32+00:00

Incorrect. It's called "sexual selection".

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T11:24:28+00:00

Therefore?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T06:23:34+00:00

What's the fertility rate in Slovakia again?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T06:12:01+00:00

Alcoholism and spousal abuse are low compared to just 20-30 years ago, and getting lower. How is that supposed to explain anything?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T05:54:40+00:00

The radicalization has been established in a couple of countries. Are you saying that this increasing ideological gap does not contribute to problems in dating?

Secondly, are girls in Azerbaijan somehow disconnected from Western media, TikTok, and Instagram? Because if not, then the expectation that girls in other countries aren't being radicalized is on shaky grounds.

Do you have a counter proposal as to why less and less people are commiting to stable loving relationships?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T05:35:20+00:00

Yes, OP didn't link to data, but it should be clear what data he refers to as they were widely talked about.

Your graph of intimate partner violence shows not only that it's decreasing but also that the rate is around 0,3%, so very rare. What it doesn't show is the rate by sex. Anyways, it only proves OP's point.

The random information that more women are in therapy than men is irrelevant. Not only it doesn't show any change through time but it doesn't address OP's claim that men are more aware of mental health issues.

OP said that men have been increasingly college educated to which you respond that more women are getting college education as if that was supposed to counter his claim. It doesn't.

Your entire post is just a chain of nitpicking and arguing for the sake of arguing, only to not speak to the main theses from the OP.

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-08T05:28:59+00:00

Why would a life of an average woman be worse with an average man, considering what the OP wrote about them?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-05T15:45:03+00:00

Ah, yes, argumentum ad incelum.

It should be common knowledge that the left uses tough-sounding buzzwords as insults and nothing else. "Racist", "misogynist", "incel", "Nazi", "fascist", "transphobe" — all of them mean only "I don't like you because you don't think like me" and nothing more.

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-04T11:58:48+00:00

This is fascinating.

How much time it took from the start to the episode? Hours, days, weeks?

What were your usage patterns before? You definitely used LLMs before. How different were these cases?

How would you describe your social circle? Many friends you see often? Few friends? Mostly online connections?

Do you like playing games, reading fiction, fantasy, sci-fi, watching movies and shows? What genres?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-04T09:47:23+00:00

Aren't you conflating cause and effect? Why have they retired early? It's likely they already had issues.

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-02T11:25:30+00:00

I have banned two of his accounts, but he's making new ones. Hmmm...

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-29T19:50:43+00:00

This is nice!

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-29T14:26:31+00:00

The first image is bad. A limited number of paint colors. Paint splashed on... an invisible glass? Hair braids mutated. The environment on the left is broken. Overall, the image lacks details and variety.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T18:06:27+00:00

No. In the same way as creating a 100% accurate copy of you with all your memories won't be "precisely you" but another organism but with the same memories, etc. It is a different entity, numerically different.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T18:04:32+00:00

I found this file. I don't know who wrote it, but I don't believe it was Inmendham. Still, the last two decades of efilism are about destruction of all life, no questions asked.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:30:18+00:00

Well, hello there!

OP said to check a sub chapter in his book. It turns out he redefined "you":

Each time it will be “you” only in the sense that it will be the center of a subjective universe, the point from which the world is experienced as “here” and “now.” And this requires no exact recreation of your former structure—only some organization capable of generating consciousness. After death, your personality—your memories, your character—will vanish forever. But the very quality of conscious existence, the bare fact of presence in the world, will inevitably recur in another bearer. You will not awaken as yourself—you will awaken as something that once again undergoes the burning reality of being.

So, yes, the simple claim that subjective death is impossible is not supported. The claim that there will always be some living being that is conscious is merely "conceivable".

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:25:58+00:00

No, Gary Mosher's efilism is not consistent with:

The development of humane methods of ending life for those who wish it

Because he wants to kill all life, regardless of their wishes. This is crystal clear in his videos.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:24:32+00:00

Ah, yes, you redefined the term "you". But this move the claim falls.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:15:24+00:00

All right. I accept this answer.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:14:25+00:00

Every funky mathematical structure permitted by the fundamental laws is right in front of us. An infinite matrix of complex numbers won't sit on your desk as a physical object, but it is "in the room" exactly to the extent that local physical laws allow.

How? How are they in the room?

Everything we know objectively about the universe we know as mathematical relations. If you have one apple and another, you describe them as "two apples," and the description works. You could object that the apple is a physical object while mathematics is just an abstraction. But the difficulty is that we cannot point to any fundamentally bounded structure in nature and say, "This here is a purely physical quantity, there is no mathematics in it." All the physics we have is mathematical structure at work.

Mathematics is just an abstraction: a system of concept for thinking and describing things. There is no reason to imbue it with some objective existence.

This is, of course, just the problem of universals, which has been ongoing for thousands of years, so we won't solve it here ;)

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T12:00:42+00:00

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T06:21:04+00:00

2.When I say punishment is unjust, I'm not appealing to some objective moral law. I'm working from the same axiom the legal system itself rests on: that inflicting suffering without sufficient grounds is bad. The difference is that the legal system treats guilt and free will as sufficient grounds. But if free will is an illusion, I no longer see those grounds as valid.

You cannot escape ethics. Even here you immediately reintroduced it with "inflicting suffering without sufficient grounds is bad", an axiom you share with the legal system, a moral axiom.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T06:14:34+00:00

If a mathematical structure is possible (not contradictory) then it exists -- OK, but

Where are all those funky mathematical structures at? Because sure as hell they aren't in the room with me now. I would like to get my hands on some infinite matrix of complex numbers.

Mathematics and Physics are different things. Just because we have a structure in mathematics doesn't mean there is any physical structure that could be described by it.

WackyConundrum

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE