doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Chap]

When the alpha male falls ill or injured nobody is going to rush to his aid and seek to nurse him back to health.

Um, if he is a nice loving alpha male (the qualities are by no means mutually exclusive), why not?

The idea that alpha = nasty, selfish and unloved does not chime with my observations at all.

[Chap]

I don't think women should be too picky in their 20s.

Nice of you to try to help out, but I don't think a young woman who reads your posts will see you as a reliable source of advice.

[Res Ipsa]

The warning DT is referring to is a function available in the phpBB software. It is visible only to the user being warned.

i would have thought universal rule 3 applied to those type of communications. Does it?

To my knowledge, there has been no formal ruling on it and there is no precedent for an applying it to a user disclosing the fact or content of a warning. I don’t think DTs disclosure violates either the letter or spirit of the rule.

[doubtingthomas]

I’m not aware of any evidence that loneliness is either a necessary or sufficient cause of misogyny. It does, however, function as a convenient rationalization for it.

There's a correlation. Maybe if you combine loneliness with years of rejection on dating apps.

And did you watch the CNN report? It says women are "more choosey" and talks about the correlation between loneliness and violence.

your misogynist views of women

I am still trying to understand why you think that my views are sexist. Is it sexist to say that young women are too picky?
I have that opinion based on what I read in news reports, studies, and magazines, "Dating Apps Have Made Women Too Picky For The Wrong Reasons".
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/datin ... ng-reasons

So, I honestly don't understand why my view is sexist, a lot of women are saying the same thing.

I hope you take the time to explain that, I promise I won't challenge your explanation.

Yes, again, I'll see a doctor soon.

[Marcus]

Ok thank you.

But I disagree about violating the spirit of the law. I base my interpretation on UR3, the part I bolded:

Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public. People who communicate behind-the-scenes obviously intend their communications to remain behind-the-scenes. Any post on the board itself making reference to such things will be deleted.

DT referenced a private communication he received, there was no way for those reading it to know the technical form in which it came; it's difficult to see how that doesn't violate rule 3 except apparently on a technicality, but I don't need further discussion, I accept the decision that it does not.

[Res Ipsa]

Nope.

[Xenophon]

My "ugly" and "destructive" emotions aren't affecting the way I talk to women. I don't hate women. I might have some resentment, forgive me for being a human being, but I don't hate women.

Emphasis mine. I suspect this is an incorrect assessment on your part especially understanding that we are often most blind to our own biases.

This has been shared with you before in various ways but I think it is worth reiterating. What we think and feel creeps in to our language and actions in a myriad of ways, often not noticeable by us without deep introspection, call outs from others present, and transcripts. Whether you recognize how that is happening is another question entirely but it may speak to some of your frustration in dealing with women and also just people in general. Likely language/tone/mannerisms that you don't intend to let out do indeed come across to others and that signals all sorts of red flags for them. The more comfortable you get with others the more likely this is to happen. Frustration, tiredness, hunger and 1000 other things will exacerbate it too. We've seen what your willing to say here when your proverbial guard is down, no telling what that looks like in the real world.

When folks here suggest therapy, it isn't to directly help you with women. It is to help you tackle your distorted thought processes. Help you in providing tools with dealing with issues as they come up. And I don't say any of this to you as some rando on the internet but as someone who is a firm believer in the power of therapy and as someone who regularly sees a therapist.

I'll link a post to you authored by Dr. Steuss on your thread in case you may have missed it: viewtopic.php?p=2826315#p2826315

Steuss expresses a ton of great thoughts here that if you do decide to get help I hope you'll keep in mind. It is work on your part, a lot of damned work. They aren't going to fix you, you are going to work on yourself with their help and expertise. Find a therapist that speaks to you but also challenges you, pushes you for more. Then dig in and see if it doesn't improve your life.

[ajax18]

Um, if he is a nice loving alpha male (the qualities are by no means mutually exclusive), why not?

The idea that alpha = nasty, selfish and unloved does not chime with my observations at all.

Because it's a man's job to love and the woman's job to receive love. That's just the order of nature. When he's king of the mountain it's winner take all. When he is dethroned and toppled he's forgotten and falls back into obscurity. It's how we're wired by evolution. Women do not have a sex drive and they're more picky. They rarely chase men. And until someone who is good enough to them shows an interest, they'll choose being single.

[Doctor Steuss]

Women do not have a sex drive [...]

Lol.

[Res Ipsa]

Ok thank you.

But I disagree about violating the spirit of the law. I base my interpretation on UR3, the part I bolded:

Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public. People who communicate behind-the-scenes obviously intend their communications to remain behind-the-scenes. Any post on the board itself making reference to such things will be deleted.

DT referenced a private communication he received, there was no way for those reading it to know the technical form in which it came; it's difficult to see how that doesn't violate rule 3 except apparently on a technicality, but I don't need further discussion, I accept the decision that it does not.

If one makes an effort to apply the last sentence of UR 13, I don't think it's hard to understand at all.

Letter of the Law

The rule states:

Do not make mention of anything that allegedly transpired or is transpiring via the chat room or via private message that the source him- or herself has not overtly made public. People who communicate behind-the-scenes obviously intend their communications to remain behind-the-scenes. Any post on the board itself making reference to such things will be deleted

The first sentence states what the rule is. The second states the rationale for the rule. The third addresses enforcement of the rule.

The rule expressly applies to "chat room" and "private message." Both are the names of specific functions or features of the phpBB software. They are features accessible by general users. "Warning" and "Banning" are also the names of specific functions of the phpBB software. They are not "chat room" or "private message." They are also accessible only by moderators and administrators. The literal language of the rule does not apply to "warning" or "banning."

Spirit of the Law

The rule protects the personal privacy interests of users. When I act in my official capacity as moderator, as a representative of the board owner and administrators, it is highly questionable whether I have any personal privacy interests at all in that action. Even if I do, they have to be balanced against another issue not present in the case of users using the chat or private message function.

Applying UR 3 to official moderator communications would give the moderators the power to censor public criticism of their actions. Giving me the power to delete the post of a user who protests a warning, privilege restriction, or temporary privilege restriction simply because I chose to use software functions that don't cc all users would be the kind of heavy-handed, arbitrary moderation that is the exact opposite of Shades' moderation philosophy. The distinction between the personal privacy interests of a user and those of a moderator acting in their official capacity are neither technical nor trivial.

You, of course, are entirely free to disagree. But at least you have the benefit of knowing what my reasoning actually is before you dismiss it.