thread where I dump my writings

[Ladiesman217]

dnr warning, I'm too lazy to write a tldr​

Why would a normal, mentally sound person who has their life together waste their time on somebody who is a complete mess? They could very easily date the abundance of other normal people around them. Relationships are for those who have a firm hold on things in their life and everything is going well.

I would peg relationships at the “self-actualization” level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, because relationships are meant for perfect people to enjoy life to its fullest extent. The natural objection to this is that there is a level meant for relationships in Maslow’s hierarchy, namely the belonging and intimacy levels. However, this stems from naively viewing Maslow’s hierarchy as a pyramid with disjoint, unconnected levels. Relationships from the top of the pyramid can feed down to these levels and help a person experience belonging and intimacy more strongly, and vice versa. Furthermore, a mentally sound person can use stopgap measures to fulfill their belonging requirements (like friendships) as they climb the pyramid, so a relationship itself is not a prerequisite for having a relationship.

Now consider an example of a person who has not got everything together: a person who is having financial troubles and does not have a job. Given that there are many employed and financially stable people to pick from, people are far less likely to pick that unemployed person. However, the unemployed person has a straightforward answer to his situation: get a job. No matter how difficult it may be, the solution is straightforward as it can be.

But what about people whose problems stem from feeling unvalued to begin with? Let us focus in particular on attachment style theory from psychology. People with insecure attachment are more likely to feel unvalued because they believe that 1) other people are not emotionally responsive to their needs and/or 2) they are not worthy of love to begin with. This manifests as a combination of unlikeable outward behaviors, such as avoidance, neediness, and clinginess. It is a well-established fact in psychology that the cure to insecure attachment is very much having a partner with secure attachment. No amount of therapy can change the underlying feeling that somebody is unvalued without actually having somebody to value them.

However, this creates a trap: people with insecure attachment ooze these unlikeable behaviors through their skin. Many of these behaviors are subconscious and nearly impossible to eliminate without directly transitioning to secure attachment. However, a normal securely attached person is far less likely to waste their time putting up with the mental issues of an insecurely attached person. Therefore, people with insecure attachment (especially severe insecure attachment) cannot find a relationship due to this catch-22.

Now, there is a clear objection to all of this: what if, despite one’s flaws, a normal person chooses to love a broken person? First and foremost, such a pairing is very unlikely to happen due to the prevalence of other normal people throughout society. There would need to be a strong reason to date the broken person, such as very strong chemistry. But chemistry is not the end-all-be-all of a relationship, and mental issues will constantly throw a wrench in the relationship and make it much more likely to fail. What I mean to say is that although a relationship could work out, it is almost certainly guaranteed not to.

Prevention of mental issues is a far easier problem to tackle than the curing of said issues. This is why people should put their utmost effort into flourishing in their formative years. Society has put a large social safety net for children, so if a person screws up as a kid, they can easily move past their mistake. But once this grace period is past, fixing one’s life if they never had a proper life to begin with (and thus never developed secure attachment and proper social skills) is very difficult and requires a combination of effort, luck, and simply guessing correctly at how normal humans behave because there is no guidebook containing information on all the small behaviors that make up normal humans.

So what is the solution for those who are unvalued and suffering from mental issues? We must determine whether these people on an individual level still hold value to a society as a whole, through metrics such as contribution to the economy. If a person ends up being net negative, and they are suffering with no hope for remission, then euthanizing them is not only the right thing to do, it is what we are obligated to do. Such people are both suffering and draining society; their absence is what is best for both us and them.

 

[genio]

Funerals are performative. Why do friends show up to a funeral? A friendship simply existed for temporary social pleasure and belonging while the two were both alive. It has no intrinsic meaning. Once a person is dead, they not remembered because they are no longer useful for creating that feeling. A dead friend has no use to a person. Why do people bother showing up to the funeral?

And why does the dead person’s partner cry as he is lowered into his grave? She doesn’t cry his death itself. She mourns the lost emotional investment. An investment does not yield a scalar quantity; rather it yields a unique experience. Once that unique experience is gone, it cannot be experience again. That is what she truly mourns, not that the person she loved is dead. There is nothing but a bottomless pit of cynicism.

"It has no intrinsic meaning" nothing has intrinsic meaning if you really get down to it. Everything you do or like is assigned meaning by your environment and YOU.
"Once a person is dead, they not remembered because they are no longer useful for creating that feeling" Memories? I can think of many memories of my friends that give me the same happy feeling as when I'm with them. A dead person can still create emotions within you.
"A dead friend has no use to a person. Why do people bother showing up to the funeral?" Tbh i do agree that funerals are performative, but some of the shit you say i don't agree with. People show up to the funeral to virtue signal to others. Rarely, they actually do care and just want to see their friend for one last time. A dead friend does have use to a person. The circumstances of their death could still create new connections or actions for you, although largely nuance.
"Once that unique experience is gone, it cannot be experience again" Again, you can always think back of the good times you had with that person and experience it to a lesser degree.

 

[genio]

another one from mid april

When you realize some people inherently deserve to suffer from the day they were born, everything makes sense. Why was I bullied many times over and over as a kid? Because I was inherently born as a shitty person. I was a genetic defect, a lump of biowaste that should have been disposed long ago, a filthy wart that escaped the hole it grew out of and was now growing bigger and bigger like a cancer. A cancer needs to be put in his place.

Why was I unable to make friends in high school? Why was I socially excluded in college? Because people have the ability to recognize defects, flawed byproducts of the system, and steer clear of such contaminants. Why does nobody like me? Because I am a shitty person, and that sensation oozes out from me. Whether it’s through a computer screen or in real life, people get the sensation that I am a shitty person. They know, “this person is an unlikable sack of shit. Steer clear.” Why am I morbidly obese and ugly? Because I am a shitty person, and that is what shitty people deserve. I was born a shitty person and that is why from the moment I was brought into this world, I deserved suffering. Suffering is my inherent purpose.

I remember talking to somebody, saying that social media feeds into insecurities of young people about their appearance. They were saddened by that. I was not saddened. In every society, there needs to be bottom of the barrel trash. There is bottom of the barrel trash because any society requires a hierarchy. And with a hierarchy, there must be undesirables, people who are valued by nobody. These people must be made fun of. They must suffer. They exist to suffer and nothing else. I am not saddened by this, no. I support this. I love this. People suffering is the way the world works. We must support this cycle and continue causing them suffering.

What if we wanted to build a society where nobody suffers? We have many tools are our disposal. We can euthanize people who are sad. We can use eugenics to prevent unvalued people from being born. We can then erase the bottom of the barrel category entirely. People who are not happy do not have the right to life. The right to life comes from feeling happiness. Euthanizing these people is the best tool at our disposal to benefit both them and people who feel happy. Does it not make perfect sense? If somebody holds value to no other person, what right do they have to exist? If they could at least feel happy, they could argue that they have a right to live for themselves. But they are unhappy. They are suffering. We must euthanize them for the benefit of us all.

"I support this. I love this. People suffering is the way the world works. We must support this cycle and continue causing them suffering." contradicts how you support infanticide.
"What if we wanted to build a society where nobody suffers?" Not possible. Again, we are not purely logical creatures n***a. Death is not the solution to everything. "euthanize people who are sad" and then we'd have to euthanize people who are sad their loved one died. We'd all be dead by the end of this. Everybody will be sad at some point. It's the way life works. You see it as a flaw when it's actually one of the fundamentals. How would you know you're happy if you've never been sad?

 

[Motivated Dandelions]

dnr warning, I'm too lazy to write a tldr​

Why would a normal, mentally sound person who has their life together waste their time on somebody who is a complete mess? They could very easily date the abundance of other normal people around them. Relationships are for those who have a firm hold on things in their life and everything is going well.

I would peg relationships at the “self-actualization” level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, because relationships are meant for perfect people to enjoy life to its fullest extent. The natural objection to this is that there is a level meant for relationships in Maslow’s hierarchy, namely the belonging and intimacy levels. However, this stems from naively viewing Maslow’s hierarchy as a pyramid with disjoint, unconnected levels. Relationships from the top of the pyramid can feed down to these levels and help a person experience belonging and intimacy more strongly, and vice versa. Furthermore, a mentally sound person can use stopgap measures to fulfill their belonging requirements (like friendships) as they climb the pyramid, so a relationship itself is not a prerequisite for having a relationship.

Now consider an example of a person who has not got everything together: a person who is having financial troubles and does not have a job. Given that there are many employed and financially stable people to pick from, people are far less likely to pick that unemployed person. However, the unemployed person has a straightforward answer to his situation: get a job. No matter how difficult it may be, the solution is straightforward as it can be.

But what about people whose problems stem from feeling unvalued to begin with? Let us focus in particular on attachment style theory from psychology. People with insecure attachment are more likely to feel unvalued because they believe that 1) other people are not emotionally responsive to their needs and/or 2) they are not worthy of love to begin with. This manifests as a combination of unlikeable outward behaviors, such as avoidance, neediness, and clinginess. It is a well-established fact in psychology that the cure to insecure attachment is very much having a partner with secure attachment. No amount of therapy can change the underlying feeling that somebody is unvalued without actually having somebody to value them.

However, this creates a trap: people with insecure attachment ooze these unlikeable behaviors through their skin. Many of these behaviors are subconscious and nearly impossible to eliminate without directly transitioning to secure attachment. However, a normal securely attached person is far less likely to waste their time putting up with the mental issues of an insecurely attached person. Therefore, people with insecure attachment (especially severe insecure attachment) cannot find a relationship due to this catch-22.

Now, there is a clear objection to all of this: what if, despite one’s flaws, a normal person chooses to love a broken person? First and foremost, such a pairing is very unlikely to happen due to the prevalence of other normal people throughout society. There would need to be a strong reason to date the broken person, such as very strong chemistry. But chemistry is not the end-all-be-all of a relationship, and mental issues will constantly throw a wrench in the relationship and make it much more likely to fail. What I mean to say is that although a relationship could work out, it is almost certainly guaranteed not to.

Prevention of mental issues is a far easier problem to tackle than the curing of said issues. This is why people should put their utmost effort into flourishing in their formative years. Society has put a large social safety net for children, so if a person screws up as a kid, they can easily move past their mistake. But once this grace period is past, fixing one’s life if they never had a proper life to begin with (and thus never developed secure attachment and proper social skills) is very difficult and requires a combination of effort, luck, and simply guessing correctly at how normal humans behave because there is no guidebook containing information on all the small behaviors that make up normal humans.

So what is the solution for those who are unvalued and suffering from mental issues? We must determine whether these people on an individual level still hold value to a society as a whole, through metrics such as contribution to the economy. If a person ends up being net negative, and they are suffering with no hope for remission, then euthanizing them is not only the right thing to do, it is what we are obligated to do. Such people are both suffering and draining society; their absence is what is best for both us and them.

Trvth nvke after trvth nvke, holy fuark. Mirin your dedication and I do agree to an extent

 

[viasco]

dnr

foids just want bbc & someone to listen to them yap

 

[icnone]

This is retarded
She would get punished by society and biologically obviously mothers are hardwired to protect and love their offspring
It's that simple
The emotional distress she would get from killing her child is also a factor
Women are more emotional than men as that's what biology wants
Not everybody is a perfect logician n***a "largely emotional and have no logical basis" is to be expected
We wouldn't be human if we were purely creatures of logic
Even logically, it's fucking retarded as she would get punished by society anyways

Ty for reading through it brother

Gonna make sure I respond to all your comments, rn gotta get out of bed, brush my teeth, eat breakfast, etc

 

[genio]

Ty for reading through it brother

Gonna make sure I respond to all your comments, rn gotta get out of bed, brush my teeth, eat breakfast, etc

n****r

 

[NoIamHuman]

Fax (I didn’t read half of it)

 

[icnone]

This is retarded
She would get punished by society and biologically obviously mothers are hardwired to protect and love their offspring
It's that simple
The emotional distress she would get from killing her child is also a factor
Women are more emotional than men as that's what biology wants
Not everybody is a perfect logician n***a "largely emotional and have no logical basis" is to be expected
We wouldn't be human if we were purely creatures of logic
Even logically, it's fucking retarded as she would get punished by society anyways

My proposal is change societal norms around this and make infanticide legal
Infanticide was legal and widespread throughout a lot of civilizations at once, so the part of "hardwired to protect and love their offspring" is more of something that was imported by culture than an inherent quality
Furthermore if infanticide is re-legalized, she wouldn't have to kill the child herself, and she probably shouldn't. Part of ethical infanticide would require minimal pain to the child, and it's much easier to set up licensed shops for that instead of forcing individual mothers to figure it out on their own. She could hand the baby off to someone else and avoid any distress for killing it herself

Not everybody is a perfect logician n***a "largely emotional and have no logical basis" is to be expected
We wouldn't be human if we were purely creatures of logic

I address this when I say an infant has not lived long enough to make any special memories with its mother. Would you be sad if the ocean waves washed away a sand castle you spent 5 minutes building?

 

[icnone]

"It has no intrinsic meaning" nothing has intrinsic meaning if you really get down to it. Everything you do or like is assigned meaning by your environment and YOU.
"Once a person is dead, they not remembered because they are no longer useful for creating that feeling" Memories? I can think of many memories of my friends that give me the same happy feeling as when I'm with them. A dead person can still create emotions within you.
"A dead friend has no use to a person. Why do people bother showing up to the funeral?" Tbh i do agree that funerals are performative, but some of the shit you say i don't agree with. People show up to the funeral to virtue signal to others. Rarely, they actually do care and just want to see their friend for one last time. A dead friend does have use to a person. The circumstances of their death could still create new connections or actions for you, although largely nuance.
"Once that unique experience is gone, it cannot be experience again" Again, you can always think back of the good times you had with that person and experience it to a lesser degree.

Alright, I will concede on this point. But funerals are never for the dead person themself, they are for the living to process their emotions.

 

[icnone]

"I support this. I love this. People suffering is the way the world works. We must support this cycle and continue causing them suffering." contradicts how you support infanticide.

I don't think so. In the particular example I showed, the cost of having a child outweighs the benefit of inflicting suffering on the child. So it is more logical for the mother to retroactively abort her child.

"What if we wanted to build a society where nobody suffers?" Not possible.

Of course zero suffering is impossible, but any utilitarian framework aims to get as close to zero as possible.

Death is not the solution to everything. "euthanize people who are sad" and then we'd have to euthanize people who are sad their loved one died. We'd all be dead by the end of this.

I don't mean momentary sadness. I mean long term sadness. Those who are sad long term tend to hold minimal value to those around them. Their death will only cause momentary sadness.

Now in the case that they are valued deeply by many people around them, basic utilitarian logic says we should keep them. But that also results in increased suffering because they are still alive. Hence to further minimize total suffering, we would need to throw as many mental health resources at them.

Everybody will be sad at some point. It's the way life works. You see it as a flaw when it's actually one of the fundamentals. How would you know you're happy if you've never been sad?

Going back to my long term sadness argument, how will they see happiness if sadness is all they've felt?

 

[genio]

My proposal is change societal norms around this and make infanticide legal
Infanticide was legal and widespread throughout a lot of civilizations at once, so the part of "hardwired to protect and love their offspring" is more of something that was imported by culture than an inherent quality
Furthermore if infanticide is re-legalized, she wouldn't have to kill the child herself, and she probably shouldn't. Part of ethical infanticide would require minimal pain to the child, and it's much easier to set up licensed shops for that instead of forcing individual mothers to figure it out on their own. She could hand the baby off to someone else and avoid any distress for killing it herself

I address this when I say an infant has not lived long enough to make any special memories with its mother. Would you be sad if the ocean waves washed away a sand castle you spent 5 minutes building?

It is not culture that affects mothers’ love for their children. It is simply biology. Infanticide is stupid; the goal should be to prevent their birth in the first place rather than killing them if it would negatively affect the mother. Handing her baby off to be killed wouldn’t avoid distress, it may just cause more or less of it.

Bonding in infancy is very important to mental growth and intelligence. They are special memories. Also, your analogy is flawed. How is 9 months bearing another human being comparable to a sand castle?

 

[icnone]

It is not culture that affects mothers’ love for their children. It is simply biology.... Handing her baby off to be killed wouldn’t avoid distress, it may just cause more or less of it

If she cannot overcome that biological impulse to make a decision that ensures her own long-term survival and success, then she is acting out of weakness and irrationality. There is no logical reason to harbor deep, unyielding devotion toward a being you have only known for a few months, especially when that being is actively dismantling your future. In the original Reddit post, her infant was ruining her dating life, draining her youth, and cementing her poverty. She needs to man up, look at her reality objectively, and fix her problems. Human beings are highly resilient; once the source of chronic stress is removed, she will move on pretty quickly and be able to rebuild a high-utility life.

Bonding in infancy is very important to mental growth and intelligence. They are special memories.

Yes, it is true that the first few months of infancy contribute significantly to later mental development, such as attachment styles. However, later development does not matter if the infant is euthanized. You cannot optimize the mental growth or intelligence of a brain that no longer exists. Furthermore, building attachment styles is only useful if the child is meant to navigate a long life. If the projected life of that child is one of economic hardship, fatherlessness, and a resentful mother, maximizing its intelligence only ensures it grows up to be acutely aware of its own miserable circumstances. Termination completely bypasses this net negative outcome.

How is 9 months bearing another human being comparable to a sand castle?

I was arguing in the case where you spent 5 minutes building a sand castle versus 5 hours. The more time you spend on something, the more emotional investment you have and therefore when you lose it, you would feel sad. The analogy is about the psychological phenomenon of the sunk-cost fallacy, not the physical materials used.

Also, the "9 months" argument is stretched. Fetuses are smaller than the size of a bean for 4 of those months. It is only towards the later stages where pregnancy becomes a little harder to bear. To equate a few months of physical discomfort to the next 18 or more years of relentless financial, social, and psychological ruin is mathematically absurd. Cutting your losses at 10 months post-birth, despite the minor sunk cost of pregnancy, is the only logical choice to prevent a lifetime of compounded suffering for both parties.

 

[genio]

If she cannot overcome that biological impulse to make a decision that ensures her own long-term survival and success, then she is acting out of weakness and irrationality. There is no logical reason to harbor deep, unyielding devotion toward a being you have only known for a few months, especially when that being is actively dismantling your future. In the original Reddit post, her infant was ruining her dating life, draining her youth, and cementing her poverty. She needs to man up, look at her reality objectively, and fix her problems. Human beings are highly resilient; once the source of chronic stress is removed, she will move on pretty quickly and be able to rebuild a high-utility life.

Yes, it is true that the first few months of infancy contribute significantly to later mental development, such as attachment styles. However, later development does not matter if the infant is euthanized. You cannot optimize the mental growth or intelligence of a brain that no longer exists. Furthermore, building attachment styles is only useful if the child is meant to navigate a long life. If the projected life of that child is one of economic hardship, fatherlessness, and a resentful mother, maximizing its intelligence only ensures it grows up to be acutely aware of its own miserable circumstances. Termination completely bypasses this net negative outcome.

I was arguing in the case where you spent 5 minutes building a sand castle versus 5 hours. The more time you spend on something, the more emotional investment you have and therefore when you lose it, you would feel sad. The analogy is about the psychological phenomenon of the sunk-cost fallacy, not the physical materials used.

Also, the "9 months" argument is stretched. Fetuses are smaller than the size of a bean for 4 of those months. It is only towards the later stages where pregnancy becomes a little harder to bear. To equate a few months of physical discomfort to the next 18 or more years of relentless financial, social, and psychological ruin is mathematically absurd. Cutting your losses at 10 months post-birth, despite the minor sunk cost of pregnancy, is the only logical choice to prevent a lifetime of compounded suffering for both parties.

Lowk dnr the rest i dont have time for ts shit but keeping the child wouldnt affect her survival and she’s already succeeded biologically by having the child
Also killing the child wouldnt make her look any better since she alr had it
Js prevent irresponsible births in the first place

 

[icnone]

Lowk dnr the rest i dont have time for ts shit but keeping the child wouldnt affect her survival and she’s already succeeded biologically by having the child
Also killing the child wouldnt make her look any better since she alr had it
Js prevent irresponsible births in the first place

fuck, looks like it's back to throwing my writings at AI again

 

[icnone]

May 17th, 2026​

One of the key roadblocks is eugenics is the human psyche. If we euthanize somebody who is a drain on society, then we will inevitably make the people around them sad. Consider a couple who has a 5 year old child suffering from terminal cancer. Society could spend tens of thousands of dollars to make a dead end’s life better, or we could cut our losses early and have the couple try again. But the latter option is too painful for the parents.


We need to rewire the human brain to be more compatible with eugenics. Something I find interesting is that from an evolutionary standpoint, trauma from loss of a loved one is a complex emotion and not critical to survival. It is an artifact of higher order thought and largely ingrained into a person from the behaviors of those around them, meaning that it can be mended to our liking.


We need to teach people from a young age that death and loss are a normal part of life. The first step comes from the people around them and the media. Funerals should be celebratory instead of sad. Movie characters should not cry when their loved one dies. Footage of real death be accessible and not considered a taboo. The second step is active correction. Schools should encourage the idea that death is not a depressing dead end, but a duty of all humans to make space for the next generation and its higher quality genes. Abortion should be seen as a part of consummation. There are so many ways we can further normalize the loss of people.


Critics may argue that grief is not a cultural defect but an adaptive human trait. Attachment to family members encourages parental investment, social trust, and community stability. A society that weakens emotional bonds in favor of utilitarian optimization may undermine the very psychological structures that allow civilizations to function cohesively in the first place.


However, proponents of this framework could argue that human emotional systems are not fixed constants. Many emotional norms have already changed across history through religion, culture, and social institutions. Ancient societies normalized death to a far greater extent than modern industrial societies, where death is heavily sanitized and hidden. The argument is therefore not necessarily that grief should disappear entirely, but that societies could reinterpret death in ways that reduce prolonged suffering and place greater emphasis on collective continuity over individual attachment.

 

[icnone]

May 18th, 2026​

Some of the pushback I’ve gotten on my pro-eugenics arguments is the fact that an ultra-utilitarian society will eliminate happiness itself because without sadness we lose value in happiness. Aye, it is true that for happiness we need some proportion of sadness. Naive utilitarian optimization for pure happiness will lead to degenerate solutions that decrease the total actual happiness. This shows the need for more accurate and grounded happiness metrics that reflect the need for a wide range of human emotions, not just happiness itself.


But that is not what I aim to argue here. In an imperfect utilitarian society (which will cover most practically achievable cases) unhappiness will still remain, and eugenics aims to eliminate people who feel a greater proportion of sadness than happiness. Consider the disabled for instance: by euthanizing them and preventing their further births, we prevent them from experiencing a life more prevalent with misery than most. The next generation has fewer of the disabled among them, and will achieve greater happiness.


Why restrict ourselves to disabled people? Consider people suffering from long-term depression. How can we even consider them human? I believe the state of being human is not just dictated by having rational thoughts, but also experiencing happiness and the future capacity to experience happiness. If we have an oracle that tells us a person will not experience happiness in the future, what is the purpose of their continued existence to them? Of course, we may choose to keep them if the oracle also tells us they will contribute more to society than they will take. The same applies to ugly people: those who are ugly are more likely to be unwanted and unloved by society, contributing to less happiness. Euthanize them as well. While limit our scope to the disabled, the depressed, and the ugly? We can filter out so many different categories as well.


Of course, such oracle does not exist in reality, so we resort to a combination of heuristics. An individual life lost to a bad decision by our heuristics is not a major loss as human society is incredibly resilient to losses. We have 8 billion people, even more in the future, and each individual is replaceable. However, one pushback I have gotten here is that these losses could have been people of major contribution, like artists, entrepreneurs, scientists, etc. My counterargument to this is that we are playing an expected value game here. If we want to increase the number of ubermensch in our society, we should simply have more children and filter out those who do not make the cut. The loss of one human can easily be made up for by increasing the population by three. Resources are then allocated more towards humans who are superior on average and can contribute more greatly to society.

 

[icnone]

older writing

March 13th, 2026​

Ugh, everything feels so disoriented. These last few days, stacking on midterms, sleep deprivation, completely shifting around my sleep cycle, fucking up exams, changes to my appetite, indulging more in negative forums, renewed sad thoughts, missing assignments, I just feel like this week is a very bumpy road. Like when you ride a road and suddenly encounter a bumpy stretch of it, you’re thrown around everywhere and get confused and feel sick.


One of the most depressing things I just read was how the difficulty of making friends increases over time. As a kid, apparently it’s really easy to make friends (fuck you K12, I never got to experience this). Then in college it gets harder. Then once you’re out of school, there’s so few options to meet with people that you don’t end up having any friends. I’m in college right now. Making friends is extraordinarily hard. Maintaining relationships is extraordinarily hard. I am a dysfunctional “adult.” Do people really expect me to “go outside and talk to people” and then suddenly end up with close friends I treasure?


I really am starting to understand why it’s all fucked. I mean, I’ve been orphaned by the friends I never had when I was a kid. Even if I had a friendship today, it wouldn’t last. I’m already 50% my way through undergrad. I have 1 more year to make any worthwhile friends. By senior year, all my senior peers are already locked into their friend circles. Why would they let another random old guy in, especially if that bond is going to last less than a year? Then my only options are my underclassmen, and why would they be friends with some creepy old guy coming off as desperate to make at least one treasured bond before I fly off into the real world?


That’s why the idea of not personally getting involved with anyone is appealing. I’ll have no one. I’ll just be “the guy from work” or “the guy next door.” If I stop trying to fight it, if I resign to it, then there’s not going to be more sadness when I fail. And when I’m lonely, I still will imagine a life if I had friends, but I will not fruitlessly stress out about how I will achieve it. There is some psychological benefit in resignation. I mean, making friends is all about psychological benefits to begin with. You want to make the feeling of loneliness stop and you want to feel connected and good. Likewise, this method would just be reducing the feeling of pain. Equally justifiable when trying to make friends is fruitless.


Family is troublesome in this regard though. My mother wants to call me all the time, and sometimes even visit me. I don’t really care for her (she is a source of food at best whenever I fly back home). The biggest problem from my mother is that I can’t say “nobody cares for me” or “nobody even knows I exist” if she keeps bugging me. I can’t say I have no emotional bond with anybody. I remember I saw a video on WPD of a Japanese girl crying and confiding in her mother after a suicide attempt. She was bawling out in her mother’s arms and telling her everything that had been weighing down on her while her mother kept saying everything was going to be okay. I knew I wanted that. I really wanted something like that on a heartfelt level. But I already have a mother who keeps on telling me I am a piece of her heart, no? But I can’t imagine her comforting me.


If I ever do plan to blow my brains out, my mother poses a huge problem. It’s not the common reason like most people where they worry how their mother would feel if they killed themselves. Rather, to be able to kill myself requires that nobody cares for me, otherwise I will be LARPing hypocrite. I will simply be roleplaying as somebody depressed without actually having a true claim to it. The idea that nobody cares for me is a core part of my identity, and my mother has thrown a wrench in all that. God damn it, I can’t have my cake and eat it too. Actually, is it a case of “I can’t have my cake and eat it too”? Because I feel nothing when my mother says she loves me, or does all sorts of doteful gestures for me. Whatever, you get what I mean.


But back to the idea of not personally associating with anyone. There is one solution in fantasy land where it could work: my mother also needs to refuse to personally associate with me. The moment I’m out of college and on my own, my parents need to forget about me. I need to be a stranger to them, and them a stranger to I. I mean, think about it. Most children are welcome in their parent’s homes because their are blood related. I would rather be treated like a stranger, and have my parents say “who the fuck are you, it’s not our place to house a complete stranger, why do you want to live with us out of everybody on this street” when I knock on their door. I will suddenly become a parent-less person, knowing nobody who has raised me. I’ll be all on my own. I’ll be truly alone. I will have a claim to commit suicide or staying in pathetic state or whatever the hell I want to do. My parents have my brother, so at least they won’t be childless. They’ll always have had a single child then. A second child? What are you even talking about? They’ve always had only one child. But of course, as I said, this solution is in fantasy land. My mother will refuse to agree to such agreement, and even then truly mindwiping somebody from your mind is impossible.

 

[NoIamHuman]

original thread title: If you aren’t perfect, you aren’t ready for a relationship yet​

dnr warning, I'm too lazy to write a tldr​

Why would a normal, mentally sound person who has their life together waste their time on somebody who is a complete mess? They could very easily date the abundance of other normal people around them. Relationships are for those who have a firm hold on things in their life and everything is going well.

I would peg relationships at the “self-actualization” level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, because relationships are meant for perfect people to enjoy life to its fullest extent. The natural objection to this is that there is a level meant for relationships in Maslow’s hierarchy, namely the belonging and intimacy levels. However, this stems from naively viewing Maslow’s hierarchy as a pyramid with disjoint, unconnected levels. Relationships from the top of the pyramid can feed down to these levels and help a person experience belonging and intimacy more strongly, and vice versa. Furthermore, a mentally sound person can use stopgap measures to fulfill their belonging requirements (like friendships) as they climb the pyramid, so a relationship itself is not a prerequisite for having a relationship.

Now consider an example of a person who has not got everything together: a person who is having financial troubles and does not have a job. Given that there are many employed and financially stable people to pick from, people are far less likely to pick that unemployed person. However, the unemployed person has a straightforward answer to his situation: get a job. No matter how difficult it may be, the solution is straightforward as it can be.

But what about people whose problems stem from feeling unvalued to begin with? Let us focus in particular on attachment style theory from psychology. People with insecure attachment are more likely to feel unvalued because they believe that 1) other people are not emotionally responsive to their needs and/or 2) they are not worthy of love to begin with. This manifests as a combination of unlikeable outward behaviors, such as avoidance, neediness, and clinginess. It is a well-established fact in psychology that the cure to insecure attachment is very much having a partner with secure attachment. No amount of therapy can change the underlying feeling that somebody is unvalued without actually having somebody to value them.

However, this creates a trap: people with insecure attachment ooze these unlikeable behaviors through their skin. Many of these behaviors are subconscious and nearly impossible to eliminate without directly transitioning to secure attachment. However, a normal securely attached person is far less likely to waste their time putting up with the mental issues of an insecurely attached person. Therefore, people with insecure attachment (especially severe insecure attachment) cannot find a relationship due to this catch-22.

Now, there is a clear objection to all of this: what if, despite one’s flaws, a normal person chooses to love a broken person? First and foremost, such a pairing is very unlikely to happen due to the prevalence of other normal people throughout society. There would need to be a strong reason to date the broken person, such as very strong chemistry. But chemistry is not the end-all-be-all of a relationship, and mental issues will constantly throw a wrench in the relationship and make it much more likely to fail. What I mean to say is that although a relationship could work out, it is almost certainly guaranteed not to.

Prevention of mental issues is a far easier problem to tackle than the curing of said issues. This is why people should put their utmost effort into flourishing in their formative years. Society has put a large social safety net for children, so if a person screws up as a kid, they can easily move past their mistake. But once this grace period is past, fixing one’s life if they never had a proper life to begin with (and thus never developed secure attachment and proper social skills) is very difficult and requires a combination of effort, luck, and simply guessing correctly at how normal humans behave because there is no guidebook containing information on all the small behaviors that make up normal humans.

So what is the solution for those who are unvalued and suffering from mental issues? We must determine whether these people on an individual level still hold value to a society as a whole, through metrics such as contribution to the economy. If a person ends up being net negative, and they are suffering with no hope for remission, then euthanizing them is not only the right thing to do, it is what we are obligated to do. Such people are both suffering and draining society; their absence is what is best for both us and them.

I promise you

It happens more than you think

Dating/romance is very messy and varied

 

[icnone]

I promise you

It happens more than you think

Dating/romance is very messy and varied

sure, people do date messier people
but what is the margin for that messiness?

 

[NoIamHuman]

sure, people do date messier people
but what is the margin for that messiness?

Whatever would make someone say “I can fix him/her”

 

[icnone]

Whatever would make someone say “I can fix him/her”

what would you say are some examples? (aside from physical attractiveness of course)

 

[Evilemofoid]

finally read most

your great at writing

 

[icnone]

finally read most

your great at writing

n***a gave gold to my infanticide essay

 

[Evilemofoid]

n***a gave gold to my infanticide essay

tyea
whats wron with that

 

[icnone]

tyea
whats wron with that

i asked @ SevenColorCrystalBall this question but lemme ask you it too
say the government gave your parents the option to retroactively abort yourself via lethal injection
and your parents gave that decision to you
would you accept?

 

[aquamarine1488]

Nobody read this n***a

 

[icnone]

Nobody read this n***a

n***a idc

 

[aquamarine1488]

n***a idc

bro thinks hes socrates of a dead looksmax forum jfl

 

[Evilemofoid]

i asked @ SevenColorCrystalBall this question but lemme ask you it too
say the government gave your parents the option to retroactively abort yourself via lethal injection
and your parents gave that decision to you
would you accept?

absolutely
immediatly
at any point in my life yes

 

[icnone]

bro thinks hes socrates of a dead looksmax forum jfl

im just copy pasting random shit i wrote in my diary to here
in the off chance somebody actually reads it and responds to it, then good
otherwise people not reading != a loss because i wrote ts for myself in my diary

 

[icnone]

absolutely
immediatly
at any point in my life yes

what about a self-administered retroactive abortion? (aka roping)

 

[Evilemofoid]

what about a self-administered retroactive abortion? (aka roping)

have tried 7 times
big fan (kinda)

 

[icnone]

have tried 7 times
big fan (kinda)

that's OK, most people try roping a few times before they succeed
have you talked to your parents about getting a firearm yet?

 

[Evilemofoid]

that's OK, most people try roping a few times before they succeed
have you talked to your parents about getting a firearm yet?

im canadian so its too hard to get a gun
ik a few arms dealers tho but i think they dont trust me with one

 

[knightmaxxer]

absolutely
immediatly
at any point in my life yes

why, didn’t you jus get that relationship or am i misremembering

 

[icnone]

im canadian so its too hard to get a gun
ik a few arms dealers tho but i think they dont trust me with one

surely you know a few accessible methods from SS?

 

[Evilemofoid]

why, didn’t you jus get that relationship or am i misremembering

he ghosted me
uhh
annd iwld either way
im doomed

 

[Evilemofoid]

surely you know a few accessible methods from SS?

yeah i browse but alot of the methods r either expensive or innovative
ik the best one atleast tho

 

[icnone]

ik the best one atleast tho

SN?

 

[knightmaxxer]

he ghosted me
uhh
annd iwld either way
im doomed

fr? wasn’t he like a childhood friend or smth?

 

[Evilemofoid]

SN?

yes
and theres alot of nice trails near my home so

 

[Evilemofoid]

fr? wasn’t he like a childhood friend or smth?

tyea
its like whateva
childhood bsf and childhood crush

 

[Trevor]

Not a word boyo

 

[icnone]

yes
and theres alot of nice trails near my home so

what would it take for you to try again and succeed this time?

 

[Evilemofoid]

what would it take for you to try again and succeed this time?

idk
im kinda having too much fun rn
ive been just doing shit id never do normally and bad shit and its kinda got me uplifted

 

[icnone]

idk
im kinda having too much fun rn
ive been just doing shit id never do normally and bad shit and its kinda got me uplifted

coming from personal experience: buy SN now
so the next time you crash you will have it readily available
and won't have to suffer without it

 

[knightmaxxer]

tyea
its like whateva
childhood bsf and childhood crush

are you sure hes ghosting? idk man i just doubt he would, ghosting is more for coldapproach relationships

 

[Evilemofoid]

are you sure hes ghosting? idk man i just doubt he would, ghosting is more for coldapproach relationships

hes been constantly online and i saw him at his job the other day so
deff ghosting

 

[knightmaxxer]

hes been constantly online and i saw him at his job the other day so
deff ghosting

huh, well i hope for your sake its something different. but honestly his loss, obviously your loss aswell but his loss mainly