https://lemm.ee/post/36080599/12990706

It’s actually pretty simple (but not easy at all)… You start actually believing that other people can’t hurt you. That is pretty much all there is to it. (Not quite, will explain later).

You simply don’t give that power to people. I love my spouse. But my spouse cheats on me. Now I could be hurt by the betrayal… But why? What is the benefit for me? I don’t need to feel hurt to know that my spouse is not worth keeping around, to be my spouse anymore.

If other people do something bad to me, that is not on me, it’s their problem. They’re evil/unaware/selfish. It’s no reflection on the quality of person I am. Thus when someone does something bad to me, it’s honestly just good to know. I can decide how bad I think it is and react accordingly. But feeling hurt by it is not really required in that process.

As I said at the beginning, “not quite”, there are a whole bunch of other beliefs attached to/required by this. For example, I believe that everything is temporary, or at least that the chance of something permanent (really, temporary until end of life) being low. I don’t expect to be together with my spouse to the end of time - if it happens though, I have nothing against it. I believe that change is fine, and I look forward to it: If my spouse cheats on me, I can experience no partner for a while or forever, or experience looking for a new one, both things are fine with me. And so on. Basically all my beliefs are set up in a way that I’m fine with whatever happens.

(The only exception is extreme, or lasting physical harm and death. I can’t experience anything “normally” anymore when these happen to me. Some disabilities could be fine, but I probably have a limit of how much I could be affected. Losing all movement in all my limbs could be fine, but I’m not sure. Losing an arm or a leg or hearing or similar severeness I could probably be fine with.)

Now the thing is, changing your entire belief system to be fine with pretty much anything is not something people are either willing or able to do. I did it though and think that theoretically everyone can do it.

Big city, nice. I live in a small town. Could drive 30km to somewhere else, which I’m sure will not offset any savings xD

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I guess that’s why it’s a hot take. I think it’s possible without becoming a recluse

Other people shouldn’t be able to hurt you, non-physically.

There literally is no option for it. I can only buy my milk in cartons with this cap on

Most important here is the dabbing.

Also what no one has said yet, if you put two identical people next to each other, same mindset, same character, same visuals etc etc, but the one is wealthy and the other is poor, for 99% of people the wealthier one is more sexually attractive. Our brains view access to resources as a desirable quality.

And so, why would a rom com that is literally supposed to be about attractive people, make them purposefully less attractive? There’s basically no reason.

Huh I thought I’ve been downloading stuff with ipfs from them the whole time

Honestly I can’t see why you’d choose average, non-wealthy. If you want quiet and peaceful, you’re sure to get it when wealthy, just pay for a large residence and security on the outskirts, then stay inside. Use disguises/body doubles when going out. Except for a little organizational overhead, which you can also pay people to do for you, you can have everything you want when you’re famous and wealthy.

I have no idea how selection works anywhere else, since I only ever used gimp.

For me, I don’t understand this meme, selection seems to work very intuitively, it seems to do what I expect it to do.

Any new client doesn’t get old messages. Phone only allows the possibility of transferring a backup, which desktop doesn’t have.

“We” should vacuum the house! *wink* *wink*

It’s a metaphor for people who smell whipped cream all the time, they should check on top of their head.

Of course, but then it’s still not the kind of accidental ghosting you talked about.

It’s definitely not accidental. Ghosting simply doesn’t happen if someone is truly interested romantically. They might be like “this guy’s nice” and be accidentally ghosting, but in that case it’s not a good romantic relationship anyway. If it’s “this guy’s so hot/amazing”, accidental ghosting will not happen, because the thoughts will be occupied in trying to be with the guy.

This book contains the latest research of what makes a man attractive to a woman:

https://annas-archive.org/md5/d7b5ceb2699ed79b4b4db586ef435eb0

It’s pretty high-level, but important knowledge nonetheless. All of it is true in my experience.

I mean, I guess it’ll come to me.

However, this is an incredibly important mindset, if it means what I think it means. You have to truly be ok with being alone for the rest of your life. Just do whatever gives you most pleasure/fulfillment and talk to girls wherever you see them incidentally. Just go about your life, put yourself in situations that you like where other people exist, and strike up conversations.

It’s completely ok to talk to someone at the supermarket, on the street, wherever. Many women fantasize about it in a romantic way. Many women obviously want to be left alone. You have to calibrate your empathy and figure out who is interested or not. But you are allowed to approach and state your interest. Just “dont be creepy”™

Not really though? Non-existence of anything is the default. Existence of something puts the burden of proof on whoever claims this something exists. “Quantum mechanics” is a bad example, it’s a set of theories, not a single theory (like “a god exists”). Depending on what is being claimed, you can easily show people papers, such as this one which shows experimental observable proof of principles of quantum theory.

At one point, quantum mechanics didn’t exist and wasn’t generally accepted. Physicists like Heisenberg took upon them the burden of proof and provided it.

General acceptance is how it is treated since then, by non-physicists, but it is simply possible to follow the proof of it if you really wanted to. There are experiments that have been performed and that can be performed again that create observable evidence of the principles of quantum mechanics.

The burden of proof still lies on proponents of quantum mechanics. What you’re talking about is more of a societal shortcut, accepting that the burden of proof has been verified by other people, not by yourself, as it’s impossible to go deep enough into every subject to actually verify every proof you come across. That’s why specialization exists.

The difference is that 99% of physicists confirm the proof of quantum mechanics. Specialists on religion are all very much divided on which god(s) or whether at all one exists, and no proof exists for any religious theories.

It’s funny that you used the phrase “this side of the fence”, because the fence in that metaphor is exactly the line marking the territory of “enshittification” and “anti-enshittification” ^^

deleted by creator