trident765

trident765 · 2022-11-06T02:13:00+00:00

Being bombastic seems to be a requirement for getting women these days. In order for women to be attracted to you, you must be able talk about a mundane topics in a bombastic way. You need to be able to talk about your trip to the grocery store using exciting speech patterns, and exclamations such as shouting "Yo!". I hate that it is this way, it is so stupid. It is so stupid that in order for women to find you attractive you need to be able to talk about boring stuff in a bombastic way.

trident765 · 2022-09-26T20:53:35+00:00

Removed for banning u/jet199 and u/HongKongPhooey without a good reason. My apologies to the banned users.

trident765 · 2022-09-10T17:45:18+00:00

100 years ago, or even today, if you showed someone a photograph of something, this was in most cases very convincing evidence that it happened. But with AI generating realistic images of things based on text inputs, I wonder if this will soon cease being the case. Will courts soon be more reliant on witness testimony, as they were before the invention of photographs?

trident765 · 2022-09-04T11:49:18+00:00

Will this get deleted for "advocating violence"?

trident765 · 2022-08-28T00:39:18+00:00

My friend was an ugly 48 year old 5'2 Indian guy and he was having trouble finding a woman who wanted to be with him. Do you think he just sat around and complained about it all day? Fuck no. He improved himself and now he's a tall handsome 20 year old white guy and he can get any girl he wants.

trident765 · 2022-08-25T19:26:55+00:00

https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/wxcuqz/guy_ive_never_met_is_so_keen_he_deleted_tinder/

Look how hateful they are towards this man for being weird. I can understand not wanting to be with a weird man, but women also want other women to leave weird men. They want weird men to be single, and not get the opportunity to reproduce.

If you want to get a woman, you have to be like everyone else. You have to fit in. You can't have any unusual quirks. These are all red flags. Not only will women reject you, but women will also convince other women to reject you. Women's hearts burn with hatred for weird men.

trident765 · 2022-08-14T13:42:22+00:00

There is a barking dog next door that is very loud and disruptive to my sleep. It has a screeching bark, and it yelps and makes other strange noises as well. It sounds like it is in pain. This has been going on for over a month.

I was going to leave a note on the door asking the owners to make their dog stop barking. But this morning it woke me up with its barking and I was just so pissed that I got my laptop and wrote a letter complaining directly to the apartment complex. I kind of made it sound like I was worried about the dog, but the reality is I don't care - I just want it to stop barking. Does this make me a psychopathic authoritarian, for virtue signalling and appealing to authority in order to get what I want? I could have just left a note on the door of the tenants, and there is a chance they would have gotten the dog to stop barking.

trident765 · 2022-08-13T17:26:33+00:00

My theory is that there are two kinds of thinkers: Language-thinkers and visual-thinkers. Language-thinkers understand the world in terms of language, whereas visual-thinkers understand the world in terms of images.

The benefit of language-thinking is that language is simpler than the world of images, so a language thinker's mind optimizes on things that can be expressed in words. For example, a language-thinker would easily be able to process things like triple-negatives since a triple negative is something that is purely linguistic. Communication comes easily to language-thinkers, and they are fast-talkers, because communication for them is a matter of reciting their thoughts, since their thoughts are already stored in the form of language. But the downside of being a language-thinker is that language-thinkers are incapable of understanding or recognizing concepts that there is no word for. And language-thinkers can easily fall prey to things like Orwellian language-manipulation, because if you change the language then you change the language-thinker's thoughts.

But a visual-thinker only uses language for the sake of communication, and visualizes the world in terms of images. He can recognize patterns and concepts that there is no word for. But he will have a harder time processing things like triple negatives, because his instinct will be to try to visualize a triple negative, and this is an inefficient way of processing it. And communication is more labor intensive, because his thoughts are stored in the form of images, so to communicate he will have to translate the images into language. But the benefit of this is that since language does not play a role in how he understands the world, his thoughts will not be affected by changing definitions of words.

trident765 · 2022-08-13T02:45:42+00:00

Look at this image of a Duchenne vs non-Duchenne smiles:

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*BrX4atMJKf28fWfM

Most people perceive the smile on the left to be genuine, and the smile on the right to be fake.

But in modern Western culture, smiling is a form of politeness, and it is impolite not to smile, so people are expected to smile all the time, even when they are not really happy. So a smile should typically look like the one on the right in Western culture, if done by a regular and genuine person. A genuine person cannot do a Duchenne smile all the time, since no one is happy all the time. But a manipulative psychopath will make an effort to do a Duchenne smile all the time, since he knows this kind of smile is better at disarming people, so that he can get what he wants out of them.

So ironically, a Duchenne is the real sign of a fake, whereas the non-Duchenne "fake" smile is a sign of being genuine.

trident765 · 2022-08-12T08:12:47+00:00

I am on an interview panel and I am trying to think of interview questions to weed out modern scum. But the question is not so much for myself, but for my teammates. I think I know a modern scum when I see one, so this is mainly for my teammates. I want to ask a question that if a modern scum were to answer, it would make my teammates hate him.

I am going back and forth on what the ideal question would be. I could ask him "Can you give an example of something you've seen other programmers do, that you think they should do differently?". Silicon valley scum are gossipy backbiters so they will have no problem thinking of some inconsequential thing another programmer did and shitting on him for it. This will make the candidate look bad to my teammates.

But I think this question will only be good for weeding out stupid modern scum. Evil, intelligent, psychopathic scum will know better than to shit on another programmer during an interview without first verifying that the people they are speaking to are also modern scum. I think the most evil, intelligent, psychopathic person I know would know how to give a feel-good answer to this question that will make him look very good.

I could also ask "Is programming an individual effort, a team effort, or does it depend on the project?" I think most reasonable people would say "it depends", but modern scum would say "It's always a team effort". I think this question is bulletproof for identifying modern scum, and that even the most intelligent evil psychopathic scum would say "It's always a team effort". But the problem is that I don't know my teammates well enough to know if they understand that "It's always a team effort" is a bad answer. To make things worse, in our corporate system we are asked to rank candidates by 3 criteria, and 1 of them is "team work", and I am worried that an answer like "It's always a team effort" will cause my teammates to give a high rating for "team work".

The tricky thing is that if the candidate is intelligent, it will be nearly impossible to fool him without fooling my teammates. So I think I will just focus on weeding out stupid scum, and ask the first question. But then again, maybe stupid scum are not so bad, since evil scum are so much worse. Maybe there is no point in asking any interview question at all?

trident765 · 2022-08-10T03:14:37+00:00

I have a thought experiment: Let's say there is a room full of 100 women, and you pay 75 of them to pretend to be attracted to a 5'2 bald Indian janitor. Would this induce some of the remaining 25 to be genuinely attracted to him?

I personally think it would. Because even though 5'2 bald Indian janitor is the epitome of sexual unattractiveness, women are so strongly attracted to what other women are attracted to, that women will become attracted to what other women are attracted to, even if their eyes tell them that he is ugly.

This might sound like bluepill, but really it is blackpill. It means that attractiveness is all or nothing. If you think you will "wait for the right girl", who "likes you even when other women don't", you are wrong. If you want to convince one woman that you are a suitable mate, you have to convince them all.

trident765 · 2022-08-09T05:01:53+00:00

The most obvious reason why it is stupid is simply because it is unnecessary. What percentage of 16 year old girls will have sex with a much older man? The vast majority of 16 year old girls are already naturally repulsed by the idea, and could never be persuaded into it, so a law banning older guys from having sex with 16 year old girls is totally unnecessary.

Second, 16 is during a woman's peak, and it is ridiculous to set the age of consent to be during a woman's peak. If you doubt that 16 is during a woman's peak, then let my ask you this: Is a woman more attractive at age 16 or age 50?

Third, every time you set a hard limit, you have to recognize that EVERYONE who violates it is guilty of a crime. People often advocate for these limits with sweet, innocent 16 year old relative in mind, while neglecting the 16 year old thuggess, who is fully developed and has been a slut for years.

Fourth, it is better for teen girls to have sex with older guys any way, because an older guy is more likely to have a job and provide for children, if she happens to get pregnant. If a woman gets pregnant by a teenage boy, he will most likely end up being a deadbeat dad.

Keeping these things in mind, a more reasonable age of consent would be 10. Not because 10 is a good age to have sex (and this is the distinction that most morons here cannot understand), but because this is the age where enforcing the age of consent would do society a benefit.

trident765 · 2022-08-08T09:29:27+00:00

I have been having a most irritating discussion on Saidit, where in this long comment chain, the poster will not respond to anything specific I wrote, making it impossible to discuss the issue:

https://saidit.net/s/conspiracy/comments/9leh/new_zealand_judge_declares_12yearold_children_can/yymt

Instead of responding to specific things I wrote, he just responds with general statements, and gets upvoted for it. This is how programmer scum discuss things too. They dance around your specific questions, instead replying with commonly accepted general statements, like a robot. But there are some logical jumps between the question and the general answer they give, so by responding in this way they hide the logic in between. The purpose of responding in this way is to make the core issue difficult to discuss.