I’m reminded of so many fiction subplots where a character has acquired an extremely valuable XXX they want to sell.
More often than not, it’s such an important object that any interested parties would sooner hire mercenaries to get it, and kill its owner as a witness (and in many of those stories, exactly that happens). Past a certain value, many items are not actually valuable for common people.
A few times after sleeping well, I can actually wake up in the morning and get significant things done involving an outing for breakfast, and feel like I’m midway through my day at a time I’d usually be waking up. It’s hard to build up to that point though.
With the rate of obsessive angry men in the world, I’d be amazed at any woman brave enough to give a straight “No” instead of a nonspecific answer used to get themselves out of the situation.
People aren’t just dealing with ”No”, but “No, and the chances that you’re a rapist are high enough I’m now scared of you and won’t give you a straight answer”.
I’ve followed this advice exactly for many years, and it lead me to a simple conclusion: These things that make me happy don’t connect in any way to relationship possibilities, and relationships will not make your life any happier. In short, dating is for chumps.
Do you want a friend, or a relationship? That seems very unclear from your phrasing.
The least you can do for people is be honest. Even if it leads to mild rejection heartbreak, it’s dishonest and hurtful to falsely claim you just want a friendship. Some women are just trying to make friends so they have people to fall back on socially, and find out the only three people they hang out with planned to get into their pants at some point. That’s not good for anyone.
this meme is specifically promoting the notion that how attractive you look directly correlates to your ability to date people
There are behavioral studies showing this to be completely true. As someone who is honest about how I probably wouldn’t date an unattractive person, I freely admit this tracks; and, unlike incels, I absolutely don’t blame either gender for this fact. It’s just how our brains are wired.
I definitely agree the attempt at directly correlating gym plans to dating is often mis-played. But, there’s solid advice out there about using basic fitness and exercise to combat depression and mood problems. Even if lifting iron won’t do a whole lot for you, occasionally going out for a walk or riding on a bike/kayak/etc will often improve your attitude. And yeah, in the end being less depressed is probably good for dating - just not good to form the direct expectation.
I really would’ve thought the context of being in a conversation about how people gain relationships would’ve made clear I was asking about ‘what you’re seeking’ when you give this theoretical relationship advice, rather than suddenly attempting a lifelong connection via internet comments, but hey, whatever floats your ego (even if that’s clicking a ‘down’ button).
Like many, I have not seen any success, or really attention (to share my social skills) in dating apps. That step is wholly decided by physical attractiveness.
I’d be happy to throw away any attempt at using those sites, but unfortunately much of the dating world has moved to them; and the people in relationships I do know generally used them.
What we know of those sites suggests the only men receiving attention on them are in the top 10% in terms of appearance. I’ve also anecdotally heard from women who admit to using the environment more for attention seeking behavior than actual relationships. I certainly wouldn’t call myself “ugly” for being in the bottom 90 percentile. I am okay with my appearance - I just know I’m not a perfect Adonis. I’m even okay with that behavior from the opposite gender - you can’t help what you like. Even if one of my friends was a granite-chinned gigachad, I wouldn’t fault him for just refusing to work through such a toxic environment - even if he has trouble finding such relationships elsewhere.
This is a complex situation not faulted to any one gender. The net effect, though, is that it’s not a good idea for anyone to date unless you’re blinded towards the survivorship bias you see from those that make it through, or are unconventionally attractive.
I wouldn’t claim recipients of rejection are “victims”, since being rejected is a perfectly normal interaction; but this is so close to victim blaming it’s not even funny.
I’m reminded of playing through Class of 09, and 60% of the endings resulting in people claiming “If everyone is ganging up on you, Nicole, then maybe you’re the one at fault?” Real smooth judicial logic there.
Sure, people that can completely ignore physical appearance exist; it’s a bit of a straw man to say any claim is about 100.00% of people. The point is that appearance matters to a majority of people - and that it’s often the first attractor that even leads to any further discovery. Romantic comedies tend to put “opposites” into quirky unexpected circumstances that lead to that discovery, but that won’t happen for a lot of people.
But as to your second and third paragraphs, you are completely correct - and it may have been a missed expectation thinking I was arguing against that. People should be happy on their own. It might just be me thinking that the meme is originally pointed towards people expressing that relationships are something everyone should seek, because it has nothing to do with attractiveness - and that is what I consider untrue. But yes, people can still choose to be “ugly” (by mild comparison) and happy. Nothing totally excuses toxic behavior from people’s rejection.
I bring this up anytime someone’s opposed to common sense anti-violence laws, by reason of “That’s not hard to circumvent, criminals just won’t do this dumb thing”.
Criminals are often dumb. If they were smart, they’d quite often find ways to get ahead legally, or at the very least in ways that don’t disturb others’ peace of living.
I’m writing this little fictional world for a set of stories, and had the idea to change over one of my “strong female role model explorer” characters to a guy; while keeping a number of less masculine traits. I just felt like it’s important for people to have more fictional characters in their demographic they want to look up to and imitate.
There’s a lot of options out there for alternate mail apps, but what I really need is a decent calendar app. Don’t like always having to rely on web browsers for that.
I definitely think there’s room to invent some other social websites like Lemmy; things that can A) Monetize themselves in some way other than ads, B) Formulate the way users use them so that they’re resistant to bots, C) Promote well-thought discussion points instead of just regurgitation.
I’m seriously considering something like say, a site that requires users to record a short webcam video introducing themselves before they can post. Obviously, that wouldn’t be a good venue for anyone very privacy-focused, but perhaps you get the idea.
They also have much more popularized versions of canned coffee than us; I occasionally see bad overpriced Starbucks coffee bottles in grocery store checkouts, but not something small, quick, and convenient like BOSS.
There’s definitely a huge difference in service work ethic in Japan, which probably leads to those reliability stats. I don’t even know if I consider it a good or bad thing, because it’s super-nice when you’re relying on them there, but I can also tell that waiting on people hand and foot wears on people’s mental health, and it often shows across that country.
The main question around this comic that makes it hard for me to derive a message is, who planted/cared for/owns the apple trees?
I’m reminded of a speech from Gus in Better Call Saul, where technically a tree from his homeland was wild, but he was the one that made the effort to water and care for it before a critter started stealing from it.
It’s a dumb, hopeful prompt, as usual for social media managers.
Tangentially, I’m not sure I get the continued Edge hate. It’s not as nice as Firefox, but I’d gladly choose Edge over Chrome when using a site that requires WebKit. It at least means tabs go to sleep, and Microsoft gets to remove Google’s tracking (and, admittedly, add their own)
It’s not quite the same thing, but I feel like not enough directors value the attention viewers give to the background.
Let’s say you have an animation, and plan a silly bit of slapstick where someone’s chasing a butterfly. Put it on shot, and it’s kind of over-focused on something rudimentary. But have two characters in the foreground, using 80% of the frame, conducting a boring conversation, and put that person with the butterfly in the background, and it’s ten times funnier because viewers feel a sense of ownership in being the one to “notice” it - even if the director knew fully well no one was focused on the conversation.
Gold for house (lemmy.ca)
wood for sheep?
But I can't sleep (lemm.ee)
The "Left" (lemmy.ml)
are you sure? (lemmy.world)
Society beware (startrek.website)
Yo Dawg, new Outlook just dropped (linux.community)
I'm really getting over the enshitification of the internet. (lemmy.world)
What's some amazing technology they have in Japan that's very normal to them but would blow our minds here in the US and western world?
Low-hanging fruit 🥱 (lemmy.world)
Apples for sale (lemmy.ml)
When you let boomers run social media accounts (lemmy.world)
Or eye flutter (lemmy.world)
Billionaire has never heard of the Streisand effect. (lemmy.ml)