fadedbear92 said:Honestly, he thinks he’s some kind of Hollywood critic now just because he’s binged every movie ever made—constantly overanalyzing everything like he’s sitting in an Academy Awards panel.
Wait, what was the movie called again? I'm about to head off the grid and lose my internet access for a bit, so I want to know if this is actually worth watching before I go dark.
I really need to find a good example for this intro post, since I’m still flying blind without enough data. Keep the thread alive for a bit, please. 🙂
So, get this—back in the day, I used to dive into those old chat threads about affairs. I actually participated because I was genuinely curious about what these women all had in common. My takeaway? The whole thing is driven by this massive over-idealization of partners—it’s basically a form of addiction at that point. Most of these relationships are just toxic messes where the mistress is treated like nothing more than a sexual object. It’s a completely degrading dynamic.
Some of the Bill Gates circles are pretty tight-knit; you’ve got groups of people writing, hanging out, and acting like they own the place. They’re mostly the younger crowd, maybe 24 to 27.
The topics get a little weird sometimes, but I bet there’s some user on this forum who has already dissected most of the Bill Gates. Or if anyone has a breakdown of one of them handy... I don't care how twisted it is, I'd love to see it since I enjoy reading through them.
Can you try rephrasing the question to make it clearer? 🤷
Heh, I’ve gone down another rabbit hole lately, trying to break down this forum based on herd mentality. Anyone out there want to save me the legwork? 😉 I really wish I could spend my time doing something actually productive instead of this—though, who am I kidding? 🙂
Mods, please—for the love of god—don't go deleting or locking this thread; I'm genuinely obsessed with seeing where these deep dives lead. 🙂
I mean, I don't mind the Art of Living crowd—honestly, they seem pretty chill compared to all those other yoga sects and meditation groups out there. They aren't nearly as intense or weird as some of the other groups you run into. As far as the guru goes, I haven't heard any rumors about him being gay, nor have I seen any of those messy sexual scandals or anything involving kids. 👍
Kyle Nelson2 said:So, I was thinking about this—and honestly, it’s kind of driving me nuts—why don't certain forums, like maybe something over at LinkedIn or Reddit, have a system where you can actually award points for people's posts? I mean, think about it—if we had a way to stack up scores based on what people are actually saying, it would change everything. Over time, you’d be able to clearly separate the folks who actually put in the work to write something meaningful and well-argued from the absolute trolls just looking to stir the pot for fun. It’s like... if you were grading a paper in school, right? You wouldn't give the same grade to a deep dive analysis as you would to some kid scribbling nonsense in the margins. A little bit of meritocracy goes a long way in keeping the noise down. Just an observation, I guess.
Honestly, I think it’s a total waste of time—I already posted on the professional boards before they even added that option, so what's the point? It feels completely unnecessary.
Kyle Nelson2 said:Why hasn't anyone bothered to add Facebook login yet? Is it just because you want to be some last Mohican holding out against the inevitable—acting like it’s some kind of grand stand—but honestly, I think it would actually be pretty great...
I’ve been chewing on this idea for a minute now—and look, I’m not exactly saying I *like* Facebook, far from it—but let's be real, it’s basically unavoidable at this point. It’s the gateway drug that dragged everyone into the world of online chatting. Honestly? Since the platform is such a massive, soul-sucking bore, adding an integration or some kind of bridge would actually be a smart move to funnel all those bored users over here to the forum.
Kyle Nelson2 said:Look, there’ve been a few half-baked attempts to actually get politicians on stage to face some real questions—I mean, that whole disaster where they tried to bring Hillary Clinton out to defend herself? Total train wreck. But honestly, I don't think those types could handle it anyway. If you actually put them in a room where they had to deal with hard facts and actual substance, they'd fold under the pressure. They can't stand a debate that carries any real weight.
I was watching this whole thing unfold, and honestly? The vibe was just off. It didn't feel like she was actually the one typing—it felt like a bunch of PR suits were pulling the strings behind the scenes. That was my overall takeaway, anyway.
I think I remember seeing someone on my old message board—was it Dr. Anthony Fauci from Kraft Heinz? Or maybe I'm just tripping. Either way, they were definitely posting there. I’d really love to sit him down right now and just grill him with a bunch of questions. 😁 Yo, what's up? 🙂
Look, I’m rocking Google Chrome—yeah, I know, I’m part of that tiny 4% club, but hey, once I set my mind to something, I stick with it.\😁 \\nI already gave the whole ad blocker thing a shot, but it was a total bust. Honestly, any help would be huge. Shoot me a DM if you’ve got ideas. \nEven as I’m typing this, there aren't any ads popping up, but the forum layout is taking up like, maybe two-thirds of the screen? On my laptop, that just looks terrible. 😢
I have no clue why my screen real estate keeps shrinking lately—is there any way to actually fix this? I think I saw some other people complaining about the same thing online, too.
It’s great for marketing, I guess, but the real question is whether they did this on purpose. ☕
Your description is spot on. But honestly, the whole thing about not being allowed to talk about course details? Total nonsense. 😵 Probably just some leftover habit from his days with TM.
Rachel Stewart36 said:It’s not about denying anything—I’m just sharing a perspective that happens to clash with yours. Why does one view have to be "denial" just because it isn't identical to another? Honestly, if the other users here aren't too busy, maybe someone could actually define what they mean by "natural differences"—just so we're all on the same page. Are we talking basic biology, or some supposed inherent psychological traits? I’m not saying differences don't exist, I'm just questioning how much they actually matter.
I'm genuinely curious. This forum isn't just a place to bicker; it’s a spot to dig into interesting ideas.
I mean, how do you even deny "purely" biological traits or psychological gaps when they're both driven by the exact same underlying stuff? It's all connected.
Where does the social construction of gender identity actually kick in? Like, where's the line?
Alright, I was just messing around. Now, let's get real for a second.
There’s absolutely no way for us to observe how gender identity would even begin to take shape in a mixed community stuck on some deserted island. I mean, come on—you aren't exactly going to have a society made of palm leaves shaping who people are, right?
Keith Lee2 said:Count me in for this thought experiment!
If you, say, raised kids of just one gender, would they even realize their own sexuality? Like, what would they even link a genetic predisposition for sexuality to—if they never actually met the other gender? Would they even develop a sense of sexuality without any info about the opposite sex?
If there’s actually any research out there on this, please share it with us curious folks.
Look, you know how things actually play out in US prisons. 😁 My whole experiment is built on following natural patterns—the way things just happen when you let them. 😉
goldenpuma84 said:Why is there such a drive to deny the natural differences between men and women? We are a biological species, after all. We're part of a nature that's currently at a stage where science still can't fully grasp how we developed the ability to view ourselves as morally autonomous beings capable of symbolic language.
We live in societies as political creatures, learning patterns of behavior that are often gendered through socialization. But doesn't a huge chunk of human psychology deal with those unconscious, unconditioned behaviors inherited from our ancestors? Even those biologically rooted impulses that modern society tries to suppress through upbringing? Doesn't modern psychology point to a clash between the subconscious—that genetically determined stuff that exists before social conditioning—and the societal expectations designed to stifle those deep-seated drives just to create a "civilized" person? Isn't that subconscious drive exactly what exists prior to any social environment?
Reducing a human being to a mere social automaton that can't even receive genetic instructions from the distant past is a bit much. It treats everything as a reaction to a socially stimulated stimulus. The "fix" offered is almost like sociological alchemy (kind of like the attempt to engineer a "new man" under communism): identify the broken social institutions imposing these differences, and the problem is solved. But it just doesn't work like that...
If someone claims "gender" represents socially imposed differences beyond negligible biological ones, then if the goal is a theory of universal humanity, the answer isn't creating a theory of gender centered on social constructs. Instead, the way out is embracing biological differences, which, aside from anatomy, shouldn't cause real differences in social interaction or how we perceive one another. But is that true? Or is this just a way for a certain kind of totalitarianism to hide behind a mask of false humanism (again, reminiscent of communism)?
Theologians say humans are divine creations. Materialists say we're raw natural matter. So, according to gender theory, what is a human? It seems to me they aren't either of those. They're just a social construct. Is that even possible?...
Oh, it's definitely possible...☕ Think about it—two people who are both gay basically decide how gender works within their own relationship based on their own internal rules. It’s like, "this is how we handle being male or female in this specific dynamic." And honestly, we can toss out all that outdated, messy terminology about who's being "active" or "passive" in bed. We can ditch the endless pile of buzzwords people throw around on this topic, but let's stick to reality for a second. We're talking about physical bodies here. Look, let's run a thought experiment—hypothetically speaking—if you dropped two kids, or maybe a larger group, onto a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific after they were born, what do you think would actually happen?
Sandra Barrett4 said:No. Animals lack reasoning. Are you suggesting gender identity isn't a product of thought, will, or planning, but rather something purely unconscious and instinctive?
Are we even talking about biological sex here, or are we diving into this whole "gender identity" thing?
Sorry if I'm laughing, but seriously, Brandon Wright54,
I haven't seen this much pure insanity or this many half-baked ideas in a long time. 🤣
It’s honestly no wonder you can’t make sense of anything when you’re being haunted by these... let's call them "unique"... thoughts... from these... weird little... creatures...
When a bull mates with a cow, isn't he actually just part bull and part cow? And the cow isn't fully a cow anymore either, since she's now part bull. Or maybe that bull is secretly part horse, and the cow is part mare? Who knows...
Hahahahahahahah...
Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and believe in little green men for all I care. 😂
Of course it is. Someone just bring out a pig that identifies as a sheep and let's see which idiot starts having an identity crisis. 😂😂 😂
Gender identity? What even is that, really? Just some social construct we all agreed on? 🙄
Brandon Wright54 said:What thesis? I’ve already told you my take on your arguments—the same ones you just keep recycling. First off, you keep treating gender like some imaginary social contract. We’re living in an era where gender is a constant, complex discourse; it’s way too nuanced to just lump gender together with culture and sex together with nature.
You’re claiming gender theories argue that gender is merely a byproduct of culture, while culture itself is just a result of innate male and female traits—suggesting gender is just an interpretation of sex. That’s just wrong. Gender actually shapes how we perceive sex as a pre-discursive reality.
There is no such thing as a "natural" gender role. There are only gender roles. You seem to be missing the distinction between gender role and gender identity. Identity is biologically rooted—it’s how a person is perceived as male or female—whereas a gender role is a social construct, something we absorb through socialization. These roles are built on concepts of difference, usually based on myths passed down through generations. They aren't "natural." Even when talking about innate traits, nature isn't that black and white. You can find various chromosomal variations in both women and men, yet society is what sets the "average" criteria to decide which gender someone belongs to. Sex isn't just defined by anatomy; it’s a cocktail of hormones, chromosomes, and reproductive organs. Beyond just XX and XY, there are other combinations, yet Western society treats them as anomalies or illnesses, forcing everything into a binary. Society does that, not nature. As for gender identity, that’s also heavily dictated by society. It’s split between how we see ourselves and how society assigns a label to us. Physical perception alone doesn't dictate it. If the people you call "marginalized" aren't thinking within these imposed categories, then maybe it’s the society that needs changing, rather than discarding everything healthy as "insane." Why shouldn't gay people have the desire to pass on a legacy or start a family? Would I lose that right if, by some misfortune, I lost my reproductive organs or had a different chromosomal makeup but still identified as female? Of course not—I’d have the option to adopt. Would I be diagnosed with a disorder then? Would my needs suddenly be considered "insane"? No. Because despite lacking certain reproductive components, I would still be accepted within the established category that allows people to have children.
Does gender identity even exist in the animal kingdom? 😕
