Washington U. Prof: AI Girlfriends Are Ruining a Generation of Men
(www.breitbart.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (55)
sorted by:
Yes, most people can't be natural born winners. That's how winning works, only a select few get to do it. Once too many start doing it, the bar raises and the numbers settle.
So you either build a society that has balancing mechanics to keep losers in the game until they manage to become successful after an intial rocky start, like we did for a few thousand years, or you simply shit on them for not being Perfect from birth and you end up with increasing social problems ("incels," trannies, mass shooters) that you keep acting like you aren't contributing to.
Somehow I feel like you will still deflect blame despite being part of group 2.
#winning is also an artificial, modern category. The number of "win" conditions used to be much more diverse but are dissolving in the flattened social media landscape where Miami onlyfans thots are the cutting edge and a man can't be "high value" unless he's buff, six figures, and swinging twelve inches off the deck of his yacht.
In a broad generalized sense sure. But in the dating game, its not. Because the win conditions are pretty easy to define and there are clearly defined losers. Being rich, being strong, being dangerous, being charismatic. They've always been a winning trait through all of history for acquiring women and if you went against a guy in a competition (directly or by comparison) you would be a loser to those looking.
The only difference now is that there were consequences for women who gambled and lost. Premarital sex, children out of wedlock, divorced, sluttery in general. All of them were basically a millstone to be labeled with. So while they (or really their dad picking for them) used to have to settle for "losers" who needed time and experience to become men worth something, now they can just keep chomping at the ankles of the top 20% of men forever until eventually they catch one by sheer luck.
Or waste all their youth and value until the clocking ticking causes a panic attack and they pick up a retarded simp.
Just to be clear I completely agree on your broad point about balancing mechanisms for men. A lot of great men were "losers" at some time in their lives.
My point is to add that there are, or were, many different win conditions, and this applies to dating too. You can be Casanova scoring multiple 9s or a schlubby dude that marries a nice mid girl and both of those are "winners." The schlub isn't necessarily a "loser" at any point and historically, many of them weren't. Only in the social media landscape, when he's pitted against Fabio, is he a loser.
I don't disagree with anything here. But, I think it was just as big an issue throughout history that "hot guy came through town, banged a bunch of wives" that made those men "losers" just as they would now. Heck, many famous pieces of writing and characters were just that as a concept.
The only difference now is that they don't need to wait for Fabio to maybe come through town, there are 15 Fabios standing in front of her (on the screen).
Everyone who exists is the product of an unending series of genetic winners. And things seemed to work just find before the 1960s. I regard having a decent life, marriage, kids as 'winning'. What happened?
Yeah, that, though I'd rather structure things in such a way that they don't start being losers at all.
You're mistaken, I can see the rottenness of society, and obviously it is the ultimate cause of mass shootings (as such mass shootings were comparatively rare in the past, if I'm not mistaken), but this does not absolve the mass shooters (not that you meant to absolve them).