Hold on there is a new better call Saul season? Way to bury the lede.

Two episodes now available final season

It is undeniable projection.

You cannot speak for all women despite the pretense.

You cannot speak for me, no matter how much you wish you could.

You can only speak for yourself, and so when you are saying such approaches have to be cringy, etc, you are projecting your view of you doing them.

You have zero relevant knowledge of whether the woman thinks that or it was.

Those are facts uke.

Of course is condescending.

We can go through a hundred topics. I can go over everything from video games to genre's off movies, to how people interact in business and I can hold my onions on what OTHERS should do and how they should govern themselves.

It is absolute hubris if I start speaking for others ('no one respects you playing video games', 'no one likes RomComs', 'no one likes business networking') and start telling OTHERS who are not me they should not engage in it based on how I feel especially if I start speaking for 'others'. "Others don't want to hear about your video games or movie choices'.

Again back to the Carlin meme that you are missing. You are projecting what you think is logical and clear to you, as something that then should be the same for others.


It does not matter what I think about RomCom' or 'videogames' but on this forum I absolutely expect that few people will understand and agree and thus we will argue for pages on this.

People here are EXACTLY the toxic left, come to life. This over arching need to dictate others life and speech and everything else. This thread could just be merged with the Cancel culture as there is so much overlap.

I think the point that needs to be accepted is that every individual will decide for themselves if and when they want they want to approach someone, when it comes to very public, non threatening approached.

I think everyone should reject the idea that any one (such as uke) or any group (the left) can or will lay down rules for all to follow based on their awkwardness, projection and feeling they need to save women from themselves and from men.

If any man feels tomorrow, 'that is a lady I would really like to talk to', there should be absolutely no prohibition for him doing so. No attempts to shame him for trying.

This idea that men should only approach women who want to be approached is extremely toxic to young men as it puts an onus on them to know or be treated as if they committed a wrong. There is no wrong in approaching, even if not desired. There is only right and wrong with what you do with any information she gives you after the approach.

Be kind, be respectful and be aware and this should be no issue.

But certain ooboo's who feel they are protecting the helpless maidens from themselves will always try and virtue signal they are 'here' and 'on the job' and 'protecting women whether they want it or not'.

You do you boo.

You seem to think this sounded witty in your head before you wrote it out but it comes out sounding like nonsense. But again, you do you.

Just give us a heads up if you are trying to use homour. As you know, it might be helpful.

it is not my job to tell YOU or UKE or anyone else how to act.

Point ... over your head.

Be smarter.

I know how people react to me. I know random acts of kindness and compliments given are almost always, if not always appreciated.

You can sit and think and stew all you want that 'no I don't think they would be', but that is by definition projection. You are looking at it through your own lens and how you would deliver and imagine it received.


Only in lefty land do the dumbest amongst assume to speak for others and they cannot connect why they cannot do that. You cannot speak for me. You cannot speak for the women you are oobooing on behalf of.

If you do not understand why, that is on you.

Madness.

The need to speak for ALL others just grows.

Statements devoid of fact uttered as if fact.

Nobody claimed to be speaking for all women. When I saw it is utterly cringe to be leering after random women walking past you on the street, this is *GASP* my opinion based on my life experience and understanding of society. This is how I believe your embarassing behaviour comes off. However, I am hardly the only one who thinks this way, indeed pretty much everyone understands that there is a time and place for flirting with random strangers, and trying it as they walk past you on the street isn't really appropriate. Now that you have been informed, it is up to you whether you choose to make this a learning moment for yourself, or if you will continue this behaviour.

I don't think you understand what societal norms are. You can make your own choices, but many behaviours are decided by society in general, as a collection of many voices in dialogue, are inappropriate.

Let's take a clearer example. Everyone agrees it is bad to catcall women in public....right? Sure "every individual" can decide for themselves, but there is a clear societal norm that this inappropriate behaviour. Sometimes people are ignorant about the societal norms and don't realize how disgusting catcalling is. That's we have conversations informing them about it, which strengthens the societal norm.

What's happening here is you simply didn't realize that your behaviour - as exemplified by the Gilette commercial - is widedly considered socially inappropriate. You can be mad that we are calling you out on your shitty behaviour, but we are just here to help you be a better person. The choice to learn or not is up to you.

Your estimation of what a woman would find respectful is right and mine is wrong. Got it. Mind you, I've never actually told you how you should act in this regard (despite your claims) but you have repeatedly tried to tell me that the way I'm operating is wrong. Something something Carlin meme and you being obliviously hypocritical as usual.

You should honestly just start a thread about all the ills of the left. Give us the manifesto and stop pretending like these topics are anything more than pretext to smuggle in chapters of your treatise.

Men are not allowed to be men. Only in designated areas is it allowed? Otherwise you are a toxic creep? I dont think that should be the message to kids.

So you have finally gone the full toothsayer.

Like him you make blatent hand wave evasions of points that put you in a tough spot.

Claiming nonsense of perfect sense is the laziest most craven way of doing it.

It was not humour and I even broke it down for you in the simplest terms, which will have made perfect sense to everyone but apparently you.

You do Toothsayer.

I'm sure this will go absolutely nowhere, but I was curious and so I asked my wife in a blinded experiment how she would react if a man came up to her while she was walking down a busy street and said that she looked great in her outfit, and her answer was fascinating because she said that she probably would say something like "hey thanks!" and keep walking, but that would likely then later have feelings that she should have stood up for herself and why did she reward it by coming off positively and go into a shame spiral Anyways, but one data point, but it illustrates the point that sometimes what might seem like a positive reaction is less appreciated than you might think. To be fair, she has had some extremely negative "public" interactions for example a man pulling down his pants to show her his dick at the subway station, and these types of experiences undoubtably color her opinions. But this is the reality of being a women and so many will have stories even if not exactly that story.

Well, there are all sorts of "men are not allowed to be men" things we all (I hope?) readily agree should not be socially allowed, like grabbing women by the pussy in an elevator. We can debate where exactly the fringe is, but no, men should not just be allowed to be men full stop.

Yes sexual assaults' is bad. That's not what we were talking about. Approaching a women in public to say hi and maybe introducing yourself is not toxic. If you say hi and she ignores you that's fine too.

The weird agenda to label guys and any overt heterosexual advances on women as toxic is highly detrimental

Did she tell him "I have a miniature one of those in a jar on my mantle"?

Amen. CP, the number of times you think someone doesn't understand something simple because they disagree with you is staggering.

lol

When QP described how he complimented a woman he passed by on the street, which ultimately lead to a relationship for a brief period, he demonstrated that he had to use a certain amount of tact so as not to appear too disruptive or aggressive. The Gillette commercial was trying to depict a circumstance where the opportunity to flirt was less available as the woman was walking briskly on a crowded street, and essentially had already passed the guy to an extent that he would literally have to chase her down. Consequently, I think the commercial sufficiently depicted a scenario where more discretion and restraint would be reasonable on the part of men, and I do think QP should see that. On the other hand, to be fair, I feel like the woman in the commercial wearing very high cut shorts and thus having her legs very much on display, there not being an excessive disparity of looks between the two, and also the man seeming confident and not of an overtly negative disposition mitigates the notion that his efforts should be considered creepy. He is being a little stupid, generally devoid of common courtesy towards women as a whole perhaps, and not appreciating context.

It seems like people are a bit sore about the relevance of context, and the notion that trying to discern someone's level of interest before making advances is prudent. Very odd indeed!

Whether one should approach a stranger with some sort of proposition or even a simple compliment should depend on the EV of the utils they will gain or lose from your action. It should be at least slightly positive. You determine that EV by multiplying the number of long term utils that he or she gains if he takes you up on your proposition times the probability he does take you up on it, add the utils gained from the initial approach when it is appreciated times the probability it actually is appreciated,, subtract that utils lost when she accepts the proposition and goes on to regret it times its probability, and subtract the number of utils she loses when she flat out rejects you because of the circumstances or because you are creepy or ugly. Times the probability of that.

Assuming someone does this properly it well may be that some people should take the risk of the approach while others shouldn't. Perhaps that might explain the difference of the opinions of QP, uke master, and Trolly.

Can’t say I expected to see Cuepee’s insult attempts repackaged as a fermi problem

ewwwww

Why can't it just be a compliment to Cuepee? And if it is your admonition to him to stop what he is doing is only serving to decrease the average happiness of women who you purport to care about.