Free Gamer Dating | The Free Dating Site for Gamers

The 100% Free Gamer Dating Site

a dating site for nerds

Oops, I accidentally included three neo-Nazi caricatures of Jews in there. Facebook , Twitter , Tumblr and Instagram. So they became an Empire. But maybe this is just typical mind fallacy. What can I say? When you say you are a member of Group X who is not a costumed mud wrestler, am I obligated to believe you?

Why Join gk2gk.com?

I understand that people come to believe all sorts of bizarre things in the abstract, in order to conform to some moral principle or social norm to which they feel ideological allegiance. She is what feminism has become, utterly convinced of its own righteousness, willing to do anything to achieve its righteous ends, and unable or unwilling to question itself. We live in a world where the guy who spoke out against ritualized purity-obsessed organized religion ended up as the founder of the largest ritualized purity-obsessed organized religion of all time. And yes, intersectionalism and one-directional power models are opposing concepts. This is the language that women who call themselves feminists use to describe icky men. But by bringing nerd-dom into the picture, Penny has made that basic picture exponentially more complicated.

Birthdate Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Year He never would have had a chance with her otherwise.

Signing up for an online dating site and finding yourself facing constant rejection is a frustrating experience. It's even worse if you're certain that all those cyber-strangers would see what a catch you are if they would just give you a chance to impress.

A new dating site offers a solution to this problem Today. They say money can't buy you love, but [WhatsYourPrice] is planning to turn that old adage on its head. Have trouble landing a date? If your pockets are deep, [WhatsYourPrice] allows its members to bid on attractive potential mates might be up your alley.

Generous Members Meet attractive people who otherwise may have been "out of your league. Attractive Members Get reimbursed for the time and effort it takes to prepare for a date. I take that as being mildly opposed to lynch mobs, which is a mildly good thing. They typically end with everybody in earshot at least tagging along. The number of people hanging around in the tribal commons not talking about lynching, that just factors into the size of the lynch mob that may or may not be raised against me.

If you want to keep the word, you need to fight the heretics who are corrupting — betraying — both it and your ideals. Suppose you are a proud member of Group X.

Some costumed mud wrestlers adopt the term X. Will you jump in the mud pit to wrestle them? Probably better to continue clean real work in the real world, especially as, if a known real X jumped into the mud, that would increase their clicks. You are a proud member of group X. Every single time a member of group X has done anything in the public eye, they have been a costumed mud wrestler. Claiming membership in group X allows costumed mud wrestlers to maliciously hurt people with no repercussions.

Costumed mud wrestlers founded group X and have constituted group X for over fifty years. When you say you are a member of Group X who is not a costumed mud wrestler, am I obligated to believe you? We were working for their Liberation too. I think your metaphor is missing something.

This occurred to me as well. I actually am in a weird place here: She is much-loved and respected in my family, and a significant part of my childhood, so I have had plenty of exposure to feminism throughout my life. I explicitly disavow solidarity with the radfems. Seriously, they no more represent the mainstream feminist view than televangelists preaching salvation or eternal torment on late-night TV or any proselytizing young-earth creationist represent mainstream Christianity for the record, I am non-religious and do not hold Christianity in terribly high regard.

It marginalizes those of us who are trying to improve things. And I personally know a lot of decent people who self-identify as feminist in the motte sense of the word—as I myself did at one point before I met the bailey feminists—but those are the tenets of classical feminism that have been so widely adopted that it makes about as much sense to self-identify as feminist on that basis as it makes to self-identify as abolitionist because you oppose the reinstatement of slavery.

Shakesville gives an unmistakable impression of being run by very decent people who are honestly on the side of goodness and compassion. Melissa McEwan became prominent in exactly the same scandal as Amanda Marcotte did — as feminist supporters of John Edwards whom he wrote of over nasty things they wrote.

The difference is that the Marcotte things were actually nasty and the McEwan things were disagreement with things that other people hold to be sacred. I think Shakesville are bad enough. And I personally know a lot of decent people who self-identify as feminist in the motte sense of the word—as I myself did at one point before I met the bailey feminists—but those are the tenets of classical feminism that have been so widely adopted….

The great mass of cultural believers are important, because they are the main source of power for the Church. But the true believers are probably more relevant for an outsider, because they decide what actually gets done with that power. Off the top of my head: The first four are obviously far more prominent than Marcotte.

Butler is a little more prominent. The rest are less prominent. That was off the top of my head. Google hit counts confirms, with one exception: Rebecca Watson, which it places above Oprah.

This is surely because she has a common name. In quotes, she still is a bit higher than Marcotte in quotes. Reading her bio on wikipedia gives no indication that I should have heard of her. Putting her ahead of multi-award winning authors also seems a bit strange, but I guess in the world of new media, writing books does not count for much.

Books have never been popular. Thing of Things just recently linked me to an enthusiastic defense of Doxxing by Watson, and Sarkeesian is essentially gender-swapped Jack Thompson. Maybe I should fix that, but maybe they should too, as it were. Can you post some links to the self-identified feminists that explicitly reject the view Scott Alexander describes?

I have gone through the article and double checked that there are qualifiers everywhere there should be qualifiers. Part of what I like about his work is how extraordinarily fair minded it is. There are not many people who can write a defense of a set of ideas they disagree with that could have been written by an articulate believer. This post felt different, as though the calm, logical persona had gotten entangled with deeply felt emotions—and not just the emotion of favoring truth and honesty.

This time it was clear that it was his own tribe he was defending. I feel like Toggle made a valiant effort to leap out of the pit of tribalism and the thread crashed back down even harder. Let me give it another shot:.

I would hope this framing can help us explain why a silent majority is not relevant here, without erasing or aggressing said majority. My girlfriend spent years believing that if you initiated a conversation with someone or sat down near them without permission they would justifiably hate you forever.

Both my girlfriend and I are convinced that if we were heterosexual men our lives would have been hell on earth. I found myself thinking that section III is quite weak in comparison to the rest of the post. Suppose we live in a world where the conclusion is false. Now suppose in that world there is a contingent of horrible nerds who endlessly spam women on dating sites with messages because they feel entitled to sex. Attractive women, in your hypothetical, are being harassed by evil sex-crazed nerds and they have an easier time finding partners.

Regardless of all the reasons a woman would normally and reasonably reject an uninvited sexual propositions, regardless of how uncomfortable a sufficiently large and continuous a stream of such propositions might be in most contexts, in the specific context of a woman having difficulty finding a partner the presence of such a stream of propositions does reduce the difficulty.

A woman in such a position has all the other available options for finding a partner, plus the added option of accepting one of the propositions. I respond that the more interesting question is: I think this gets to the more interesting question as to why women have an easier time finding dates than men do.

I think a big part of it is fear. The other part is probably slut-shaming. The biological reality is that men are stronger than women and more prone to violent impulses. Therefore women must be a little more selective in the partners they choose. So which is better, having no options, or being overwhelmed with options, all of which are unattractive and scary? Is it worse to feel pathologically unwanted, or constantly in threat of violence? What triggers the creepy factor? However, I would argue that these behaviors all in fact are kind of threatening in their own way.

So we can see how over-attachment can turn into rage. Finally, immaturity is a trait that often yields rage. If that makes sense. If a woman wants to tell me how it really is then that would be cool.

Or can he just not see? Like, remember the whole thing last year I think where everyone started talking about shitty dudes in the 1st-person shooter scene, like, dudes who were being terrible to women.

These dudes were certainly nerds. Some were absolute jerks. It got lots of attention. Anyway, I basically agree with Scott. I speak out about it. But there is stuff that happens to women by nerds that really sucks. We gotta talk about that too. Veronica D — The rampant abuse problem in gaming has been an issue for several years now, possibly more than a decade. Thanks for the input. This makes sense with the hypothesis that men desire casual sex more than women do, but both sexes desire romance equally.

This seems like a strange thing to be afraid of , per se. Like, from a male perspective, I can see how that would suck, but not to the point where it causes fear. Personally I would be very unlikely to turn down sex for this reason, so this is hard for me to relate to. I wonder if the reason women feel like this is because of slut-shaming, or maybe patriarchal stuff in general.

Like the idea that if a man has sex with you he has taken something from you, and he is the victorious one. The idea of being used for sex by a random guy makes me feel gross. I think perhaps a part of it is the dehumanizing aspect that is involved in the first instance, but not in the second. I am equally sure that if I actually had sex with a randomly selected stranger it would be at best awkward and at worst painful.

It is better not to have sex then to have awful, painful sex. I cannot really enjoy interacting with someone who treats me with contempt, but it is also a physical problem: I cannot enjoy a sexual encounter that consists of a man just putting his dick in me, thrusting until he orgasms and then stopping.

Often in these discussions, I see people saying that women want relationships and men want sex because women like hugs and romance and men like orgasms. I mean, I also like all the other wonderful stuff that comes with relationships, but even if my selfish sexual desires were my only motivation, relationships would be the best way to fulfill them.

GBN, a better hypothesis might be that men desire casual sex more than women do, while women desire romance more than men do. Who is the market for romance novels? And in nerd spaces you encounter a variety of men.

Some are the Scott-types, super shy, but actually really sweet guys. But you encounter other kinds of men also. Some can get shitty when you blow them off. Like, we can brush dudes off, say no, or whatever. But what we cannot do is just be ourselves in a relaxed, natural way. We need to stop demonizing dudes for this. At least in Japan they also have those weird waifu dating sim visual novel games for men, so perhaps this is partially a cultural thing. Not sure how popular those actually are though.

But maybe this is just typical mind fallacy. This strikes me as a problem not with being a woman or being a man but with being far out on the tail of a distribution and only interested in other people about equally far out. It drastically reduces the pool.

The smaller the pool, the harder it is to find someone who meets whatever other requirements you are looking for. One of my search criteria after my first marriage ended was a woman with whom I could have a conversation about ideas without feeling as though I needed a translator—the sort of conversation I could have with only a small minority of my male colleagues.

By great good fortune, I eventually found one. This question strikes me as unanswerable, and irrelevant. Under what circumstances would the answer to this question matter? Even if we did come to a conclusion that one sort of pain was worse than the other, it would be heartless to say that the other sort of pain was irrelevant.

Wait, why is that a useful question? What rests on deciding who has it worse? I feel like the answer does sort of have implications. Like if it turns out that women definitely have it much, much worse then even some extreme forms of feminism seem justified.

But if women and men both have problems of roughly equal magnitude, then it feels like much of the feminist mindset is wrong-headed and a more even-handed attitude should take its place. There are certainly lots of situations where everyone would agree that someone is being threatening, and there are some situations where, leaving threatening aside, most would agree that someone was being creepy.

Half the romantic movies ever made portray behavior as endearing that a woman would find creepy or threatening in the case that she already finds the man unattractive.

This encompasses most of the most successful strategies for approaching women: Particularly when evaluating policies that are harmful to community X.

Otherwise, well, what if there actually were a cabal of wealthy Jews trying to take over the world? I hope you enjoy slinging around insults like that, and ignoring everything in the original blogpost, so that you can throw around insults like that.

You do not get to a priori slur an undifferentiated mass of men for being horrible. You get to read the blogpost, realize that people like you drive other people to suicide, then stop doing that.

Assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that this is serious: Given that you clearly did read and agree with the blog post, as your first paragraphs mention, I think you failed to take part of its message into account. I have read your comment. Er, my comment is not calling a specific person or actual group of people horrible. That was a bad omission. Including for the writer. Somehow this post seems to do the same. The reason I feel like this post is meandering is that it conflates two different arguments: I will add that I also like many examples of the tightly-structured, one key message, genre.

Meanderings should have a natural flow to them. This essay feels like it jerks me in one direction and then in the opposite direction a few seconds later. It was still a good essay, but that put me off balance.

People who are passionately dedicated to the issue. And so, conditional on you seeing slurs, you should expect them to come from dedicatedly SJ people.

But that is very much an effect of filtering out many types of people e. This is a true and important point, which also occurred to me while reading the article. Even if nerds meet Red Tribe members on a day to day basis, I expect that they tend to have much less interaction with them in terms of exchange of ideas. Can you provide an example of any Red Tribe group that particularly picks on nerds except maybe highschool jocks? I hang out with many Red Tribers when i go see my family and i cannot remember this ever coming up.

Hanging out with my regular Blue Tribe friends, classmates, and coworkers in college and now in work, i see plenty of nerd hating. Church ladies, soccer moms, a certain archetype of businessperson the kind who cares a lot about etiquette , the less financially successful of the adults who were jocks in high school.

A lot of my family is church ladies, and they consistently treat me as an actual human, unlike the Blue Tribe side. Admittedly, the Blue Tribe side has serious issues and the church ladies are all completely mentally stable, but…. Those are probably better examples of Red Tribers who dislike nerds, but I stand by what I said about church ladies. First, nerds are more likely to go atheist, or at least to abandon the church. Second, they have hobbies that church ladies disapprove of, such as playing video games and reading fantasy novels.

Third, they tend to be less dedicated to their local community, which is anathema to church ladies. The closest thing to this I can recall in my rich and textured experience of the sort of conservative Southern Christianity that advocates homeschooling is parents asking for their children in a homeschool co-op English class not to read The Time Machine because it portrays evolution as being A Thing.

There is in fact a conversion process for that. I hear there are classes, in addition to the obvious Bible study. I grew up in the South, and the parents of my best friend in elementary and middle school actively discouraged him from reading Harry Potter because they thought it was anti-Christian. Engineering is pretty Red. And grey is what you get when you take red and remove the religion.

And yeah, I can sort of relate to that. Blue tribe usually keeps a low profile, but when it lets its guard down I have seen a clear SJW profile in places. I have also seen Red tribe ridicule stereotypes of non-STEM-competent nerds, and occasionally a few specific individuals, in their absence.

Rarely if ever in their direct presence. More generally, I think Red tribe is better at making alliances with outsiders than Blue tribe, and so less likely to preemptively dismiss potentially useful allies.

For some reason, this seems to be generally true. Even on the anti-authoritarian side of things, right-wingers seem better at working with diverse groups of people my experience with the ron paul campaign showed me that people from suprisingly ideological diverse backgrounds were able to co-operate whereas my experience with the radical left showed that people were much more obsessed with ideological purity and factionalism.

I hold an unusual position as someone who has sympathies with both camps. At a considerable tangent …. This fits the pattern of libertarians having long been part of the conservative coalition, despite holding more extreme anti-conservative views most obviously legalization of drugs than most liberals.

Somewhat less true now—but the national level politicians who most clearly identify as libertarian are Republicans. She may or may not be mainstream, she may or may not be influential.

As I also mentioned, her attempt to break out and interact with a wider audience in the John Edwards campaign, and how that went down in flames, gave and gives me unseemly pleasure. That she blogs for the dear old Grauniad does not make her mainstream. Being Catholic really helps with this.

So does being asexual. We will rise up and crush amatonormativity! Spot the deliberate error, eh? Then again, I also have the notion that women, too, can have a sense of honour and act honourably, and I was raised that door-opening, etc. And if those women were anything like me, they had it drilled into them to be careful. A stranger walks up to you in a public space where you are for a particular purpose.

Stranger makes a remark about finding you attractive and hits on you. Do you really expect me to head off with some unknown person back to his home when the 70s are the hey-day of American serial killers? Particularly when Ted Bundy is operating with the M.

Look at it in the opposite direction. For reasons which are — for this particular point — irrelevant, women can easily walk up to strangers and have a high probability of, within thirty seconds, receiving consent to go somewhere for sexual congress.

Men who walk up to strangers cannot repeat this feat, at least not nearly so easily. Yes, for the reasons I mentioned: You are doing the unilinear thing. Women are in a worse position in romance therefore women are always in a worse position therefore anything unpleasant that happens to men but not women is actually about how bad women have it.

C does not follow from B does not follow from A. Women have an easier time in approaching and being approached. This is something that feels, to me, to be really obvious based on everything I have ever read, seen, or experienced. Are you arguing that the fear of the potential danger of men is so severe that it completely overwhelms all the clear advantages? Think about the experiment again, but suppose everyone involved men and women knew the outcome of experiment. This was something everyone in society knew.

Would she then say yes? Although the risk of the man being a serial killer etc. So, this is a self reinforcing gender norm. Lets say that Lets also say that this is EXACTLY reflects the relative expected value of sex between men and women such that the expected value of sex minus the expected value of rape for a woman in a casual encounter is about 13 times that for a man.

We know that a lot of feminist discourse talks in various ways about how the expected value of rape for women is way too high, and I grant them every point. But the final ratio is also effected by the other three elements.

Obviously, the very high ratio of approaches in favor of women ALSO serves to make sex cheap for women and expensive for men. As a non-celebrity straight man, sex is fairly hard to find and so your subjective value for having sex can get crazy high.

In my own single life, there were times when sex was both more and less common. In other words, a new sexual partner felt like a life-changing big deal, and I probably would have thought it completely fair to, like, engage in gladiatorial combat to the death if an appealing girlfriend was the garanteed prize.

On the other hand, if during my whole life since puberty I had been offered sex randomly throughout the day in every manner of settings, I would probably value it about as much as I would mundane pleasures such as a good meal or a comfortable pair of shoes. Depends on exact community. Pretty dangerous to both. Maybe a little more to women. OTOH, women have a lot more resources for minimizing that risk. Men are more likely to be violent, but not overwhelmingly so. The risks seem kind of balanced.

The real difference is that society demands men never show fear and women always do. Yet, despite those risks, very many women do wind up having romantic and sexual relationships, including myself. Even multiple such relationships. Now, sometimes that happens because the woman in question initiates things, but not always.

And, even though women do face more danger from going off with a stranger, being rejected all your life does hurt. The Ball and the Cross is awesome! I came to the comments to complain about this as well.

Because, damn it, this is a good post, and I want it to be better. Men in that situation have a high probability of being creep-shamed; women in that situation have a low probability of being murdered.

He was pointing out that because they do, many shy awkward men feel the way he and the other Scott described. Assuming for the moment it is true that a significant part of the reason that women are less likely to accept an advance is because of the chance of being hurt, one possible improvement to the status quo is to explain to men why it is that women are not very likely to accept their advances. Then they will understand that it is not their own characteristics that cause this, but rather the characteristics of the statistically few men who abuse or hurt women.

At least, according to him. By doing this, the nerds can start to think that we are the ones who are at least partially responsible for the way women feel, and it can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy: We need to heal that divide, not widen it.

Actually, let me nitpick now: I was going to comment on the milady thing, but he more or less got it right. I was overcompensating for shyness in college time to time by adopting slightly archaic norms on the basis more or less of having an affection for medieval norms based on period games, movies, and books, on the one hand, and being told that deference towards women was a way of attracting them.

I have no idea whether this counts as real suffering. Nerds get a lot of their socialization from media, often media that covers past or future or imaginary periods. In extreme cases, this can lead to poor calibration against present-day social expectations. Nerds often desire to be seen as unusual, and especially as distinct from non-nerds, whom they see as dull, excessively conformist, and often vaguely threatening.

This can manifest itself in dress or in behavior. Nerds tend to be highly scrupulous in their behavior, but express this in diverse ways. Some dismiss the subtler norms of social interaction as dishonest — I could write ten thousand words about how honesty norms interact with geek culture — but others are attracted to highly formalized patterns of etiquette.

We can be pretty sure of this because feminism is a free-floating idea pattern permeating our entire society, and yet only a tiny fraction of people end up like Scott or Amanda. A more likely explanation is that two people with very complex, specific sets of inherent personality traits experienced two very complex, specific childhood environments, influenced primarily by parents, siblings, adult authority figures and peers.

The people they became had very complex, specific emotional reactions to the opposite sex, which caused them each in turn to be drawn to, and to latch onto, particular aspects of feminism, and to feel the need to use it as a blueprint for understanding their relationships with members of the opposite sex. Now, the vast majority of people use a completely different set of blueprints, ones that have little to do with the theoretical foundations of modern feminist ideology.

And since the blueprints they both adopted clearly caused Scott a great deal of personal pain and gave Amanda a great deal of personal comfort, Scott views them as deeply pernicious and Amanda views them as practically sacred. Plenty of people, because of a very complex, specific set of inherent personality combined with very complex, specific childhood environments, like eating fish. But when the catholic church was able to get away with mandating that everyone in europe eat fish on fridays, a lot more fish got eaten than would otherwise have been the case.

No one is saying that feminism caused either Aaronson or Marcotte, but it is definitely worth asking if feminism encourages or discourages their behaviors, and whether or not that encouragement is a good thing.

Feminism is a massively successful political movement that frequently gets its tenets encoded in law. When people agree with ideas, those ideas become codified into law. On the contrary, it can easily run both ways. Group identifications are sticky. I understand that people come to believe all sorts of bizarre things in the abstract, in order to conform to some moral principle or social norm to which they feel ideological allegiance. Sexually repressed nerds may underreport, there might be a correlation with social anxiety and loneliness, or some other factor might throw off a random guess.

Anecdotally, I felt similar to Scott Aaronson when I was younger. At one point I stopped taking testosterone supplements in order to kill my libido. I agree that individual people are complicated, and that ideologies are even more so.

However, feminism being a movement with many good points, it might help to isolate the elements of it which sometimes lead to sexual repression in people attracted to women as experienced by Scott , or the elements which sometimes lead to angry lashing out as perpetrated by Amanda.

If harm is caused by a certain set of blueprints, a discussion can be had about their relevance and continued use.

It is difficult to find dating advice for men which is simultaneously effective and non-exploitative, as Scott Alexander noted in radicalising the romanceless , and this might be an area for cheap gains. Maybe greater coordinated feminist outreach could be shown towards men suffering from problems such as rape and domestic violence, or maybe some of the less radical MRA groups and feminists could work together on these issues. It would be a shame to miss solutions just because the problems in question are rare, complicated, or hard to generalise about.

Pituitary problems totally unrelated to gender, for which my doctor prescribed several hormonal supplements to bring me back to near-average levels.

Refusing to take testosterone supplements was a Very Bad Idea in my circumstances, and I started taking them again within a couple of years. The whole thing had much the same effect on me as taking Depo Provera or another means of chemical castration would have had on Scott Aaronson, but Scott was already suicidally unhappy. Short summary — women are approached and choose. The entire history of mankind.

Pretty simple and very non-conducive to having the ability to systematize what you find attractive and why you find those traits attractive. Simple explanation that fits the facts and what basically everyone should understand about human nature. Have you seen the entire history of mankind? Well, I guess not, but you know what I mean. But before civilization existed, or even back when we were still primates? It turns out that arranged marriage is very common. Though I found a claim in a book that extramarital affairs are more tolerated in the hunter-gatherer societies with arranged marriage were an important part of the early human environment.

Umm… I think a lot of people say that PUAs have discovered the triggers for manipulating pretty girls with low self-esteem who hang out in bars. Being manipulative is generally considered unethical. I agree with MugaSofer that there have been many societies in the history of mankind where men gave their daughters in marriage, and the woman in question had absolutely no say in the matter.

A man can approach as many women as he wants. Many specific tactics they use seem like they work regardless of the context. There are certainly differences between clubs and other situations, and the people who go to clubs and those who do not, but those gaps are only medium ones, and many of them can be bridged with a good understanding of human psychology.

But you do what you have to do. But as I explain to people.. And that something is the sort of one-directional power dynamics that is talked about at the core of all of this.

Quite frankly that happens to everybody who is aghast at one-directional gender politics Whatever. I think one thing those of us need to understand is how much one-directional language is in modern feminist culture and dialogue. I mean the obvious big ones are how patriarchy and privilege are used. But this is a larger issue. I always compare it to a gilded cage. You know, intersectionalism and all that. And yes, intersectionalism and one-directional power models are opposing concepts.

Anyway, thank you for this article. I feel better now. I went through it.. My major concerned is the kids coming down the pipe. My nephew kinda has my personality type. We can already see the scrupulosity in him. And others like him of his generation. Do you have any evidence for this at all, other than that the non-random group of nerds you know, are mostly people who agree with you on this?

And let me make this clear: You make it clear that you think people like me are demon nonhuman nazi scum who deserve to die under a bus. Scott, what you are doing — both with your hateful attacks on feminists, and in your false claim that you speak for shy nerd men in general — is contributing to making my life miserable. Before I respond to this, is this really your considered opinion of how you really think I view you, or your parody of what I am saying about feminists?

I also find it ironic that you put so much importance in how much men like you and the other Scott have suffered, when — measured by the ruler you seemingly find most important — some of the people who you hate and find worthless, like me, are much worse off than either of you.

It is my considered opinion that — judging from your writing — you genuinely loathe people like me meaning feminists, not shy male nerds — although clearly the two categories overlap. I hope this is the case; I find it plausible that this is the case. I do believe that what you write, in concert with what many other similarly hateful anti-feminists write, is contributing to making my life miserable in some ways.

Not even if you or others finds reading such criticism hurtful. What I would prefer is for you — and SJWs, and others — to find a way to express your political views without being so amazingly hurtful in how you write your views, especially since so many people clearly admire you and consider you a role model of sorts.

It is my considered opinion that you, in concert with hundreds of thousands of other people — including, to be sure, a huge number of SJW types — have turned our political culture into a hatefest, by the use of rhetoric so hateful and exaggerated that it gives the impression that the writer is engaged in a fight with subhuman demons. And that really DOES make me miserable, and a lot of other people miserable, too.

I assume you yourself feel this way about, for example, Republicans. That is, if you have absolutely zero objection to anything Republicans have ever done and have never called them out about it, that would surprise me. They should be ashamed. Yes, the nerdy men I know have told me that they agree feminism is causing these problems. Maybe all the women who told you that they were made up a biased sample. On the other hand, is this convention in this genre?

You know I asked you before I blogged about your personal experience. Do you think Marcotte extended Aaronson the same courtesy? I specifically say some feminists are on the right side of this issue and have been on the right side of other issues. I have agreed Penny is trying to solve the same problem I am and their desire to solve it comes from a good place.

Number six, I try to find common ground. Number eight, can you imagine Marcotte even conceiving the thought of seriously, not as a trap, trying to help Prof Aaronson with his romantic problems? I would suggest that both people like Scott and the more hateful SJW types are engaged in fights with subhuman demons. This is the perfect example of exactly how evil your ideology is.

And instead of counter-argument, instead of any attempt to reconcile, you simply attack, emotionally, and insanely. How is anyone supposed to compromise with this?

Despite being a cry about how sad anti-feminists make you, you provide a perfect justification for anti-feminism. And perhaps it is unkind. But I think you need to take a long, hard look at why you believe what you believe about people, and about yourself. If I build a blog post around how Nazism which everyone agrees is wrong is a product of White Male Thinking, it would not be absurd to believe I am trying to associate a Bad Thing with white males.

To be analogous, if I write a blogpost about how Nazis are terrible because they support genocide, then a Nazi can logically respond either: Speaking as a sex worker, it is absolutely the case that feminists have done much more to harm sex workers than any other group save perhaps the Christians. I used to read Marcotte regularly when she blogged at Pandagon and remember her explicitly advocating making fun of people who have dorky hobbies.

What the sample of feminists I saw wrote was either pro-Daly or anti- because of her transphobia. I would like to know why you think this, because I find it very surprising, which suggests that there is something for me to learn about human experience here. In the former case, you are cordially invited to fuck off and never return. Regardless of what he may secretly feel I most certainly do wish for you to suffer for it.

This is utterly inexcusable and you are an execrable human being. In the latter case, please seek help. Not with that attitude! Or have you tried that already? Many, many women will openly stomp on men who admit weakness in order to scare the herd; anyone like him will hopefully get the message, and not think that they have a place in the mating pool. This is obviously necessary: I had to learn the hard way not to do it.

My father had a saying about manners being the glue that holds society together and the grease that allows it to work. One of those Soylent stories mentioned that Rob Rhinehart always wears a plain black T-shirt. I think that drive is similar, but not quite identical. But codifications of etiquette are probably a good idea, for reasons related to the Aaronson thing.

The closest analogy I can think of here is linguistic style. If you have a linguistic academy that codifies the language, do you get conflicting style advice? English certainly has conflicting advice; does French? Better for starting relationships, perhaps.

Walking Dude, I noticed that I started getting a lot more dates when I started looking for women who were looking for someone like me. Which required a few base assumptions: Some are looking for someone to go to sportsball games with, some are looking for someone to raise a couple kids with, some are looking for someone to go to comic conventions with.

Then expose that to as many potential partners as possible. I noticed that I started getting a lot more dates when I started looking for women who were looking for someone like me. The Gathering, whereas in reality none of those things are turn-offs for me. I have a relevant memory from about sixth grade, when I went to some camp-type thing where I and some other girls slept on one side of a large room and some boys slept on the other side.

I was struck by how much this humanized him and made him into a more appealing person than he normally was, and I tried to suggest to him that he might want to tell the girl how he felt and generally be more of the person he was revealing himself to be at that moment.

He told me to fuck off. One of the most toxic ideas about human sexuality is the idea that when a man and a woman have sex, this is the man somehow winning a victory over the woman. Sometimes women like to have sex! But coworkers sometimes give good advice on being a good coworker.

Women do like to have sex — but not except for outliers for the sake of sex itself, as many men do. But there is truth behind the idea of victory, as women know that they have much more to lose should things go wrong i. The man who gets a woman to willingly mate with him has passed far more tests for her than she ever would for him. The reason is because men want more sex than women are supplying, and women want more commitment than men are supplying.

Therefore, metaphorically, women bargain with men by offering sex, and men bargain with women by offering commitment. If a woman is perceived to have given sex away too cheaply e. The actual explanation for women being choosy about sex is that they are more likely to find the experience unsatisfying.

In this context a man is treated as a victor because he has successfully convinced a woman that he will satisfy her, which is a difficult thing to do. Note that this theory does not contradict the standard ev-psych prediction that women should evolve to be choosier than men.

The only change is the mechanism that causes the choosiness. The old theory was that choosiness was programmed into women as a terminal value. The new theory is that women are simply designed to be harder to satisfy, choosiness is an instrumental value. Personally, the new theory seems more likely to me, both because of evidence, and because it includes fewer moving parts. Most women really do like sex, but 1 good sex is not necessarily easy to get, and 2 there are other things that get in the way.

Currently I am a single and non-sexually-active woman who would in principle quite like to be sexually active. I like orgasms a lot, and I miss having orgasms involving other people. So the only route to sex that I can see for myself is to start dating sometime soon and get into a relationship with someone who I really trust and who really values making me happy, so that I can feel comfortable having sex with them and so that I can expect that they will try and make me happy during sex.

Experience says the opposite: But at least you dodged a bullet. Has anyone seriously studied which women do this? So all the women I have ever been romantically involved with were women I knew were decent human beings. I imagine that men who pick up women in bars, or do speed-dating or Internet dating or something, would have very different experiences. I personally once found the very idea of a blind date to be baffling. When I was young I kept hearing people criticize fictional romances where characters took a short time to fall in love as unrealistic.

I concluded from this that you cannot fall in love with a person unless you know them for a while, and decided to only date people I knew for a while. I initially assumed people who did otherwise were crazy or desperate. What I find is encouraging. Most people are nice and have goodwill towards other people. Most of the time people seem like they are behaving negatively toward you because one is attributing malice to stupidity.

Many things that seem like a person consciously choosing a malevolent strategy are actually caused by them by not being consistent with their strategies and not having enough willpower to always be altruistic. I try my best not to be a mean-spirited person who projects the worst onto other people.

This is the language that women who call themselves feminists use to describe icky men. I think it comes down to something like. Personally I believe that our brains are pretty good at matching people up, and so the people who are the most attracted to The Real You are likely to be very attractive to you as well.

Women like men who are unashamed of their flaws and who they are, as it implies confidence and high-status. If someone has a basic understanding of the laws of social interaction, then purging their insecurities, acting more on their desires, and reveling in their eccentricities will lead to confidence and charisma.

Perhaps they are at the point where they can define their own rules. If your skills suck, then be yourself but with slightly better social skills. Which is something to work on. Once a relationship exists, it should be fun, but the initial phase?

The trying to connect to someone new phase? This advice is problematic for a few reasons— if someone has been frightened for a long time, then they may think of their fear as a fundamental part of themself. I think you very much misunderstand where the nerd approach to women comes from. They do this because, generally not having much empathy in the sense of being good at understanding what other people are thinking and feeling the only way they can figure out how to interact with others is to induce from their own case.

Reactions at that point vary. That said, and this will be much more controversial, I think there is a more fundamental problem with feminism. In my experience, there is a strong inverse correlation between empathy and self awareness.

That is, the more people understand what other people are feeling and how to make them feel that way, but the less they understand or at least the less they tend to question their own feelings. People are, always and everywhere, are extremely good at coming up with arguments to justify their emotional priors.

The problem is that the commensurate lack of introspection means the movement has no internal brakes, nothing to stop it from becoming little more than an endless quest to justify the feelings of the faithful. And I think it is quite clear that this is what is happening.

As kids, she would work herself up into incredible emotional reactions over minor incidents in order to get her way. She once begged, threatened, screamed, and weeped for a half hour about whether or not the car was going to stop at mcdonalds.

It was terrifying because these emotions were unquestionably real, but would vanish literally the instant she won the argument. She is what feminism has become, utterly convinced of its own righteousness, willing to do anything to achieve its righteous ends, and unable or unwilling to question itself. If such counter comments are mocked or shouted down then you have good reason to think that at least one of you in the conversation is not as self aware as they think.

Good people do sometimes get things wrong, and I think she gets Scott Aaronson wrong. In the better bits of the OP, Scott Alexander makes a good case for there being a double-standard in how Laurie has approached this, and I suspect that she would acknowledge this herself, despite enormous tribal incentives not to do so. Perhaps exacerbated by deep-seated English class assumptions. I was going for a pithy statement that made it clearer that the picture looks deceptively simple if you fix this one huge aspect of it which in my mind is a lot like what happens with vectors-covectors.

But phraseology, like humor, is best left to professionals. It uses a less-precise word to better reflect the imprecision of the idea itself.

What did you have in mind exactly? Oh, wait, did you mean using the solutions for some linear differential equation as the vectors? Not to get too geeky here, but I was reading up on intersectional feminism a year or so ago, trying to wrap my head around it, and the model that came to mind was the difference between a pure Bayesian model for example, a spam classifier in which the variables are assumed to be independent, and something like a forest of decision trees machine learning model a deep convolutional network would do too.

In other words, something that explicitly models the nonlinearity, which unfortunately your co-vector would not quite do. I observed a while ago that most online feminist activism seems to be pointless in that the intersection between men who will say, catcall women on on the street and men who will read an article on a blog chiding them for it is rather small. You do not chide those who misbehave the most. You chide those who actually care about not getting chided.

Thank you for listening, or at least trying to listen. Many people on my side are not trying to communicate, reach out or create understanding.

We vent our righteous anger because it feels good. There are parts with which I agree emphatically. Aaronson made the mistake of inadvertently signalling assholery. This case makes me wonder what would happen if a male nerd wrote about being unwanted and rejected, without implicitly or explicitly accusing women, carefully avoiding references to the ongoing debate, and then published the text in a context that also does not link it to any of this.

I would like to think most of us would have empathy. He used specific arguments and keywords that predictably cause people on my side to disregard any message he might be trying to convey, treat him as an enemy…. Important question — what arguments and keywords in particular were you referring to? I may need your help recalibrating; Ivwould not be surprised if this applied to others. I think what Scott was getting at is the dissonance between the suggestion than men should be less entitled, and the fact that actually existing women seem to prefer the attentions of men who display a greater sense of entitlement.

Women say men should be less entitled, then sleep with the really entitled men — this makes no sense! If you think that entitlement, or lack thereof, is really the most important factor in how women see men then this is deeply and legitimately confusing, and that confusion needs to be resolved somehow. A better and simpler argument that does not rely on conspiracy theories is that there are other variables here.

Thus, whilst entitlement is a bad thing, you cannot understand the entirety of human relationships through the prism of entitlement and this is why Andrea Dworkin is not a good source of dating tips.

Or the feminists and the hypocrites are different women. When you see a divergence between what people say and what they do, there are two possible explanations. In this context, your economic relationships are taken as the measure of your true desires because they have real consequences in your everyday life, whereas talk is cheap.

The other explanation is the polar opposite: So, which is the dating market more similar to? Their speech is likely to be constrained by, say, political correctness or a desire to maintain a certain image , but their dating choices are much more free and therefore a better representation of their preferences.

In other words, the Exit model is being applied. So, what we have is a case of nerd men assuming that the constraints that apply in their lives cannot possibly apply to women, and nerd women assuming something similar in return. My guess is that this is precisely the wrong model for examining the dating market, at least as it applies to nerds.

There may be people — celebrities, the very wealthy, the truly unscrupulous — for whom the exit model holds more explanatory power, but these people are a minority. Or you could try asking someone out yourself. Subtly, or not so subtly the non-subtle version worked for me.

Or not date any one. I think the analogy to feminist critics is pretty clear. Note that feminist theory has a term for this diversion, with an exemption specifically carved out for when they use it. Is there a way to register disagreement with the Social Justice narrative without signaling assholery to its adherents?

But what about the charge that feminism is actually causing harm? Another example of someone phrasing the problem in a way which gets sympathetic responses from feminists, including Amanda Marcotte herself https: I think the key here is not activating any anti-tribal reaction: I think this is sadly correct — even in the comments there you see famous lefty blogger Matt Yglesias attacking the OP, and leftism in generally has gotten far more aggressive in the last 10 years, at least in my perception.

I was a reader of Pandagon back then You might even find my comments on the thread, I used the same nick. You have to realize she went through several well.. The whole Duke Lacross thing, being dumped from the Edwards campaign, accusations of racist imagery in her book they were racist and more downkey, there was a time where her economic progressiveness was really in question over gentrification.

Sounds right to me. I love that when they talk about a torrent of online aimed at prominent female feminists abuse they highlighted Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, and Anita Sarkeesian. I would propose that insofar as Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti have abuse directed at them it is almost entirely because they direct abuse at other people — at times large groups of other people, at times individuals — some of whom responded in kind, and gender and ideology are at best very minor contributing factors.

With regard to the abuse Sarkeesian has faced, we do in fact have a control group — an individual who raised many of the same criticisms while being a male and a Christian fundamentalist.

Sarkeesian just does criticism. Thompson was an activist who believed videogames caused school shootings and who tried to have games banned and censored. This is especially the case considering many of those who defend Sarkeesian are happy to abuse those in the outgroup including women in the outgroup.

No one deserves death threats. And just speaking for myself, although quite frankly this issue probably is a strict parallel in terms of personality type.

Iamges: a dating site for nerds

a dating site for nerds

What does that do to the movement?

a dating site for nerds

If this is the place for pointing out typos:

a dating site for nerds

Yet, despite those risks, very many women do wind up having romantic a dating site for nerds sexual relationships, including myself. We aim a dating site for nerds be the largest and best geek dating site on the net offering free profiles for everyone as well as advanced features such as chat rooms, photo albums and music dating and relationships tips. Hanging out with my regular Blue Tribe friends, classmates, and coworkers in college and now in work, i see plenty of nerd hating. The reality of Prof. A stranger walks up to you in a public space where you are for a particular purpose. If reasonable feminism exists, there are surely links to papers, conference notes, or stand-alone posts that can quickly prove that it both exists and matters.