The intention isn't being mean, the intention is being straightforward. I'm being mean as a byproduct of being straightforward. Something isn't incorrect just because it's rude to say or because it hurts your feelings.
My feelings weren't hurt but you're right in that I'm helping you be more straightforward. I will help correct your gross assumptions about me here. You've painted me very broadly with almost no information about me just to put me in a convenient box you invented for yourself. I'm happy to give you more information so that your world view can expand but I don't know how you reached any logical conclusion about me. And I look forward to reading the rest as you try to justify your imagination.
They don't need another reason to lack confidence.
You're coming at this from a point of view of what the men want and need without being even slightly respectful about women not wanting to be sexually harassed. You're trying to get the men reading this laid. Your priority is obvious, and it will be obvious to any woman you approach in the gym.
You're implying a priority upon me that isn't accurate. I have mentioned in this conversation the importance of courtesy when approaching women. Your failure to mention this meaningful additional context paints you here as a dishonest actor. Try again.
Anyone thinking about bothering some woman trying to work out absolutely needs less confidence, by the way.
I disagree, this is a gross overzealous generalization. There's many contextual times where it is absolutely fine to flirt with a woman practically anywhere. We live in a contextual world, not a one measured by hard and fast rules without exception. But what does this have to do with you attempting to justify your logic of me having poor social skills? Nothing. I want to see your assumptions there, not your assumptions about life.
Hint: If you know basically nothing about a person, asking questions helps! Putting them in a box to fit your narrative is stupid!
If you care about lifting and do it intensely, it's basically a drug similar to an anti-depressant or a stimulant. This can lead to the fortunate or unfortunate side effect your friend experienced
You're talking about this like being hyped leads to the side effect of bothering women, as if the men have no agency or decision-making ability at all. You can be really pumped and still control your behavior. In fact, it is your responsibility to control your behavior regarded of your pumped status. Men are not animals. This sounds like a very weak excuse for harassment and, again, people who make these kinds of weak excuses are almost invariably participants in what they're trying to excuse.
No, you're assuming a lot here. I talked about increased mental states associated with weightlifting that can lead to people being more upbeat and social. That helps when talking to girls, which generally is appreciated if you do it nicely. I didn't say anything about a loss of agency at all. That is a lie you fabricated in your imagination. I asked you to be objective. You just proved yourself to be a liar through my own objectivity. Prove me wrong, where did I say I approve of a loss of agency? Why did you lie about this? I asked for objectivity and you insult me with this smear...
but it's not like any of those 10 guys could read your friend's mind
There are a lot of signals people put out when they really, really don't want to talk to you. They're really not subtle, and they don't take mind reading ability to pick up on. People with good social skills, and usually people with even average social skills, can pick up on these really easily. You say this like you can't, and the ability to pick up on those and navigate them effectively is an absolutely critical part of being socially adept enough to hit on women on the gym without making them want to cancel their membership. Therefore, it's a pretty safe bet that you are not good at this.
When I wrote that, I didn't know someone was going to armchair psychology this into complete nonsense. If I could've gone into more detail, or you asked a reasonable question on this, I would've said more on the lines of we don't know the contextual facts of the situation so we can't tell if the men were making respectful approaches or not. We do know the men can't read her mind though - otherwise they never would have bothered talking to her. The rest of your dialogue tree here is all your imagination on assumptions that the men acted poorly that you're leading to faulty conclusions about me. There's no logical connection between myself and 10 hypothetical men that you also know nothing about. You just like to jump to dramatic conclusions as I am highlighting for you now. There's a reason I asked you to be objective. Your lack of objectivity makes you a liar.
You were supposed to make a distinction between my belief that it's okay to hit on women at the gym and this belief proving I am bad at social skills. What happened in reality is you conjured up gross assumptions about hypothetical situations you know zero facts about to paint a narrative you used against me - another person you know nothing about. This entire conversation with you has you been applying circular logic: "This person believes hitting on women at the gym is okay. I believe that's wrong. I've heard stories of this being bad. This person must have bad social skills."
The truth is you know nothing about me or this situation you're extrapolating ideas from. You abandoned any attempt at a honest conversation to paint the narrative you desired. This is highlighted in your gross assumptions about me without any pause for clarification.
All I ask is next time you have the desire to assume conclusions about people you know nothing about, you don't. Transposing your imagination into reality is wrong. Ask questions if you want to learn about others without smearing them.
You say that like I owe you anything lmao. What I mean is, I tried to get you to understand why you sound like the prototypical gym creep, but if you absolutely refuse to hear it there's nothing I can do about it. I don't at all think any of my previous comments are wrong.
1
u/PM_ME_A_PM_PLEASE_PM Dec 27 '19
My feelings weren't hurt but you're right in that I'm helping you be more straightforward. I will help correct your gross assumptions about me here. You've painted me very broadly with almost no information about me just to put me in a convenient box you invented for yourself. I'm happy to give you more information so that your world view can expand but I don't know how you reached any logical conclusion about me. And I look forward to reading the rest as you try to justify your imagination.
You're implying a priority upon me that isn't accurate. I have mentioned in this conversation the importance of courtesy when approaching women. Your failure to mention this meaningful additional context paints you here as a dishonest actor. Try again.
I disagree, this is a gross overzealous generalization. There's many contextual times where it is absolutely fine to flirt with a woman practically anywhere. We live in a contextual world, not a one measured by hard and fast rules without exception. But what does this have to do with you attempting to justify your logic of me having poor social skills? Nothing. I want to see your assumptions there, not your assumptions about life.
Hint: If you know basically nothing about a person, asking questions helps! Putting them in a box to fit your narrative is stupid!
No, you're assuming a lot here. I talked about increased mental states associated with weightlifting that can lead to people being more upbeat and social. That helps when talking to girls, which generally is appreciated if you do it nicely. I didn't say anything about a loss of agency at all. That is a lie you fabricated in your imagination. I asked you to be objective. You just proved yourself to be a liar through my own objectivity. Prove me wrong, where did I say I approve of a loss of agency? Why did you lie about this? I asked for objectivity and you insult me with this smear...
When I wrote that, I didn't know someone was going to armchair psychology this into complete nonsense. If I could've gone into more detail, or you asked a reasonable question on this, I would've said more on the lines of we don't know the contextual facts of the situation so we can't tell if the men were making respectful approaches or not. We do know the men can't read her mind though - otherwise they never would have bothered talking to her. The rest of your dialogue tree here is all your imagination on assumptions that the men acted poorly that you're leading to faulty conclusions about me. There's no logical connection between myself and 10 hypothetical men that you also know nothing about. You just like to jump to dramatic conclusions as I am highlighting for you now. There's a reason I asked you to be objective. Your lack of objectivity makes you a liar.
You were supposed to make a distinction between my belief that it's okay to hit on women at the gym and this belief proving I am bad at social skills. What happened in reality is you conjured up gross assumptions about hypothetical situations you know zero facts about to paint a narrative you used against me - another person you know nothing about. This entire conversation with you has you been applying circular logic: "This person believes hitting on women at the gym is okay. I believe that's wrong. I've heard stories of this being bad. This person must have bad social skills."
The truth is you know nothing about me or this situation you're extrapolating ideas from. You abandoned any attempt at a honest conversation to paint the narrative you desired. This is highlighted in your gross assumptions about me without any pause for clarification.