Online dating

Ignatius in bloom

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not trying to tell people what to discuss, but when continued posts keep portraying what I said (even if unintentionally), as something I did not say, yet which many posters like to keep misrepresenting me as saying - then I'm pretty much forced to point out that misrepresentation.

Ignatius wasn't deliberately doing that, yet what was said there, was dragging things back in that direction.

I don't want to be responding to posts which do that - yet I don't want to be misrepresented. There is fúck all chance of convincing anyone indeed, when a huge number of the posts at this stage keep bringing up that same misrepresentation whack-a-mole style.

It's actually quite a pain in the hole - and I think posters are fully aware of doing it, and of supporting it, at this stage.

Dragging my knuckles so to speak! Yes your argument is well put across and makes total sense that's why everyone agrees with it! What was your point again?

KomradeBishop

For example this bullshít:

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

*On a first date*

Boy: Have you ever been to the states?
Girl: No, I prefer travelling in Europe, I'm not the biggest fan of Amer-
Boy: -I can't believe you have jumped to such a snap judgement. You're being hyper-judgemental about an entire nation.
Girl: Just based on travel shows I don't think I'd like to visit, I prefer Europe.
Boy: That is a straw man argument. You have reached a snap decision about an entire country based off little evidence. There may be many aspects to the United States that you enjoy. Basing your entire opinion and creating negative attributes about the country solely based on your experiences to date. That is what is wrong with society today.
Girl: Can we get the bill, please.

Clearly, the main point for more than a few posters at this stage, is to engage in a wind-up - to misrepresent what I've said, in order to do that.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'd date you P!
1/3 be enough for you?

We will sort you out with a strap-on. Be grand then

Pintman Paddy Losty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

For example this bullshít:


Clearly, the main point for more than a few posters at this stage, is to engage in a wind-up - to misrepresent what I've said, in order to do that.

You're clearly wrong man.

Online dating exposes you to hundreds and thousands of potential suitors. It is impossible to wade through all of them. You have to make quick decisions. It is perfectly acceptable not to waste your time with no photo people and assume traits about them.

What is even worse if you don't assume the worst, engage in conversation and then find out down the line that Mr. blank picture who you've been getting on well with looks like a partially rotted whale carcass. Much harder to stop messaging then, as its patently obvious why.

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not trying to tell people what to discuss, but when continued posts keep portraying what I said (even if unintentionally), as something I did not say, yet which many posters like to keep misrepresenting me as saying - then I'm pretty much forced to point out that misrepresentation.

Ignatius wasn't deliberately doing that, yet what was said there, was dragging things back in that direction.

I don't want to be responding to posts which do that - yet I don't want to be misrepresented. There is fúck all chance of convincing anyone indeed, when a huge number of the posts at this stage keep bringing up that same misrepresentation whack-a-mole style.

It's actually quite a pain in the hole - and I think more than a few posters are fully aware of doing it, and of supporting it, at this stage.

There are many people posting in this thread. Not every post is aimed at you or your tiring arguments.

Pac1Man

This may not be popular but I don't agree with how being judgemental gets such a bad rap these days.

It is the most natural and basic survival mechanism we have. You see that rival tribe over there with the pointy sticks? I'm staying away from them because they might kill my family or rob my food supply for the winter. That is me pre-judging them.

Modern society has allowed and encouraged us to overcome these judgements and form educated opinions which is great but you cannot change 10,000* years of genetics just because it is not PC.

Also it is not illegal and it is nobody's business who is judgemental about what, especially if there is no malice directed towards anyone as a result e.g the subject of the faceless man yee have been blabbing on about for the last 10 hours.


*number picked out of my hole

maudgonner

Anyway, to change the subject, I've got a date on Sunday thanks to POF!

First in a while so I'm slightly bricking it. But it's just a coffee, nothing too serious.

Ignatius in bloom

Besides some of the profiles on POF are very funny!

'I'm not a cactus but I know a prick when I see one' 😀

KomradeBishop

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You're clearly wrong man.

Online dating exposes you to hundreds and thousands of potential suitors. It is impossible to wade through all of them. You have to make quick decisions. It is perfectly acceptable not to waste your time with no photo people and assume traits about them.

What is even worse if you don't assume the worst, engage in conversation and then find out down the line that Mr. blank picture who you've been getting on well with looks like a partially rotted whale carcass. Much harder to stop messaging then, as its patently obvious why.

It's perfectly acceptable to skip no photo people. It's not perfectly acceptable to assume negative traits about them - as that is an unwarranted assumption, based on nothing.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's based on something. Lack of pic on a online dating site. Kind of defeats the purpose, but hey, what would I know? I'm just being judgemental!

Ignatius in bloom

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's perfectly acceptable to skip no photo people. It's not perfectly acceptable to assume negative traits about them - as that is an unwarranted assumption, based on nothing.

To you maybe! I however will judge however the hell I want.

You keep leaving out those three beautiful words. In my opinion!

Cathy.C

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So if we take that as true though, don't you see how that does actually change society on a wider scale?

Yes, but you're asking a loaded question tbf and so my 'yes' is conditional as I don't see it as wholly negative thing, that dating sites have changed how society interacts with one another when it comes to relationships. Dating sites have of course changed the landscape of how people hook up and meet up. Sure there are even dating sites for people that want to cheat, rich people to meet poor people, subs who want to meet doms etc. The choices as I said before are endless now and so people are just taking advantage of that. It's not inherently a negative thing.

Now, does the fact that there are dating sites set up to enable and cater for those that wish to cheat on their spouses actually increase the occurrence of cheating? Or the sub / dom ones result in more people getting into bondage? I'm not so sure it does, perhaps, but even if it did, surely that's not all bad as it will also mean that those that are looking for shy people could find them easier also (assuming that's a tick-able option on profiles) or even people that aren't so hung up on looks should theoretically be able to find the not so aesthetically pleasing folk.

Ultimately life experience is what teaches people not to be so shallow though and so even if people do initially choose to date only personal trainers with their own homes, chances are they will be back on the site within a short time frame with looks and material possessions not as high a priority as it initially was.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's perfectly acceptable to skip no photo people. It's not perfectly acceptable to assume negative traits about them - as that is an unwarranted assumption, based on nothing.

And so what? Seriously. People aren't making snap judgements on them and not employing them because of those judgments, refusing to rent them a house, denying them the vote, not serving them in a restaurant. They just don't message them or reply to them. We all judge people, all the bloody time, based on the information that's available to us. In this very specific context, person a sees person b supplying absolutely no information about themselves, makes a snap judgement on that because that's what adults do, and moves on. No harm, no foul, NO BIG DEAL

KomradeBishop

Pac1Man wrote: »

This may not be popular but I don't agree with how being judgemental gets such a bad rap these days.

It is the most natural and basic survival mechanism we have. You see that rival tribe over there with the pointy sticks? I'm staying away from them because they might kill my family or rob my food supply for the winter. That is me pre-judging them.

Modern society has allowed and encouraged us to overcome these judgements and form educated opinions which is great but you cannot change 10,000* years of genetics just because it is not PC.

Also it is not illegal and it is nobody's business who is judgemental about what, especially if there is no malice directed towards anyone as a result e.g the subject of the faceless man yee have been blabbing on about for the last 10 hours.


*number picked out of my hole

Being judgemental over imagined negative traits or over petty things, is not genetic. It is a conscious choice.

There are likely genetic effects on peoples judgements, as well as environmental ones, which tie into attraction overall - but the above are not really among them.


It's perfectly acceptable to socially criticize unwarranted judgements - and it's perfectly acceptable to seek social conditioning through this type of criticism - it's how racial judgements and judgement against gender/orientation have been dissuaded over time.

Individually, peoples judgements are nobodies business - societally, when it comes to how attitudes overall shape society, they're everybody's business.

KomradeBishop

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's based on something. Lack of pic on a online dating site. Kind of defeats the purpose, but hey, what would I know? I'm just being judgemental!

No - that's not a solid basis for judging people as carrying negative personality traits.

Pintman Paddy Losty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's perfectly acceptable to skip no photo people. It's not perfectly acceptable to assume negative traits about them - as that is an unwarranted assumption, based on nothing.

You make judgements all the time. Are they sometimes incorrect. Yep. Still though, it's a survival instinct. Time is a valuable commodity. Quick judgements despite not having a full set of data are useful.

It's hardly a peer reviewed study, but in my experience people on online dating sites without pictures are 1)Ugly 2)Fake profile 3)Not Single or 4)Low self esteem. Is that correct all the time? No. But its a useful way of avoiding the 9 people who fall in to this category over meeting the 1 person who doesn't.

Dr Crayfish

Hi, I am new. Komrade, you're posting away about people being picky but it's probably down to the fact that no one is messaging you or you're not getting laid or whatever.
I am male, and probably 90% of messages or more are ignored when I message girls I think I like the look of and what they've written. And I would always write specific messages based on their profiles, keeping them short enough. I think it's pretty normal for guys, and I'm tall and relatively good looking, so we're all in the same boat mate. I wouldn't worry about it, online dating requires relatively thick skin if you start to care about it too much. Now I just expect no one I message to respond, and when they do it's a bonus

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I'm wearing yoga pants to the chemist. It's about a 10 min walk from my house. I'm wearing them understanding I'm going out in public and will offend at least two people with the size of my arse between here and where I'm going. How dare anyone judge me for my love of cake

KomradeBishop

Cathy.C wrote: »

Yes, but you're asking a loaded question tbf and so my 'yes' is conditional as I don't see it as wholly negative thing, that dating sites have changed how society interacts with one another when it comes to relationships. Dating sites have of course changed the landscape of how people hook up and meet up. Sure there are even dating sites for people that want to cheat, rich people to meet poor people, subs who want to meet doms etc. The choices as I said before are endless now and so people are just taking advantage of that. It's not inherently a negative thing.

Now, does the fact that there are dating sites set up to enable and cater for those that wish to cheat on their spouses actually increase the occurrence of cheating? Or the sub / dom ones result in more people getting into bondage? I'm not so sure it does, perhaps, but even if it did, surely that's not all bad as it will also mean that those that are looking for shy people could find them easier also (assuming that's a tick-able option on profiles) or even people that aren't so hung up on looks should theoretically be able to find the not so aesthetically pleasing folk.

Ultimately life experience is what teaches people not to be so shallow though and so even if people do initially choose to date only personal trainers with their own homes, chances are they will be back on the site within a short time frame with looks and material possessions not as high a priority as it initially was.

Well, the dating sites catering to different type of dating don't really change what I was discussing - people would usually have a predisposition to that type of behaviour (not all of what is cited is negative either), so would seek out those sites - what I was talking about in online dating, is people gaining new negative traits, simply due to the way dating sites in general work, and how I view them as possibly promoting certain negative attitudes.

KomradeBishop

Zachariah Swift Marrow wrote: »

And so what? Seriously. People aren't making snap judgements on them and not employing them because of those judgments, refusing to rent them a house, denying them the vote, not serving them in a restaurant. They just don't message them or reply to them. We all judge people, all the bloody time, based on the information that's available to us. In this very specific context, person a sees person b supplying absolutely no information about themselves, makes a snap judgement on that because that's what adults do, and moves on. No harm, no foul, NO BIG DEAL

So...as I've explained throughout the thread...this isn't something that automatically causes no harm.

Individually, yes you can say it causes no harm - in aggregate though, in society overall, if I'm right about how dating sites affect peoples attitudes, it can cause harm throughout society by promoting an increase in hyper-judgemental (*wince* :pac:) attitudes.

Individually, it can be harmless, but in its possible effects on society overall, it can be harmful.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, the dating sites catering to different type of dating don't really change what I was discussing - people would usually have a predisposition to that type of behaviour (not all of what is cited is negative either), so would seek out those sites - what I was talking about in online dating, is people gaining new negative traits, simply due to the way dating sites in general work, and how I view them as possibly promoting certain negative attitudes.

So you're arguing that people who do certain things are acquiring negative traits, that those traits will feed out general society, and you're backing that up with nothing except a general feeling you have that it makes sense, based on your previous experience of the world?

Remind you of anything?

KomradeBishop

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You make judgements all the time. Are they sometimes incorrect. Yep. Still though, it's a survival instinct. Time is a valuable commodity. Quick judgements despite not having a full set of data are useful.

It's hardly a peer reviewed study, but in my experience people on online dating sites without pictures are 1)Ugly 2)Fake profile 3)Not Single or 4)Low self esteem. Is that correct all the time? No. But its a useful way of avoiding the 9 people who fall in to this category over meeting the 1 person who doesn't.

If you make a decision to avoid potentially wasted time, then you don't need to make any unwarranted negative judgements about someone in order to do that.

KomradeBishop

Zachariah Swift Marrow wrote: »

So you're arguing that people who do certain things are acquiring negative traits, that those traits will feed out general society, and you're backing that up with nothing except a general feeling you have that it makes sense, based on your previous experience of the world?

Remind you of anything?

I've directly seen friends/acquaintances display the types of attitudes I'm talking about, so while just anecdotal, it's not based on nothing - and most of the posters in this thread, have given up denying the effect at this stage, they are only trying to downplay the extent of it...

maudgonner

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I am male, and probably 90% of messages or more are ignored when I message girls I think I like the look of and what they've written. And I would always write specific messages based on their profiles, keeping them short enough. I think it's pretty normal for guys, and I'm tall and relatively good looking, so we're all in the same boat mate. I wouldn't worry about it, online dating requires relatively thick skin if you start to care about it too much. Now I just expect no one I message to respond, and when they do it's a bonus

That pretty much describes my attitude too, DrC, and I'm a woman.

I'll put a little bit of effort into the message (if I'm honest, probably more effort the more I like the guy's profile), then send it. If I hear back, great. If not, no worries. I don't take it as a personal sleight, we all respond to different things in a potential date, all have different things going on in our lives when a message drops into the inbox that might make us skip it. I find that if I don't take it too seriously I enjoy it much more.

Pintman Paddy Losty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you make a decision to avoid potentially wasted time, then you don't need to make any unwarranted negative judgements about someone in order to do that.

I've only come to the decision that its a waste of time based on the judgement I made based on them not having a photo. If I came to the conclusion that people with no pictures were all stunners, I'd message them all.

You strike me as the type of person who never ever, under any circumstances admits that they're wrong. You're clearly wrong in this instance. Your argument is total nonsense. You're a beaten docket at this stage. Pack it in mate.

ibarelycare

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I've directly seen friends/acquaintances display the types of attitudes I'm talking about, so while just anecdotal, it's not based on nothing - and most of the posters in this thread, have given up denying the effect at this stage, they are only trying to downplay the extent of it...

So you think that everyone here actually agrees with your hypothesis but is just in denial?

smash

Zachariah Swift Marrow wrote: »

So you're arguing that people who do certain things are acquiring negative traits, that those traits will feed out general society, and you're backing that up with nothing except a general feeling you have that it makes sense, based on your previous experience of the world?

An ugly girl was in my way at the bar one evening so I swiped left across her face but she didn't move. The fookin cheek of her!

maudgonner

smash wrote: »

An ugly girl was in my way at the bar one evening so I swiped left across her face but she didn't move. The fookin cheek of her!

Could have been worse. If she was a stunner and you'd swiped right but she got an awful thick attitude with you for no good reason.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

smash wrote: »

An ugly girl was in my way at the bar one evening so I swiped left across her face but she didn't move. The fookin cheek of her!

Lookit, if I've learned anything from Tinder, it's that we should round up people with no profile pictures and put them into some sort of camp. Having a profile picture that's a landscape should also result in some sort of punishment. Group picture so nobody knows you're the funny looking one means you're not allowed to own property any more.

Lyaiera

Zachariah Swift Marrow wrote: »

Lookit, if I've learned anything from Tinder, it's that we should round up people with no profile pictures and put them into some sort of camp. Having a profile picture that's a landscape should also result in some sort of punishment. Group picture so nobody knows you're the funny looking one means you're not allowed to own property any more.

What do you mean we "should." It's already happening. Dating sites have profoundly changed the world, and now there's no-one with question marks for a face left.