Tinder The Really Hard Truth About Girls

[hairblues]

Thanks for sharing.

Most of what you posted is consistent with what I wrote. There are times in your life where your looks helped, other times it didn't. In some sectors of your industry it helps more than in others.

The experience you had in music very plausibly helped with your self-confidence, skills, connections, et cetera and contributed to you getting into film and succeeding at it.

You did add that some older women can be hostile to younger, more attractive women and create professional problems for them. That's true. I've heard of similar situations from other people, so it's probably common.


I make an effort to be specific in my posts so as not to go beyond my area of knowledge.

I wrote older women can be hostile? where did i write that?

 

[hairblues]

I don't think David 'thinks he knows it all' at all. The fact is he was just better informed than you about the issues with the potential Clinton presidency. I don't mean that as an insult or anything and I'll happily admit that I know next to nothing about politics myself - hence why I don't get involved. David was actually showing you a lot of respect to take the time out to bother to research his argument and present it to you in a lucid and readable manner. He could easily have just fobbed you off with a couple of BS anecdotes or some dubiously-source fake news article to shut down the debate right there. But no, he dug up his actual sources and gave you the option of inspecting the material for yourself. Sadly, you chose not to engage with them at all, or worse, you simply didn't have the brainpower to actually understand what they were saying. Either way @hairblues , make no mistake, it was you who insulted @David_MPN here and not the other way around.

I am talking about the film industry and my personal experiences when i say these guys can be know it alls...not the politics

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I wrote older women can be hostile? where did i write that?

Fair enough, you didn't write "old", I inferred it, but it's not hinted nor stated.

 

[hairblues]

Fair enough, you didn't write "old", I inferred it, but it's not reasonably hinted.

And THIS is why i call you a know it all

The woman was if not my own age she may have been a few years younger even..

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

And THIS is why i call you a know it all

The woman was if not my own age she may have been a few years younger even..

I acknowledged the error the moment I saw it.

 

[hairblues]

@David_MPN this

It's because women usually have no incentive to accomplish great things in life: like making good movies or becoming a political figure.

Unless they're ugly.

Women who are decent-looking to hot don't do these things because they just don't have to.

No one is keeping any woman from achieving her dreams, at least in the West.

Is really what i am responding to be honest...this is first thing that i made my posts too

I dont agree with this and to me this is stupidity and its amazing that someone with his Masters in Politics--this is his arguments

Good looks in society is different subject to what i am addressing--this sh*t that he wrote is what i was addressing with my work experience in film industry.

Its bullshit.

 

[SmoothSailing]

It's well known that better looking people get career advantages.

Although I would say that in terms of the many advantages being attractive gives you, furthering your career (in skilled areas) is down on the list. What I mean is that in certain areas career can be one of the most fair places for unattractive people. Mostly in careers where you don't have to deal with people. Doesn't matter how ugly a guy you are if you can write code well you can get a high paying job. I see a lot of ugly guys in my work moving on up in the ranks, buying BMW's and stuff.

In the last place I worked there were some overweight, ugly, single 30 year olds who put their entire life focus on their work. A bit sad but I guess it works for them. Anyways my point was that in terms of unfair discrimination against ugly people, skilled careers aren't high on the list in my opinion.

You also have to remember there are other reasons ugly people do worse. Life is harder in general which can lead to lack of motivation and stuff like that.

Managerial positions usually are about dealing with people and thus will always discriminate against the ugly though.

 

[nameless]

ADAM WALINSKY, who was a speechwriter for the Kennedy brothers in the 1960s, endorsed Trump for president. The basis of that endorsement was that Hillary Clinton would pursue military confrontation with Russia. It's a long, well-written, detailed endorsement in case anybody is interested in the issues brought up earlier.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270

In general, these concerns were not widely discussed in mainstream corporate media, such as the Washington Post. They did show up a lot in the alt-left and alt-right media.

So you're saying that Mr. Walinsky voted for Trump because Mr. Walinsky wants a President who won't stand up to Russia, right? Doesn't that make Mr. Walinsky a coward? Doesn't this mean that Mr. Walinsky would rather give the bully his lunch money than stand up to the bully because standing up to the bully is such a scary prospect.

Mr. Walinsky needs to stop shaking in his boots.

Putin is NOT going to go all WW3 just because someone stands up to him. Look at how upset Russia got when Turkey shot down one of Russian's fighter jets, killing a Russian soldier in the process. Russia talked a lot of bluster but ultimately all they did was some sanctions against Turkey. And Turkey took a hard line on the matter for a long time and all Putin did was sanctions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/middleeast/warplane-crashes-near-syria-turkey-border/

Turkey didn't soften its' position for about 6 months. And Turkey only softened its' position because OTHER nervous NATO nations pressured Turkey to make nice-nice with Russia since the other NATO nations were worried war could break out with Russia over the incident. But months were going by and war was not breaking out with Russia so the other NATO nations shouldn't have hassled Turkey about the matter. The other NATO nations should have gotten tougher on Russia instead. Instead of scolding Turkey, the other NATO nations should have followed Turkey's lead.

Russia sounded like a bully turned crybaby during that period. Russia sounded weak. Putin sounded like he was pouting for months because Turkey wouldn't apologize. There were times I literally chuckled at how weak Putin sounded.

https://meduza.io/en/news/2015/11/26/vladimir-putin-wants-an-apology-and-compensation-from-turkey

Putin flouts international law and bullies NATO nations but when Turkey stood up to him and shot one of his jets down all Putin could do was cry about Turkey violating international law and Turkey's refusal to apologize. Wah, wah.

And about a year ago Turkey was shelling into Syria and hitting Russian backed Kurds and even hitting close to one of Russia's bases in Syria. Russia blustered a lot but they did not make war on Turkey. Turkey took a hard line in the matter and kept shelling despite Russia's bluster. Russia did not act. All Russia did was bluster and complain to other NATO members because Turkey basically gave Russia the finger. LOL!

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...helling+inside+Syria+despite+Russian+warnings

And Clinton's plan to stand up to Russia was discussed in the mainstream media and it was discussed at the much watched presidential debates. And Clinton was still way ahead in the polls until the increased patient costs with Obamacare became public along with the Comey FBI letter.

And now we have Trump, and he will suck up to Putin even MORE than Obama, the EU, and NATO have done thus far.

Turkey is the only nation that had the guts to stand up to Russia and Russia did nothing in response but some sanctions and some bellyaching.

 

[hairblues]

Although I would say that in terms of the many advantages being attractive gives you, furthering your career (in skilled areas) is down on the list. What I mean is that in certain areas career can be one of the most fair places for unattractive people. Mostly in careers where you don't have to deal with people. Doesn't matter how ugly a guy you are if you can write code well you can get a high paying job. I see a lot of ugly guys in my work moving on up in the ranks, buying BMW's and stuff.

In the last place I worked there were some overweight, ugly, single 30 year olds who put their entire life focus on their work. A bit sad but I guess it works for them. Anyways my point was that in terms of unfair discrimination against ugly people, skilled careers aren't high on the list in my opinion.

You also have to remember there are other reasons ugly people do worse. Life is harder in general which can lead to lack of motivation and stuff like that.

Managerial positions usually are about dealing with people and thus will always discriminate against the ugly though.

Exactly and in film making (I'm not talking about producers in Ivory towers or the suits) actual film makers you have to have skill set and talent to bring to the table no one gives a f*** about looks if you are not in front of the camera.

At least not any more less than normal society...but if you cant pull your weight--bye

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

@David_MPN this



Is really what i am responding to be honest...this is first thing that i made my posts too

I dont agree with this and to me this is stupidity and its amazing that someone with his Masters in Politics--this is his arguments

Good looks in society is different subject to what i am addressing--this sh*t that he wrote is what i was addressing with my work experience in film industry.

Its bullshit.

How did you like the pilot episode of Dr. House?

Dr. House tells Dr. Allison Cameron (Jennifer Morrison) why she was hired, out of all the different people he had the option to hire. She was hired because she's beautiful. Dr. House tells her that if she's willing to work hard in spite of not needing to, then she's definitely motivated.

As for Fred's comment, I agree with the trend but I don't think his language is too extreme. I think it's true that beautiful women have the option of taking it easy. That doesn't mean they'll always or regularly take it -- if they're ambitious or creatively inclined they'll want more, the fulfilment of an interesting career for example.

In general however, the most attractive women I know tend to work hard. There are many reasons why that could be.

 

[hairblues]

How did you like the pilot episode of Dr. House?

Dr. House tells Dr. Allison Cameron (Jennifer Morrison) why she was hired, out of all the different people he had the option to hire. She was hired because she's beautiful. Dr. House tells her that if she's willing to work hard in spite of not needing to, then she's definitely motivated.

As for Fred's comment, I agree with the trend but I don't think his language is too extreme. I think it's true that beautiful women have the option of taking it easy. That doesn't mean they'll always or regularly take it -- if they're ambitious or creatively inclined they'll want more, the fulfilment of an interesting career for example.

In general however, the most attractive women I know tend to work hard. There are many reasons why that could be.

I never watched House..

I can only speak to my own professions...i cant speak to corporate America or international jobs.

My profession you sink or you swim based on what you can deliver.

Unless you Father is head of a union or something which is nepotism---whole other ball game.

 

[Patrick_Bateman]

How did you like the pilot episode of Dr. House?

Dr. House tells Dr. Allison Cameron (Jennifer Morrison) why she was hired, out of all the different people he had the option to hire. She was hired because she's beautiful. Dr. House tells her that if she's willing to work hard in spite of not needing to, then she's definitely motivated.

As for Fred's comment, I agree with the trend but I don't think his language is too extreme. I think it's true that beautiful women have the option of taking it easy. That doesn't mean they'll always or regularly take it -- if they're ambitious or creatively inclined they'll want more, the fulfilment of an interesting career for example.

In general however, the most attractive women I know tend to work hard. There are many reasons why that could be.

f***, I love House. Have you seen the episode where House, James, and Chase go to a speed dating event and they bet that Chase will get the most numbers no matter how he acts?
Chase acts like a complete loser and proceeds to get the numbers of every girl in the event.

 

[nameless]

I'm really thankful that there are users like Fred and David. Their flawless logic and realism are always refreshing, especially when I'm forced to read so much crap by good looking guys and women.

Translation: David and FredTheDutchman are both extremist right-wingers and you're an extremist right-winger so you agree with them and like them.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

f***, I love House. Have you seen the episode where House, James, and Chase go to a speed dating event and they bet that Chase will get the most numbers no matter how he acts?
Chase acts like a complete loser and proceeds to get the numbers of every girl in the event.

I've only watched the first two or three episodes lol, but that one sounds smart.

 

[nameless]

Large swaths of the US media portray every conflict as good against evil, which explains nameless' "thinking" on the issue. At any given point, there is a "new Hitler" in the media: Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Col. Ghadaffi, Bashar Assad, and now Vladimir Putin.

What never enters the public debate is the most obvious thing: that these struggles come down to competing national interests.

In the case of Ukraine, Russia wants access to Sevastopol and doesn't want NATO troops and weapons closer to the Russian border. The USA, however, wants access to Sevastopol and wants NATO troops and weapons closer to the Russian border. That's one of the driving considerations here.

No David, it does not explain my thinking. My thinking is based on the facts. I comprehend it when a journalist is editorializing and I disregard that part of the article, whether the article supports the left position or the right position. I simply gather the facts in the article and come to my own conclusions.

Now we know what explains my thinking - I only gather the facts from an article and then I form my own conclusions.

OTOH, I can't figure out where your thinking comes from.

(1) For example, YOU claim that Obama "ruined" the economy even though the economy is NOT "ruined" So where does your thinking come from in this matter?

(2) In another example, you fault Obama for ruining Mexico but WTF are you talking about? What did Obama do to Mexico? Where does your thinking come from in this matter?

 

[nameless]

In the case of Ukraine, Russia wants access to Sevastopol and doesn't want NATO troops and weapons closer to the Russian border. The USA, however, wants access to Sevastopol and wants NATO troops and weapons closer to the Russian border. That's one of the driving considerations here.

Yes David, there are strategic considerations for both Russia and the USA in Ukraine. You are correct about that. The USA wants NATO closer to Russia and Russia wants NATO further from Russia.

BUT THESE TWO FACTS ARE ONLY TWO PARTS OF THE EQUATION.

You're not including the part that Ukraine has made ITS' choice and ITS' choice is to turn toward the EU and the USA. Do you believe that the Ukraine people should be allowed to make their own choice or should Russia's strategic interests (not wanting NATO troops in Ukraine) outweigh the Ukraine people's choice and the Ukraine people should have to be a vassel (slave state) of Russia, since that is what Russia wants?

In a nutshell I'm asking this - should the Ukraine people be allowed to pick their own destiny or should the Ukraine be forced to be a slave of Russia?

AND THERE'S ANOTHER FACT YOU'RE NOT INCLUDING DAVID:

If the Ukraine people decided that they wanted to cozy-up to Russia instead of the EU/USA we in USA/EU would not invade Crimea and steal Crimea. We would not invade Eastern Ukraine and steal Eastern Ukraine. We would not terrorize the Ukraine landscape and destroy their country.

UNLIKE RUSSIA, WE WOULD LET THE UKRAINE PEOPLE FOLLOW WHATEVER PATH THEY SELECT.

 

[Patrick_Bateman]

@nameless

 

[nameless]

@nameless

Hey Patrick, your darling Trump might not get to kiss Putin's *** because there are some republicans who might join the democrats and prevent Trump from sucking up to Putin. Let's see if Tillerson is confirmed for SOS.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...isagrees-with-trump-1473351085-htmlstory.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.7112fbcf5c61

And finally, this article is from Breitbart, and I'm sure you know who Breitbart is:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/putin-foe-mccain-could-emerge-as-bulwark-against-trump/

 

[nameless]

Ironically, one thing I learned during my master is that:

Right wing: always bad.

Left wing: always good.

When I wrote papers, I knew I had to cater to my teachers who were all leftists.

Then I did my internship in a leftist party.

I saw them for the hypocrites they were firsthand.

So yeah, again, I know what I'm talking about.

It's the same for the right-wingers. There's hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle.
You don't notice the right-wing hypocrisy because you're one of them and you conduct the same hypocrisy.

And BTW those professors you badmouth - they're intelligent. That's how they got to be professors.

 

[nameless]

Large swaths of the US media portray every conflict as good against evil, which explains nameless' "thinking" on the issue. At any given point, there is a "new Hitler" in the media: Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Col. Ghadaffi, Bashar Assad, and now Vladimir Putin.

Most of those creeps you mentioned didn't/don't have sufficient power to do more than regional harm. That is not the case with Putin. Among those you've cited, Putin stands alone as having the power to actually become a real Hitler.