Not really. Sure, the tech has changed, but the underlying logic remains the same.

Elmo should run Arch

Relevant

Why is this in a shitpost sub? This is awesome!!

K. Imma just go with “you’re high”.

Jfc, are you high? Revenge on who? Women who won’t date you? Should all the women you won’t date try to get revenge on you, too? If a crazy methhead with no teeth wants you to fuck her, and you refuse, do you think she is entitled to seek revenge on you?

People have their preferences on who they want to date. These preferences are not nearly as strong as some parts of the internet want you to believe, but they exist, they are legitimate, and anyone is free to have whatever preferences they want, and you cannot change them.

If there is any cope here, it is yours, imagining that your line of thinking is going to lead you to any kind of favorable outcome. Ask yourself what you want. Do you want to to feel like everyone is against you and is treating you poorly for reasons beyond your control, so you can keep playing out childish revenge fantasies in your head? Or do you wanna touch some boobies? Because you are welcome to choose either one - but they are fairly mutually exclusive

Please refer to my other comment about how tiktok is an unreliable source for this information. Even if we assume that these women are expressing a geniune opinion (and not just generating ragebait to garner followers and monetization), then the algorithm will boost their videos because it knows it will make you angry and therefore more likely to keep scrolling.

How many actual black girls have you seen express this opinion on Tiktok? Let’s say 10,000. I will also assume that all of them and you are located in the united states. Maybe only 1% of the population of black women are motivated enough to make a video about this opinion and post it on tiktok. So 1 million american black women don’t want to date black men. There are 50 million black people in America -> 25 million black women. So if 1 million black women wont date black men, then 24 million will.

You are taking an intentionally distorted lense for reality and making it your whole worldview.

Now, to your object level question of “do mixed girls (or indian girls, or whatever) not like black guys?” And the answer is yeah, some of them don’t like black guys. Some of them are explicitly racist. Some of them just have an implicit preference that reveals itself in the set of people they have previously dated. But guess what? That doesn’t matter for you, because if you’re black, they won’t date you. Your job is to go out and find the women who will date you, and forget about the ones who won’t.

Seriously, you’ve fallen into the most common trap in male dating - finding some unchangeable part of yourself and declaring that this is the reason women won’t date you, and then looking for as much evidence as possible to reinforce your position so you can wallow in your sense of unfairness and blame the world for not getting you a date, rather than getting off your ass and making yourself the kind of person more women want to date.

Do you want to feel validated? Okay, I will validate you - YES! It is true that being black is a statistical disadvantage in the dating market. Everyone wants to date up the race-status totem pole (statistically) so if you are white you will get more interest than if you are latino, and if you are latino you will get more interest than if you are black, all things being equal. But being black doesn’t make you special in your statistical dating disadvantage. Go talk to asian guys, fat guys, bald guys, short guys, guys with no money, guys without cars, guys who grew up in bad home, guys with small dicks, autistic guys, guys who are virgins, skinny guys, dumb guys, ginger guys, guys with speach impediments, guys with depression, guys with small hands, guys with missing limbs, etc, etc, etc - they are at a statistical disadvantage, too. And yet, guys in every one of these categories are going out every day and touching boobs. Your knee jerk reaction will probably be to say that their feeling that no women want to date them is ridiculous, while yours is legitimate. And yet, the way you can look at a bald guy and think about how it’s no big deal because Vin Diesel is hot is the same way that a bald guy will look st you and think how it’s no big deal to be black because Kanye West is hot. You are both right - these intrinsic factors that you are fixated on are really not the big deal you are making them out to be, and your actual problem is that you aren’t hitting the gym, putting on a nice shirt, and talking to more girls.

Seriously, think of you. Now think of you, but you have a job you love that pulls in 7 figures, a ton of friends who are doing amazing things with their lives, and you’re jacked. Imagine you look at yourself in the mirror every morning and think “goddamn I look good!” and you go to sleep every night looking forward to how fantastic and fun the next day will be. Now tell me that that imagined version of yourself is not more attractive to women than the current version of you. And if you agree with that, then you would also agree that between your current self and your imagined self, there are innumerable intermediate selves, and they are also more attractive to women than this current version of yourself. And so every step you take towards achieving that version of yourself is making you more attractive to more women.

And if you think that vision for you is bullshit - if you think that making lots of money is a betrayal of the spirit of the proletariat, or that getting in shape is stupid and shallow. Great! Fine. I don’t care and it doesn’t affect my point. Just think of the person you wish you were - do you wish you were a chef who owned his own restaurant? Do you wish you could go running in the mountains every day? Do you wish that you were a philosopher, working on a book that would shape the world? Do you wish you ran an anarchist commune/CSA that was slowly winning seats in your local city council? Because all of those guys are also more attractive to women than current-you.

So stop cry-jerking to how unfair it is that women won’t date you because you’re black, and go be a guy who is self-actuallizing, which is what women actually want

No, the internet kind of represents how some people feel.

Tiktok, for example, intentionally shows you ragebait videos because it knows this will keep you engaged in its content. It knows if it shows you “x race of women will never date you” content, then you will keep scrolling. So if just a handful of the 8 billion people in the world make a video like this, the algorithm promotes these videos, and it appears to be a common position.

But even before ragebait promoting algorithms, the internet still wasn’t a good place to find reliable information about who people want to date. Because while everyone is on the internet, the people who write comments and create memes and make videos are, always have been, and always will be a small minority. Most people just scroll a little on tiktok to see cat videos, and occasionally make an IG post about the nice vacation they went on. The people who are on the internet day and night producing most of the content that you’ll see are not healthy people. They are weirdos who are addicted to the internet, who are largely avoiding going out into the real world, who become paranoid doomers (like you) because the only way they communicate with others is through a screen.

And even when fairly normal people write a comment on a video or something, that still isnt a good representation of how a normal person really feels because you are seeing a one dimensional representation of this person at a single moment in time on the internet, which we know can easily being out everyone’s most judgemental and trashiest self. But human beings are complex, and very few of them would really stand behind every comment theyve ever written on the internet if you asked them in real life.

The internet is not a reliable source here.

boobs

Meatless Mondays happened. It’s definitely possible to ration meat.

Confused. I remember this being a volutary phenomenon with individual participation. Maybe a few university cafeterias participated. Not a government mandate for no meat sales on Mondays.

It would need to be a weekly dividend,

I’ve only ever been paid monthly or bimonthly, ut whatever. This is a nuts and bolts issue, and doesnt impact the actual concept.

government shutdowns,

Don’t do that. No other country does that.

landlord

Fun fact - land value taxes are even better for prompting markets to build additional housing! I also have a whole spiel on urban land use reform, but that’s for another time.

every grocery store would raise the prices of meat alternatives

Under reasonable market conditions, yes, there might be a brief price increase when the policy went into effect - especially if rollout were not handled appropriately. But the nice thing about markets is that high prices prompt more competition - if veggie burgers cost $0.15 to make and sell for $15 because there is a shortage, it won’t be long before competitors enter the market and flood it with cheaper alternatives.

Under reasonable market conditions. I’m aware that there is some reasonable suspicion of price collusion happeing between national grocery suppliers, and that should be dealt with. But it should be dealt with regardless of the policy I’m proposing.

price controls, rent controls,

Absolutely not. This would be taking a sound economic policy and then blowing up the economy with objectively bad economic policy. Markets only work when prices can change in response to market conditions. If you have a shortage of something like housing or veggie burgers which is distorting the market, you want to incentivize the creation of more of it (while identifying and elimiating - within reason - barriers to production). Price controls do the opposite, worsening shortages. You want high prices to bring more sellers to the market

it’s more complicated

I mean, this is true of everything, is it not?

I’m slightly exaggerating, but it would absolutely empower reactionary conspiracy theories and give them ammunition to draw disaffected poor whites into their echo chambers. There’s already a persistent conspiracy theory that the (((global elites))) are conspiring to stop white people from eating meat (to make them weaker and less masculine) and this would just empower them.

I fail to see how your counterproposal to outright ban meat would not lead to this same scenario (probably faster).

Also, you’re ignoring the option to provide a divedend (monthly, if you like) to citizens from the tax revenue to offset increased meat prices. With the dividend, the poor would be largely unaffected, and mostly the result would be the middle class reducing their meat consumption from excessive to moderate.

Also also, you keep talking about how this scheme bans poor people from eating meat. But I have to say, this reminds me of the criticism that gas taxes hurt poor people since now they have to pay more for gas - ignoring the fact that many poor people simply don’t drive cars, because they are too poor to afford them. And so a gas tax spent on improving transit ends up helping the poorest, because what people need is transportation, not cheap gas.

Also also also, if this sort of scheme were ever implemented, I highly doubt it would result in widespread food riots like you see in a developing nation when they are literally starving in the streets. Worst case, it would result in the people who implemented it being voted out of office and having the policy rolled back. And with a dividend program and a gradual pricing rollout, this would be even less likely.

It doesnt seem that complicated. The government gave people free money during covid just fine. Could be a monthly dividend

there would be a break even point somewhere around lower middle class where the dividend recieved would be greater than the increased price of meat

I don’t think I said that? But using price incentives allows people to make the choice between spending their money on the same amount of a now more expensive good, or to change their behavior somehow. Hence, a poor person who previously ate beef every day has a number of options such as eating beef only on certain days of the week, eating a smaller portion of beef each day, or eating a less expensive kind of meat.

If we recognize that meat production has negative externalities, then to reduce these externalities we need to reduce meat production, which will necessarily reduce meat consumption. Above you seemed to be implying that the ideal solution would be cessation of meat production entirely - which I have to point out, would also result in poor people being unable to eat meat. So, are you defending the right of the poor to eat meat, or do you want to take the meat off their plates?

Really I assume that what you are getting at is economic fairness, which is not something I bothered mentioning because it didn’t seem relevant to the point I was making. But anyway - pigouvian tax schemes are often paired with social benefits. The government uses the taxes raised to either facilitate the social change it wants to create (eg, using a carbon tax to fund transit improvements) or returns the funds to citizens directly as a dividend which offsets the cost of the increased price of goods (in this case, there would be a break even point somewhere around lower middle class where the dividend recieved would be greater than the increased price of meat).

If we stopped hurting animals

So you’re saying “if everyone went vegan/vegetarian…” And I have a lot of doubt about the practical viability of this plan. People have been eating animals longer than we’ve had money or governments… or fire. So I’m betting it would be a bit of a tough habit to break. Development of affordable lab-grown meat could go a long way - but my bet is that there will be subtle (or not so subtle) differences between lab grown and real meat for quite a while, and there would be an indefinite market (maybe luxury, maybe just middle class) for real meat for the forseeable future.

Hence, rather than relying on people to voluntarily reduce meat consumption (they won’t) or applying heavy-handed and clumsy tactics (banning meat, deciding who or what is worthy of meat and when), we simply apply a price signal and reasonable regulations. The animals live relatively happy lives in reasonable and sanitary conditions. Then one day they wander down a hallway and are popped in the forehead with a bolt, and that’s it. Then the levers of prices can be pulled to gradually push peoples choices in long-term pro-social directions - gradually reducing meat consumption over time in whatever way makes sense to them, while wild land increases and carbon emissions decrease.

This is true. But at the same time, the tradeoff I think more about isn’t pasture versus crop land, but pasture and crop land versus wild land. Personally, I really enjoy eating meat, and have no problem with its production in general. But I also think that we should reserve far more land for nature.

Imo, a good way to strike the balance is via pigouvian taxes. First, of course, a carbon tax. Animal agriculture creates a lot of carbon, so higher prices would drive consumers to lower-carbon alternatives. Then a land value tax - the trick would be deciding how much the intrinsic beauty of nature and access to it by the public is worth - but once we figure out a decent number, the scheme should work quite well. If you want to farm/ranch, you aren’t allowed to use up everyone else’s nature for free. Either generate enough money to pay the public back for using their nature, or bounce. And of course, better rules and oversight for animal welfare - I wanna eat meat, not meat produced with unnecessary suffering.

This combination of approaches would reduce meat consumption and land use in a fair and ethical way, while still not being overbearing or playing favorites by doing things like banning x or y. Unfortunately, this is very much a pipe dream - at least in the US right now, as we have, umm… more pressing issues.

As far as penetrative sex - I strongly suggest not knocking it til you’ve tried it. Maybe you’ll try it and find you really like it. Maybe you’ll find you actually enjoy going hard and fast. Who knows? I didn’t know I would like choking girls until my first girlfriend asked me to do it.

Anyway, to answer your actual question - you can’t really put these sexual preferences on a dating profile or wear them on a t shirt. So the solution to your problem is to just go on lots of dates with lots of different people until you find someone who is sexually compatible with you. As far as I’m concerned, you’re just a normal guy who likes getting and giving head more than he likes fucking. No prob. Even if you and a partner end up not being compatible, it’s hard for someone to be bitter with you when you just gave them good head.