Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
@E3_441672
If you want to criticize someone or something you need to be more clear.
You really need to take your own advice, dude.
@dongonzor
I'm by definition the exact opposite of a troll. I don't care about the feelings of others. Neither as evidence for what they're saying nor after I have disagreed with them. It's always good to be polite, but not at the expense of the subject matter.
You sacrifice a lot of SM quality by how giddily you attempt, and fail, to explain it. It's good to be elaborate, but not at your expense of clarity, the price we pay for your frankly ridiculous excess wordiness.
@JaybeeInGWM
The only time ever I've seen someone be this ceremonious on an Internet forum and so enamored with his totally fabricated and flamboyantly emotional interpretations of the situation was when the said person was openly gay.
(Yawns)
Still the only thing he said in his "voluminous exchange" was a power fantasy of being able to computationally predict fetishes. I said that's nonsense. I explained why it's nonsense. He ignored it. Then he said nothing. Or maybe he threatened me with starting this "poor zarkle and high and mighty me" wank. And then he did.
Again...referring to me, the 1st/2nd person, in the third whilst addressing me directly doesn't add the intellectual lustre you're clearly craving. It just makes you seem like (even more of) a headcase, frankly.
Going back to subject matter, your failure point is that you keep stating we can't. I didn't say we could; my stance is that we WILL be able to. Your rather unscientific lack of vision won't stop the progress of technology. Thankfully. :)
Click your username at the top of the page to open a menu, select "Account settings", go to the subpage called "Block users", type "zarklephaser4", click "Block user" and your troubles are gone.
THERE. You've just shown you're capable of concise, precise and relevant answers. Err towards that, and you'll have a LOT few detractors.
@fbbnuts
What you seem to have in common is that you booth look for attention.
Every time someone has replied to this thread I first expect problems. I've been accused of everything, including many contrary things, but it's true that I'd rather run a blog than constantly see these smears, personal attacks, denials, bad theories and other off topic stuff.
@JaybeeInGWM
You really need to take your own advice, dude.
Case in point here. When people come to this discussion to talk shit they never substantiate anything. If JaybeeInGWM had been serious here, he would have explained how you can know, from what E3_441672 said, what he intended. But you really can't. So he made it into yet another "yeah, fuck you zarkle".
Again, I've been very detailed and specific in my responses and criticisms. So what he's saying has nothing to do with anything anyone has really said or done. It's just a "fuck you" for the sake of a "fuck you". The opposite of valid criticism or turning tables on someone.
I think he is behaving like an utter shitface, absolutely on purpose. The only thing he has done for many messages now is to simply try to come up with as many insults and defamatory fantasies as possible.
I have to wonder if he himself was lied to overtly and covertly...
This is like I suddenly said that "maybe everyone disagrees with me because they were repeatedly molested when they were kids". This is the level he's dragging this down to.
If E3_441672's words were taken literally, he would be criticizing about everyone else except me. But in this situation the easy assumption is that he just joined the noisy crowd. Though I'm not sure at all, and that's why I said what I said.
doesn't add the intellectual lustre you're clearly craving.
I did not know I was "addressing him directly", so what does the "intellectual lustre I'm clearly craving" have to do with it? Am I clearly craving something else I don't know about? Or is JaybeeInGWM just running his mouth?
Your rather unscientific lack of vision...
Science and vision are incompatible concepts. Science means the sum total of valid and verified observations we have now. Vision means the human fantasy of what we might be able to potentially observe, without being able to say yet how. But the problem here is that what he suggests we could some day observe contains so many undefined things and ambiguities and wrong assumptions that he is effectively saying nothing. But as a general rule if it's science then it's not a vision, and vice versa.
It's a power fantasy of getting into everyone's brains, you and me included. We will some day be just puppets of his fantasy science, betrayed by our genes that told his computers that if someone flashed you a female bicep on a certain day in your youth, you would forever be turned on by it.
So basically he's engaged in furious and delusional one-upmanship. I pretend to know some general outlines about how human psychology and reason operate and then apply these to the question. He pretends to present some kind of ultimate deterministic knowledge about a thing that isn't even deterministic.
What I am saying is that this fetish or attraction is like some strange type of beer. You're not genetically disposed to it. But you might like it when you first encounter it. Then you might sometimes decide to have one. Or you might become addicted. Or you might be able to change your attitude and circumstances, find better beers and better things to do and kick your addiction.
All people are tempted. All people have some amount of willpower. All people struggle with something.
More than anything, I think Bruce K. Alexander's addiction studies with rats are relevant here. People with functioning social relationships are less prone to addictions, fetishes and fantasies. Being part of an anonymous crowd or a customer base or a club is not necessarily a social relationship.
The anthropological definition of a fetish is that a thing is invested with power it does not naturally and in and of itself have. Muscular women are definitely capable of some things by the virtue of their muscles, but human sexuality always depends on investment and interpretation too.
To pretend that some day science or computing or whatever could not only observe but predict or cause something like this is just absurd. And off topic too. Technology literally means the ability or skill to manufacture stuff. Maybe it's possible to manufacture emotions in some limited sense. Just have a beer and you will know. But how do you expect to manufacture emotional investment and interpretations? Or even force a person to first have a certain emotion, then invest in it and then interpret it in a certain way?
I am absolutely sure JaybeeInGWM didn't think through anything. Then lost his mind when I called him out on it. That totally defaced him and now he's returning the favor, which perfectly explains everything he has said recently. In reality he's just doing it with all his might, but in fantasy I "gave him ammunition", so I kind of "caused" or "deserved" it or "had it coming" or whatever.
"@fbbnuts
What you seem to have in common is that you booth look for attention.
Every time someone has replied to this thread I first expect problems. I've been accused of everything, including many contrary things, but it's true that I'd rather run a blog than constantly see these smears, personal attacks, denials, bad theories and other off topic stuff."
Nicely cut but thats what I expected. I never talked about a blog but you rather run one than see all of this, but yet you somehow seem to feel the urge to look at it, and react to it?
Its nice that you educate us but what's in it for you and at what costs?
Anyhow now its time to look at some GWM as thats why im on this site
Zarkle (I almost never type out a username, this is the first time in YEARS) - get help. I can't put it any simpler.
Nicely cut but thats what I expected. I never talked about a blog but you rather run one than see all of this, but yet you somehow seem to feel the urge to look at it, and react to it?
Why does it matter that you never talked about a blog? I did. And never claimed you did.
I "somehow seem to feel the urge to look at it"? Why single out me? Doesn't everyone who comes back to read this "feel the urge to look at it"? And even react to it. This is a forum. We're all guilty of using this.
Its nice that you educate us but what's in it for you and at what costs?
The educating is all in your head. People who explain roids to other who are clearly unaware of them, are they "educating" others too?
Seems to me that the average user here or the average person on the streets does not read books anymore. Or even articles. They neither think about things anymore. And neither do they create memos or notes on the things they read or think about. So what would be normal behavior for any academic or researcher, or any person a hundred years ago, is somehow a problem for a self-learned person today.
There are discussions on the Internet where some person rages at the topic, without contributing anything to it. In this case I think it would be valid to psychoanalyze them or dig into their motives, either to help them or make them stop or make their behavior less painful for others. Even in this case the focus is on, or at least it should be, on their effect on the discussion and what motivates their resistance to the topic.
What is happening here is completely different. My motives are none of your business as long as I remain on topic. My hobbies or sexual feelings, other than those that concern women and muscle, should never be your business. You (plural) are out of line. Your (plural) behavior makes no sense and has ulterior motives. Such as here:
I almost never type out a username
Oh how special you must be. And how special I must be to you.
@Zarkle
Science and vision are incompatible concepts. Science means the sum total of valid and verified observations we have now. Vision means the human fantasy of what we might be able to potentially observe, without being able to say yet how.
Science and vision are absolutely compatible. We realize our “vision” by applying “science”. So, your long winded diatribe is ill conceived. How else would anything ever have been invented? I could bore you with endless metaphors to reinforce my point but that’s more your thing.
Your word salad belies your intolerance for dissent, and the unending need you have to always prove your right about everything, even on the smaller points, by parsing ideas into the tiniest of particles to be rearranged to suit your point, even when you are actually wrong. This, incidentally, is why you seem to be loathed by many on this thread. Of course you won’t ever see yourself that way. Guess that’s your personal “charm”?
Having said the above, I agree with your larger point as I can’t see how AI or any program can ever predict with complete accuracy how a human will behave, for the same reason AI can produce a decent story but not one as authentic as one produced by a human. But who knows, maybe Elon’s nuerolink will accomplish such a feat? If humans shared your lack of vision then I suppose we’d still be wiping our ass with our hands.
But reading the argument between you two is as entertaining as when Shylock demanded his pound of flesh from Antonio in the Merchant of Venice. Thanks for the laughs!
I understand. Now math majors are gay too. This is probably why they're considered so boring. They wish to keep secret their orgies where they ram each other round the clock for two days straight with the help of speed and Viagra.
Apparently you don’t get anything at all. Please explain how you make the acrobatic link between me pointing out that you are reducing a woman’s curves to a math equation and all mathematicians being gay? This is a great example of how you take a fraction of a thought and twist it to make it work for your own narrow minded purposes. You’d make a great propaganda Chief for Putin with your gift for re-coloring the truth. When you called my post original you were actually conceding it was true.
People sometimes say that men who like muscular women must be gay. Now you're saying men who are not attracted to muscular women must be gay? Because how else could you object to curves?
Did you actually use the “people say” explanation?? “People say”???!!! People say???!!! Remember what you said in response to another user who tried to apply the ridiculous and unsound “people say” argument? I believe it was something to the effect of, people say that a lizard king rules Mars! People say the moon is made of cheese! People say I’m the President of the USA! Jeez did you get your wisdom from Trump U? That’s actually a very Trumpian tactic. Say anything that helps you until it doesn’t and then backpedal and call out your opponent for doing the same. You’ve been exposed dude. Your do as I say not as I do rationale is just so hilarious. It’s not very valid for a mind as great as yours and utterly unscientific, unless your name is Trump or Goebbels.
What I am saying is that this fetish or attraction is like some strange type of beer. You're not genetically disposed to it. But you might like it when you first encounter it. Then you might sometimes decide to have one. Or you might become addicted. Or you might be able to change your attitude and circumstances, find better beers and better things to do and kick your addiction.
But seriously, the thing I find most interesting about you, Zarkle, is that despite having all of your supposed knowledge on the subject you are still here with the rest of us ogling these women. Why is that Zarkle??
So the conclusion must be that you have this Eros or Thanatos driven fetish, like the rest of us, and you understand the how and why, yet you continue on with said fetish. So are we to believe that you do not wish to be cured of your effeminate ways? You do not wish to have a supposed healthy relationships with a woman that isn’t fetish based? I guess all that knowledge isn’t really benefiting you personally very much, eh? If I’m wrong then I ask again, why are you still here?
Really, I’m not trying to get a rise out of you, but rather I pose a real honest question. So what gives? Either you are blind to your own inclinations of personality and mindset/psychology and are incurable as I alluded to earlier when I spoke of psychologists, or you really are just a troll. Maybe you’re both.
You said that this addiction is akin to a weird type of beer. So why don’t you take your own advice and “find better beers and better things to do and kick your addiction”?? Why haven’t you kicked the habit using that monopoly of knowledge you claim to possess?? I can’t wait to hear you attempt to square that circle. I’m quite sure you possess the hubris to try, and will.
Maybe you just like that beer too much, despite knowing how to escape your addiction. Maybe you’re a serial killer and thus you are perfectly happy understanding your psychological blemish and thus have no need to change. Or, maybe you’re just a humongous deuchebag who enjoys quoting things other people have theorized in an attempt to satisfy an ego that was never nurtured as a child. You’re probably the type who obsesses over the creation of every cup of coffee.
So you see, to reinforce my earlier point, how SCIENCE & VISION actually are compatible? You have the science but you lack the vision to put it into practice and heal yourself.
I'm sure you'll call me ignorant and you'll play the victim and try to fling as much horseshit on the walls as possible in an attempt to remain in your little "cocoon of knowledge". I guess that's all you have left, unless you're going to claim that you enjoy having a mental defect. But, that's not very rational for a genius like you to forego the use of such great knowledge.
Now I must get back to my job at NORAD.
@Zarkle
Science and vision are absolutely compatible.
When he said they weren't, given how huge a proportion of science focuses on the theoretical, I threw in the towel trying to engage with him. I wish him well, but he maliciously detected my and our thirst for deep engagement on this topic, and twisted it to see how long and how arduously he can get people to try to persuade him to reject things he himself already doesn't believe in. I still believe there's EITHER a good person deep down who's been hurt by mistruths and is now slyly lashing back out, via his baiting, at a society he feels lied to him, OR he's quietly anti-female muscle and is baiting us that way.
Either way, afaic he's too far gone for me or anyone here to help, but I hope he eventually gets the help he clearly needs.
@Grdlegs
Your word salad...
...by parsing ideas into the tiniest of particles...
A detailed word salad is actually an oxymoron.
As a whole I think you like to polarize and exaggerate a lot. Like you polarized and exaggerated what I said and believe about science and progress.
It's nice that you agree about AI. I don't think Neuralink is going to improve on that. If it will be a phenomenal success, it will be a better user interface. An average person will be able to control a computer using thought, to do things he would otherwise do using a keyboard and a mouse.
Apparently you don’t get anything at all.
My point is and always was that muscles and feminine curves are two different categories. Sexual attraction is slightly more complicated in principle than just biology or a singular drive. Men like different kinds of aesthetic sensations, but only a limited subset of those signal fertility.
It does not matter that there are endless individual variations. It's enough to understand that instinctual, psychological and societal reasons are three different categories and what you mean by curves falls mostly into the psychological. Societal means that if the girl can afford to be fit, thin and care about her appearance, then she's probably affluent and therefore intelligent and healthy, which tends to make her attractive.
None of these are my ideas. It wasn't me who said first that male sexuality is mostly an imprint. But I believe that it's true. Though I also believe it's more changeable than is generally thought. You (all who read this) are not brainless chickens forever doomed to like whatever you saw first. I have no interest in or power over anyone else's sexuality. But I do have a problem with people believing they're powerless or victims when in fact they're not.
So I don't think certain type of curves, namely muscles, necessarily make one desire vaginal intercourse. To you this means I must be homosexual. To me it means you have a knack for stupid insults and exaggeration. It's impossible to tell this apart from anything you are trying to say seriously. I don't even think I should.
twist it to make it work for your own narrow minded purposes.
You shit-talked my sexuality. I made fun of your shit-talk while trying to stick to its logic. Then you saw it as "an evil propagandist recoloring the truth".
When you called my post original...
I conceded nothing. You said you were "throwing back" bullshit. And I said you made the bullshit up on your own. I denied being the origin of the bullshit you're throwing around, and that's the whole meaning of it.
Did you actually use the “people say” explanation??
It's a phrase used to introduce a thought or an idea, to serve as a background to what follows next. In other words, there exists this dumb idea that we all agree is most probably untrue. That being attracted to muscle must be gay. But you have here said something that is at the same time the complete opposite but even dumber. That not desiring vaginal intercourse with muscular women must be gay.
First, it is not the same as never being open to vaginal intercourse with any woman ever. But not even that would mean homosexuality, because more and more people are asexual and some are celibate, some voluntarily, some involuntarily. Some people figuratively marry their fist. Then they divorce it and are left with nothing.
Of course the widest definition of homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality comes from the very words, literally samesexuality versus othersexuality. It's not even about the physical sex of the partner, but self versus other. In this widest definition, all self-seeking sexuality is homosexuality and all homosexuality is self-seeking.
Remember what you said in response to another user who tried to apply the ridiculous and unsound “people say” argument?
I believe this another user tried to use it as an argument, in the sense that "it's true because people say". I was not using "people say" as an argument or evidence.
You’ve been exposed dude.
Exposed for using the same two words in two different meanings in two different contexts, thinking that people have the basic literacy to look at the context to discern the meaning. Maybe I assume too much. I better look into it to assume less. But that means becoming even more verbose. I just can't win.
you are still here with the rest of us ogling these women.
Why do you think I am?
Some of these women would be cute even without the muscles. But you still think I'm gay?
@JaybeeInGWM
I threw in the towel trying to engage with him.
Never seen anyone take so long to throw in one towel.
But seriously. I have never seen anyone, except that particular homosexual I mentioned, to construct such elaborate, multi-layered and emotionally loaded fantasies out of nothing. Or maybe not out of nothing. Maybe this is a projection. You yourself are the conflicted, abandoned victim who abuses the thirst for deep engagement of others by coming up with hot air supertheories, are deeply dissatisfied with your sexuality and wish that other people would persuade you out of it or at least act as containers for the dissatisfaction, which then enables you to present yourself as a flawless and endless fountain of right opinion and good will.
Triggered
You must be blowing a load so hard now. So your argument was one big "fuck you" all along? I think you're just shit for a person and you keep proving it again and again.
Movies and literature rarely if ever have memorable characters whose entire purpose is to come up with twisted nonsense that's purely intended to provoke, so I can hardly call you any names. All the characters you named actually represented some idea or had some purpose or some order in mind. Well maybe not Trump, but at least his followers think so. Your existence in this discussion is entirely parasitical on mine.
I think I already suggested that we split this discussion into one part I will use as a soapbox and another where everyone can go vomit, whine and scream how Zarkle is sick and Zarkle is unbearable, Zarkle was probably molested as a kid, Zarkle melts our brains and rips our guts out and sings heavy metal.
I also think this discussion is almost done. At least Volcano's original question has been heftily answered. I have told why the major six bad answers have been bad (fertility and biology, body shape, arbitrary preference, moral superiority, agnosticism, curviness) and nobody has offered any real counterargument. I have constantly maintained that social reasons and pure sensuality are separate from psychological reasons, so never have I said that everyone here would be insecure or traumatized or in need of psychological help.
Maybe have a third discussion too where everyone can repeat in turn these theories I have debunked here. I promise not to interfere if the first message says Zarkle not welcome. I think walterekurtz will not scream at others how "you fucking can't know" and will accept that we're biologically drawn to have sex and we have arbitrary preferences which include curves and body shapes and let the_settler have his theories about the moral superiority of this fetish. You will let JaybeeInGWM have his theories on how computers will eventually observe, predict and rule everything. I would be so happy alone and you would be so happy together. So why not?
I hijacked this discussion fair and square and kept it on topic until the recent and final shitshow. You aren't even trying to hijack it from me, but simply to ruin and destroy it.
My one further avenue of exploration would be to add a few theories on how the insecurity that's possibly driving this fetish can be caused in some cases. I recently learned from Richard Grannon that the superego part of a child's mind works like a tape recorder that understands nothing and filters nothing. But if the parents or guardians have constantly made the child feel inferior, this tape will always play back in his mind, until something is done about it.
A too strong sense of inferiority alienates a young man from women, but when he sees muscular girls, his feelings of inferiority suddenly make sense. He concludes that there's nothing wrong with him in relation to them, because they simply are so superior. But if he ever silences his superego, he will also lose the fetish. This attraction in this case does not make sense because the highly active superego doesn't make sense either.
The tape that plays in his head, saying how incapable and inferior he is, can be turned around to say how superior and wonderful muscular girls are. Or all girls who could lift more than he does or kick his ass. To say that there is no easy fix does not mean that there is no discernible cause.
It's worth mentioning that walterekurtz's idea that "you can't fucking know" is technically correct in a social context. There is no fixed reason why you get into a hobby such as crossfit or start going to the gym and neither why you then befriend certain women and not others.
Finally I wonder why the moderators have not intervened. Maybe nobody has reported any messages that have been purely intended to ruin the discussion. A dozen of your (plural) messages are purely personal attacks that add nothing to the discussion and would have been removed in any other context. Maybe it would be considered too unfair to help me dominate this. Maybe it hasn't yet been decided if my writings are a veiled or not so veiled attack against the whole subculture, so cleaning this up for my benefit would have the moderators shoot themselves in the foot.
@Gatsby28
I also had a lot of doubt at that statement as well lol
So the possibilities are that either I'm a dedicated fetishist or I'm a total outsider. Nobody considered the most obvious explanation that I have psychological reasons I am overcoming bit by bit.
I was not expecting any help from here. But I expected to be able to help or at least inform a few who are struggling with having this attraction, and I think I did.
There aren't a zillion places where happy and confident women display their bodies in a way that isn't blatantly intended to be sexy or sexual. All the way I took apart people's claims that were about human sexuality and biology in general, but now I'm supposed to explain myself so that people can nitpick about it.
I doubt you are saying Anastasia Hein or Lea Kannowsky or many of the Asians here are not pretty. So you must be saying I'm either still into them for the muscles or that I'm not into them at all. I hate being seen as a one-man conspiracy, but I don't see any way to help it.
@Zarkle
Need some cheese with that whine?
Triggered by triggered. Can't make it up.
I love how you think it's your place to say the "discussion is almost over". Promise?
Enjoy imagining me "blowing my load". Glad I could oblige.
Take some remedial English Lit and just maybe you'll glean some insight, maybe.
Have a nice life, Sigmund FRAUD.
@zark
> You´ve been wildly off topic a lot of times.
When actually? Like I said, most of my repetitive and verbose messages are about applying some concept of psychotherapy to the issue. I still don't understand why it is a problem. Maybe people perceive them as more authoritarian than they really are. Or ignore or misunderstand the qualifiers I almost always start with.
Well, you´ve been quite or very involved in discussions that are far off topic and not of interest to anyone. But OK, whatever. You really seem to know your psychotherapy. I do think it is like 80 % bullshit. I´ve never been to therapy myself though. Freud was wildly out of line on so many occassions. But surely there are some wisdom to it (sorry now if I´m being off topic). Let´s leave this.
> You have no favorites or subscriptions of any.
I prefer to use the search. I see no point in storing a list of my former moods that may or may not come again. But my recurring favorites are the ones I've already mentioned, such as Anastasia Hein and Lea Kannowsky. Then maybe a dozen others. I don't search for Julia DeLo that much, but I like mentioning her because the interview by Ryan made her feel like a real person.
OK, thats fine.
> I have tried to focus on how to have this inclination/fetish/whatever and still be a good loving person.
It depends on what you mean by love. Being easy to get along with? Giving her money? Doing the dishes? Giving her pleasure? Exchanging vows and raising kids together?
I mean in general. Loving as in not an asshole or just thinking about yourself. Forget about it.
> Ok, so that´s it? The psychological reason is all just about insecurity? Everyone has insecurites though?
This fetish is a fantasy, not a biological drive. Fantasies are stories created by the mind to resolve or at least alleviate anxieties. The mind creates the fantasies according to the character of the person and out of the material he is exposed to. Many others have offered this explanation too from their personal experience. The strength of the anxiety correlates with the power of the fantasy.
I agree with what you are writing about fantasies. But I´m not sure this is something unique for inclination towards muscular women. What you write here could also fit in with the fantasies of Ted Bundy, right? His acts also started in his head as a fantasy. What is, from a fantasy perspective, the difference with this "fetish" or any other, say men who are in to domination?
This is just a mirror image of fantasies of endlessly conquering or abusing women. Oddly, men who have been abused by women tend to worship women, but men who have been abused by men tend to feel safe and not guilty abusing women. Being abused by a woman teaches a man that he is weak, but being abused by a man teaches a man to take it out on the weak.
Interesting, I have very little experience of being abused by women, I think. Well I did have a hard time some times with my mother when I grew up, but I´m not sure it was anything special. Are you saying that guys with this inclination/fetish usually have been abused by women (in their childhood I assume)?
> I have thought of another thing recently:
Be careful or you'll end up the next prophet. As long as I'm here you will look good in comparison, but after everyone is assured I'm gone they will start telling you to STFU.
Haha! No I don+t think so.
> You don´t need to give anything to the women, you just take.
In a way you're describing all porn, including all wank material that isn't strictly porn.
Yes, but in another sense which I hope you understand. Porn is of course passive, but I mean that the sexual fantazy of muscular women is passive in its very nature. A dominating fantszy is about doing things to the women, and in the end fucking them good. It´s a little bit of revenge perhaps but mostly an ego enhancer. "Yeah I´m gonna fuck you, do things to you" the male goes. It is an active act.
Being dominated is the opposite. Therefore it is passive, and I think a common factor among guys here are that they are not the best relation ship types. They both fear and dread women. Does that sound reasonable? Having a muscular woman that does all the job... it is more about being fucked than fucking (I don´t mean it literary with strap on dildos or stuff like that, I´m sure you understood that) and hence more of an egotistical fantazy. Makes sense?
Opposite and how would you call that? But perhaps you have the same goal? Feeding ones ego? Technical, a troll also doesnt care about the feelings of the other, only his own. He feeds on the impact he has on others and seeing that in reactions. Yours is edjucating us? Showing that youre superior on the subject and reacting to the reactions you get? What you seem to have in common is that you booth look for attention. Wich basicly confirms that you are visible, have somekind of influence and you do matter?