Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
"...Perhaps laughter will then have formed an alliance with wisdom; perhaps only 'gay science' will remain."
User ID: 342
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
11hr ago
Mostly trolls whose names I've forgotten. That guy who keeps making alt accounts here to post WN articles and then delete them is kinda like that.
Apparently darwin was kinda like that, although I never interacted with darwin personally.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
11hr ago
I said that I disagreed with the ban (suspension, really, not even a ban).
I have repeatedly argued for "affirmative action" for left-of-center posters here. I think they should explicitly be given more leeway before mods dole out punishments, because their viewpoints are underrepresented.
Personally if I was a mod I'd take a pretty hands-off approach. Permabans essentially never, suspensions only rarely. And I would not have suspended Turok for anything he's posted so far.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
12hr ago
I also disagree with the ban, but I do understand the frustration.
We have a history on TheMotte of people who show up and intone in a solemn voice, "I'd like to play a game..." At which point they begin constructing an elaborate series of arguments and hypotheticals that are high on word count but light on content, the aims of which are never entirely clear. And when people point out that it seems like they're being evasive about their own genuine beliefs, and they're not being entirely forthcoming about their intentions, they respond with "oh don't mind me, I'm but a humble explorer of political thought-space, my only aim here is to educate..."
For obvious reasons, interacting with these people is very obnoxious, and their threads generate more heat than light. So tolerance for these characters is low. And Turok, while not one of the more extreme examples, does pattern match to this sort of archetype.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
14hr ago
Final Fantasy
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
14hr ago
Well yes there is a significant monkey's paw aspect, that's why I said it's a problem. If the answer was obvious, it wouldn't be a problem. I'm not a utilitarian or a consequentialist, I don't adhere to an "anti-suffering ethics". But I also appreciate the gravity of the problem and I understand why people do become utilitarians.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
14hr ago
Well, there's suffering and there's suffering.
A pain signal that tells you to pull your hand away from a hot stove is "suffering".
This, on the other hand, is suffering:
The New Mexico State Penitentiary riot, which took place on February 2 and 3, 1980, at the Penitentiary of New Mexico (PNM) south of Santa Fe, was the most violent prison riot in U.S. history. Inmates took complete control of the prison and twelve officers were taken hostage. [...]
Events spiraled out of control within the cell blocks in large part due to the actions of two gangs. The first were the Chicanos, who protected each other and dished out targeted retribution for specific grudges. The other gang was loosely labeled the Aryan Brotherhood and was led by some of the most dangerous inmates (who by this time had been released from segregation in Cell Block 3). They decided to break into Cell Block 4, which held prisoners labeled as informers. Cell Block 4 also housed inmates who were mentally ill, convicted of sex crimes, or otherwise vulnerable, and held a total of 96 prisoners. [...]
During an edition of BBC's Timewatch program, an eyewitness described the carnage in Cell Block 4. He saw an inmate held up in front of a window; he was being tortured by using a blowtorch on his face and eyes until his head exploded. Another story was about Mario Urioste, who was jailed for shoplifting. He was originally placed by officers in a violent unit where he was gang-raped by seven inmates. Mario had filed a lawsuit against his rapists, so prison officials had housed him in Cell Block 4 for his own protection. Urioste was one of the targets for revenge. His body was found hanged, with his throat cut and his dismembered genitals stuffed into his mouth.
The former is a useful biological mechanism; the latter raises suffering to the level of a genuine philosophical problem (as in, should we sacrifice everything else to make the elimination of suffering our primary goal? If the choice is between a universe with suffering and no universe at all, would it be better to just not exist at all? etc).
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1d ago
Liberalism (meaning, not socialism and not hard right) is the dominant position here, and pretty much everywhere else too. Libertarianism is also popular here.
You were probably looking for a term like “progressive” or “woke” instead of “liberal”.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1d ago
If anyone thinks ChatGPT is ready to replace programmers then just like... ask it to build some software for you. Enough to run a sustainable business. It's ready to be an employee, ok then, go employ it. That's free money for you that's just sitting there for the taking.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1d ago
I'm a mischling, which "soft WN" is full of.
Ah! Well, that's certainly an important piece of information that was elided. You should have simply started there and been honest about your concerns and worries, instead of going for the "500 IQ pwn everyone with facts and logic" play. The dialogue is so much more insightful and constructive when we cut the bullshit and just talk about what's actually bothering us.
I'm not unsympathetic to you, because I'm not without my own anxieties about race. Although I've received 99.9% (non-Ashkenazi) European (and 0.1% SSA/MENA/etc) from multiple ancestry tests, my appearance is rather on the "swarthy" end by white standards, which lead to teachers and other kids at school asking me on multiple occasions if I was mixed with anything. It gave me doubts about what I actually was, or if other white people even saw me as white at all.
Combine that with the fact that I never knew my birth father, and I'll never be able to be truly certain about what I am and where I came from.
But in some sense none of that matters, because I believe that the way that white people are treated by modern wokeness is wrong, and I believe that they have the right to have their own political movement, on their own terms. Even if those terms were so strict that they excluded me. I'd still believe that regardless of whether I was black or Chinese or anything.
Now, my situation is different from someone who is knowingly and visibly mixed (especially someone whose "other half" is both non-white and non-Ashkenazi). But the point is, you're not the only one with anxieties, and honest political dialogue starts with facing those anxieties and putting them at the center of the conversation, because they're essentially the major determining factor of your political orientation.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1d ago
In this post, you condemn and criticize the concept of white solidarity. This is a sentiment that you share with almost everyone else in the Western "first" world today, except for a tiny minority of self-conscious white advocates.
Your primary motivation for writing the post was your negative sentiment towards white solidarity, rather than your positive support of an alternative political program. We can tell this by the way you framed your post: almost the entirety of it is dedicated to criticisms of the white identitarian right. If your goal was to give people positive, substantive reasons for supporting your own preferred political program, you would have instead titled your post "why I think the right should support pure meritocracy / free trade neoliberalism / race blind Nietzschean will to power / whatever terms you would use to describe your own ideology".
Why does the concept of white solidarity make you uncomfortable? It can't be a purely "formal" concern like, "I think the Online Right is wasting their time pursuing a futile and unhelpful set of policies; they could instead be devoting their time and resources to my cause instead". The Online Right is small and powerless; you can't be that eager to enlist their help. Whatever your preferred political program is would probably find itself right at home in the agenda of Ramaswamy, or Musk, or Thiel, or the Koch brothers, or maybe even Trump himself. You have far more powerful and influential backers you could be appealing to, instead of wasting your time trying to persuade the "Online Right".
So, again, let's start with the heart of the issue: why does the concept of white solidarity make you uncomfortable?
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
2d ago
OP’s a woman
Yes but this is a topic that comes up with some frequency and there are certain male posters who have strong opinions on it as well.
they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them
Yes but the point is that they care about it at all, regardless of their motivations. (The motivations are at least somewhat complex and multilayered. Yes at the end of the day it’s really about “all the women should belong to me” but I think there’s at least some genuine pro-social concern mixed in as well.)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
2d ago
Clearly on TheMotte, it’s the men who are writing most of the posts about the ills of promiscuity. (I have specific names in mind.)
That attitude may ultimately stem from their Christianity. But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity. You can’t dismiss it as a purely female concern.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
3d ago
Julian Edelman can be caught in a one-night-stand with a chubster, Conor McGregor can be filmed heading off with an outright fatty
It’s quite plausible that they were simply acting on their own preferences!
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
3d ago
I think the main feature male friends can't provide is being the confidant of deep secrets and more purely emotional revelations from the inner reaches of your psyche.
That's interesting that you say that. I'm incredibly lucky to have some male friends where we have essentially no secrets (or close to it, at any rate). But I recognize that that's unusual and most friendships (regardless of gender composition) never get to that level.
There are a lot of blackpilled guys who feel like sharing secrets and being emotionally vulnerable is one of the things that they explicitly can't do with women, because any perceived display of weakness could cause her to lose attraction, even deep into a committed relationship. I'd like to tell them they're being overly cynical, but I also can't say that their fears are entirely baseless either.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
3d ago
she should be satisfied with her own personhood
Do you know how many humans (male or female) are "satisfied with their own personhood"?
Not many!
We are all, at all times, engaged in a vain and desperate struggle to alter ourselves in order to solve the riddle of the Other's desire. It's not a woman thing it's a human thing.
"However, the thing to add at once is that the desire staged in fantasy is not the subject’s own, but the other's desire, the desire of those around me with whom I interact: fantasy, the phantasmatic scene or scenario, is an answer to: ‘You’re saying this, but what is it that you actually want by saying it?' The original question of desire is not directly 'What do I want?', but 'What do others want from me? What do they see in me? What am I for those others?' A small child is embedded in a complex network of relations, he serves as a kind of catalyst and battlefield for the desires of those around him. His father, mother, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, fight their battles in his name; the mother sends a message to the father through her care for the son. While being well aware of this role, the child cannot fathom just what kind of object he is for these others, just what kind of games they are playing with him. Fantasy provides an answer to this enigma: at its most fundamental, fantasy tells me what I am for my others. This intersubjective character of fantasy is discernible even in the most elementary cases, like the one, reported by Freud, of his little daughter fantasizing about eating a strawberry cake. What we have here is by no means the simple case of the direct hallucinatory satisfaction of a desire (she wanted a cake, didn't get it, so she fantasized about it). The crucial feature is that, while tucking into a strawberry cake, the little girl noticed how her parents were deeply satisfied by the sight of her enjoyment. What the fantasy of eating a strawberry cake was really about was her attempt to form an identity (of the one who fully enjoys eating a cake given by the parents) that would satisfy her parents and make her the object of their desire."
(From Zizek's "How to Read Lacan")
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
3d ago
· Edited 2d ago
Male sexuality is a lot simpler than female sexuality. Jeff could have destroyed his marriage for a nubile twenty-something with naturally big assets, but he went for tawdry 'sexy' with the trout pout and plastic boobs
I have to be careful to distinguish here between how much of my experience is idiosyncratic and how much of it can generalize, because I find the Sanchez woman to be rather repulsive, but evidently there are many men who do not.
If you listen to TRP/manosphere content, you'll frequently hear them say "men have the biggest variety of preferences, men can fall in love with anything, but women only want one thing (and that thing is Chad)". This is one of their favorite talking points, they repeat it quite often. And women often react with incredulity when they hear this, and they claim that reality is in fact the exact opposite. "What? All men just want a 'hot' woman. But my hubby, he's got a bit of a potbelly and he isn't the tallest, but he's got a great smile and a heart of gold, so I love him all the same. Obviously women's preferences are more varied and less superficial."
I think the key to resolving the dilemma is that, although the secondary and tertiary traits can vary greatly, there are certain key traits that, if absent in a man, will make it very hard for a woman to be romantically attracted to him. As far as my observations can confirm anyway. Although, pinning down exactly what these traits are is a bit difficult. It's not stability per se, nor is it social dominance per se, nor is it social adeptness per se, but rather it's more like an abstract distilled commonality that forms a part of all these traits. We might call it "agency", or projecting a sense of "in-control-ness", if not over his external environment then at least over himself. If a man can't demonstrate at least a minimal amount of "put-together-ness", then he's not going to have much luck with women.
What the TRP guys are correctly intuiting is that men have no such minimal criteria. In spite of the fact that there are clear patterns, at the end of the day they really can go for absolutely anything. There's an active 4chan thread right now where guys are swapping stories about how much they love NEET girls. As in, "whoa, you're telling me she hasn't had a job since college, AND she never leaves her room, AND she has severe social anxiety? Now that's what I'm talkin' about, I want that". You'll have to take my word for it that they really are fetishizing the status of NEET-ness itself. And they can do this with anything, rich or poor women, fat or skinny, smart or dumb, socially successful or an anxious wreck, it don't matter. Could you imagine any woman saying "you know I really just want an unemployed loser, that's what really gets me going"? If there are any such women, they're a rare breed indeed.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
3d ago
It’s not going to work in the US because the ship has simply sailed. We’re in far too deep.
The most we can do is try to give the US a smooth controlled landing and encourage European countries to not go down the same path.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
4d ago
I'm decent at programming, but I don't have experience making truly functional consumer-facing apps
If you’re smart enough to get a math PhD then you’re smart enough to code. Might take some time but you can do it if you want.
I'm also pathologically terrified of getting stuck in a boring 9-5 office job that eats my life away.
That’s… the majority of what awaits you outside of academia. Especially if you’re restricting yourself to opportunities of the form “trading my STEM skills for financial compensation received at regular, reliable intervals”. Are you sure you want to leave academia? The grass ain’t always greener.
There are always people on LessWrong from bespoke AI research institutes posting about their work and sometimes even advertising open positions, maybe you could explore something like that? (They tend to recruit from within their own social circles but it’s worth looking into…)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
5d ago
It’s possible that the THC was the principal culprit. I have witnessed THC inducing acute psychotic episodes on other occasions before. Bit counterintuitive since most people would think of THC as being less “intense” than psilocybin but I suppose the whole thing is under-studied. I’m surprised that the risks of THC haven’t really permeated cultural consciousness.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
5d ago
Had a friend who got really into shrooms. It basically ruined his life for a while, and he was only able to recover after he fully quit doing drugs. Went into a sustained severe manic state, spent his entire life savings in short order, lost multiple jobs in quick succession due to erratic behavior, revealed to me detailed plans that if acted upon would have lead to severe social and potentially legal/criminal damage. And the entire time he was subjectively convinced that he had achieved enlightenment and his actions were infallible. It permanently put me off of ever trying shrooms and has made me skeptical of all accounts that portray psychedelics as "harmless".
(Full disclosure, this was confounded by the fact that he was also doing massive quantities of THC at the same time. But then, people present THC as harmless too, so you'd think that harmless thing 1 + harmless thing 2 would be fine...)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
5d ago
Well, the problem is that some people have the exact opposite intuition! They can’t see why qualia should pose a problem for physicalism at all. Thus the debate carries on interminably.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
5d ago
What's your favorite Nietzsche book?
(If you say Zarathustra or WtP you're a poser.)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
5d ago
the greater risk of women having impossible standards for men
A lot of women who are heavily invested in gay M/M content report enjoying it because it feels "safer" and "less complicated" than hetero content. They want to enjoy a romantic relationship in a "voyeuristic" way without having the worry about the imbalanced power dynamics that are intrinsically a part of any relationship between men and women. If the characters in the story are both men, then she can enjoy it without having to worry about the possibility of "self-inserting" as the female character and getting too personally enmeshed in the story, which could dredge up uncomfortable hang-ups about her own real life sexuality. It's not so much about running to the image of an idealized man as it is about running away from the dangers that real men present.
Obviously, it's something that she mostly has to work out for herself. I think the best thing you can do is to just set a good example in your relations with your own family, and if it ever seems appropriate to bring up, be open and honest about your own political views, what you perceive as the deleterious effects of modern wokeness, etc (the danger here isn't so much the porn per se, but rather the fact that the communities for this type of content tend to be filled with radfem and woke types who could reinforce negative beliefs).
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
5d ago
Quizno’s deserved a better fate.
Well feelings are always important. They aren't always "valid", if "valid" means, they should be unconditionally affirmed, or that a person's interpretation of their own feelings is always correct. But they're certainly always important -- as symptoms, as signposts, as signifiers. There's no accurate model of any interpersonal interaction that excludes feelings.
More options
Context Copy link