100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
No bio...
User ID: 2039
I'll take a Jersey Mike's over most of the other sub shops, especially the execrable Subway.
But, much like @FiveHourMarathon, I identify as a Wawa Hypernationalist. When one factors in value in calories-per-dollar, Wawa is even more of the clear choice.
Now, if we're talking about ultra-premium sandwiches from traditional Italian joints, we have to confront the truth that the meats are secondary for overall quality to the bread itself and the freshness of the veggies, red wine vinegar, and olive oil. Tony Soprano ate his "gabagool" raw, or dipped directly into a mustard jar. Tony Soprano was a trash goblin from New Jersey who lived a caricature of his own life. This is not who you model your sandwich rubric on.
I hate to use the cop-out, but it's so obvious here;
Physical beauty is inherent and always subjective, no? A higher level of body fat, for instance, has objective downsides compared to being within a more normal range, but there are people, both male and female, who viscerally and immutably prefer it. So, even if a full head of hair is objectively a better marker of virility, vitality etc. it can also be subjectively worse. And the whole genesis of this thread was obviously around female sexual interest (or lack thereof) in balding or bald men.
The fact that a bullshit e-commerce company that profits off of male insecurity took the time to say "bald is sexy" makes me seriously question your unsubstantiated assertion.
Respectful but enthusiastic request for more anecdotes from your experience.
WHOOOAAAAA WHAT?
You're going to pair "tweedle-dee-tweedle-dum municipal incompetence" with serial kid impregnator? Damn, homie.
Serious and genuine question:
Why not just shave your head? I ask because I've been balding since 26-27. I took the "plunge" and shaved it at 28 and ... everyone says I look better, I don't stress about going bald whatsoever, and I can get a dirtcheap haircut from anywhere because nobody can fuck up a zero buzz cut.
I'll put this here because I've never put it anywhere else and this has been a week of extreme not good for me.
One of my best High School buddies killed himself in November of 2022. There was a group of about five of us who were inseparable all of junior and senior year. College did college things and we start to drift apart, but would sometimes still catch up when people tended to come back to the hometown for Christmas or Thanksgiving. After I learned of "Dane's" (not his real name) suicide, it fell to me, for various reasons, to contact his High School girlfriend. She was also part of this friend group and everyone had bet money that she and Dane were going to get married. They really were a loving couple.
When I called her and relayed the news, her reaction was pretty predictable. Though they had split finally over 10 years prior, she was still quite upset though still in control of herself. After the initial shock had subsided she do the normal thing and asked me how I was feeling about it.
And that's when I exploded. I didn't break down. I didn't sob. I got intensely angry. Not at her, but at Dane. Because I saw that a saying I had heard before was true; suicide doesn't end pain, it just distributes it out. Here was a woman who had shared her first love with Dane and then gone about her life peacefully. Gutted. A friend group of four other dudes who perhaps lament the fact that we've fallen out of contact with each other is now brought back into contact via tragedy. The family opted for a family only funeral, so the four of us got on a Zoom with the intent of meeting up somewhere for an irish wake for Dane. But, 15 minutes in, we kind of looked at each other and collectively decided, "No, we don't actually want to fly to see each other like this." Dane's dead, and it's hard for me not to remember that with some anger.
I think the circumstances surrounding your cousin are much different. I was only adding a perspective on suicide that I think goes unsaid sometimes. It's a tragedy, of course. I don't know enough about the last two years of Dane's life to know what he was going through. There's some mystery, in fact, about the final few days, but that's for the family to know. Still, the fact remains that that final act wasn't final. All of the hurt is still out there floating in the corners of the hearts of so many other people now.
Not the commenter you were responding to, but I'll bite:
First, re-create high social penalties for promiscuity for both men and women. I'm not the first to say this but the sexual revolution of the 1960s can be accurately viewed as the fight to let women behave in the same ways as the absolute worst of men. Being a "cad" or a "cocksman" should be socially treated the exact same as being a homewrecker. Dating is fine, but it should be used to figure out if there is an alignment of values and a shared vision for the future.
But, but, consenting adults! Who cares if two people just want to f*ck! Well, everyone, judging by this thread and many others like it. You have the situation now where promiscuity is not only tolerated, but lauded as some sort of expression of personal discovery, autonomy, and that most meaningless of words, _"empowering." Leaving aside the fact that this isn't true, the circumstances create a situation where the most antisocial of people can hit "defect" a million times and benefit greatly from it while those who are looking to cooperate are in a constant state of paranoid suspicion about any sort of medium length relationship they may find themselves in.
Second, get rid of no fault divorce. I know this is politically untenable, but I'm offering what I think is a correct solution. Marriage has to be meaningful and a real commitment, or else it's just a temporary tax arrangement with unbalanced incentives for the two people in it. Because of the history of marriage and family law in the US, women are usually the one's with the counter-incentive to staying in a marriage long term.
Much like @Amadan, I'm not actually that worried about following marriage rates because 1) I think most marriages today are shams anyway and 2) We're approaching a situation where 1/3 to nearly 1/5 of children are born out of wedlock. Marriage is so hollow now that policy positions that try to nudge people toward it aren't really serious about solving the problem.
I also agree with @Amadan in another way - blackpilling is not only (by its own definition) futile, I think it's just wrong. Once you pair secular materialism with battle-of-the-sexes blackpilling, the question has to be asked; why not just blow it all out in a cocaine-and-hookers weekend and then end it with a 9mm breakfast? Usually, the responses I hear are along the lines of, "I don't want to take such a cowardly way out", "I still want my life to mean something", "You should still try to be a good person." Hmmm, interesting how that kind of sounds like there's actually a higher level moral and ethical framework in play. Maybe these hardcore secular materialists really are trying to both fill and not acknowledge the God Shaped Hole.
Not to blow the scope of this comment into the stratosphere, but I do often think that we might be living through an inflection point in human history on par with the invention of writing, if not even moreso. The technological and political change over the last 100 years (which is a single long lifetime or about 1.5 - 2 "standard" lifetimes) is truly a phase change when compared to all of human history before. We've mostly outpaced our cognitive hard-wiring. So we see the effects of that across nearly every facet of life. I don't doubt that in 1000 years, it's likely some humans, looking at our times, will say "lolol, they totally had no idea wtf was going on during pre-Nuke early-AI." But this is no excuse to smash the like button on fuckItAll.mpeg. Do the best you can and try to find genuine happiness where you can. Even better do the "right" thing, so long as what you define as the right thing is a self-contained and demanding moral framework.
In the RCC, You can live a consecrated single life that isn't religious. It takes discernment and represents a real commitment. If one doesn't go that route, doesn't join a religious order, and also doesn't have a family, I don't believe this is seen as inherently sinful, but the person should be honest with themselves about selfishness, laziness etc. As far as I can tell, discerning one's vocation should be very intentional and not accidental or emergent happenstance. If you know what you're doing and do it with good intention, there are many, many good ways to live.
If birth control is bad because it prevents the creation of persons, then so is not asking out people on a date. (This is now very contrary to the RCC, which views abstinence as praiseworthy.)
Eh, this is a misrepresentation. The RCC views abstinence outside of marriage as not only praiseworthy but necessary - all sex outside of marriage is sinful. But, regarding "not asking someone out on a date", the whole idea is that God has an individual level plan for everyone to use their gifts - we need not all follow the same path. The point is to actively follow the path God has set before you and to do so faithfully. Perhaps you aren't meant to ask someone out, marry them, and procreate. Perhaps your role is more monkish. If you're playing too much Warhammer, you have to ask yourself if you're being slothful, negligent in your duties, or complacent and self-indulgent. I think you might be right that God isn't pleased with incels - who stew in their imagined slights by imagined women. But he isn't displeased with those who have actively chosen a celibate life (be they clergy or otherwise) - so long as its done with care, intent, and intention.
As an aside, I really do like your deconstruction of birth control as "fractionally as bad as abortion or infanticide."
Can We Circle Back With Rome On This?
WSJ Article on Pope Leo and his concern about AI
Request: Tech ninja's of The Motte, find the non-paywalled version of the above.
The article states that Pope Leo has a specific interest in AI and it's potential impact on humanity. This makes Pope Leo perhaps one of only a few billion people who are concern about AI and it's potential impact on humanity.
There's some background about Francis, brief commentary on Catholic Social teaching, and some pithy quotes. I'd like to avoid the surface level of discussion on "Well, what does the Catholic Church think of AI?" and try to poke at the deeper issue here -
Why does Silicon Valley feel the need to build a lobbying strategy for the Vatican? Obviously the Vatican does not have the legislative or regulatory authority of the United States Government or the EU. They aren't going to try to fine Big Tech for anything. If there is a condemnation of "AI" (a term becoming more meaningless by the day) it's going to be predictable - we must respect human dignity, people should not be commoditized, avoiding sin on the internet is as important as avoid sin elsewhere.
Looking at it from a positive endorsement perspective, perhaps Big Tech thinks they can get the Vatican to offer a milquetoast endorsement of AI? We know there are dangers and we must be wary and ask for Christ's help, but AI is a liberating technology for the masses (or something along those lines). But, does BigTech think that this would actually significantly help their bottom line?
I'd hazard a guess that it has nothing to do with the bottom line. And this is my worry. As a free-markets, pro-growth believer, I've always thought we should let corporations be corporations and do what they are designed to do; make money. Civil liberties, the vision for society etc is what should be left to government and culture (and war about both we shall!). Corporations, in my view, should just be big dumb money-makers. "All they care about is money!" says the sophomore year self-proclaimed communist. To which I have always said, "Good! Then they're staying focused on their job."
This seems different. This seems like an ideological campaign. It's setting off a lot of tropey conspiracy theories in my head about Silicon Valley transhumanist techno-religion beliefs. Is this a trojan horse where the Zuckerbergian Lizard People are smiling to the face of the people while plotting to replace him? Perhaps that's too dramatic.
So, I offer it up to the Motte. Looking for explanations and perspectives on this while positing, at the outset, that this isn't just about the money. Which makes it a lot more important.
This is all correct and an important improvement on what I originally commented.
Taking the issue up one or two levels of analysis, I believe there's a fundamental and close-to-irreconcilable tension between being Catholic and being American. I was listening to an SSPX sermon on the drive home from my Dad's last night and the priest points out that America is a protestant country founded on and steeped in protestant principles. Catholic integralism has approximately 0% shot of taking root in the American Federalist system. (That being said, however, Catholic political leaders, especially in the judiciary, have, for decades, punch above their electoral weight.)
The overwhelming majority of the time, voting in America, for theologically serious (TM) catholics, is a choice for the lesser of two evils. My guiding light, for some time, has been a candidate's perspective on religious liberty. Never their voiced position, mind you - religious liberty is one of those issues everyone always says they are for, but their voting behaviors often betray them later on.
Yes and no.
Biden / Pelosi style catholics are definitely solidly blue tribe and do vote democrat. There's even vestiges of old school machine politics for these kind of folks in states like Rhode Island and Massachusettes.
The problem is they aren't actually catholic. Just as "culturally Jewish" is a thing for totally non-observing "Jews" in the bicoastal cities, I believe "culturally catholic" exists as well for many democrat strongholds. To me, it's almost stolen valor. People like Biden etc get to say "faith is at the core of who I am" blah blah blah and infuse their speeches - and votes - with high minded moralism. But they aren't actually living or even trying to believe the doctrine of their faith. The Church is pretty damn clear on abortion and divorce, among other issues.
Theologically serious Catholics, nowadays, have to vote Republican because, of the two parties, it is the only one that isn't openly hostile to all of the bedrock elements of the faith. A lot of the politically motivated (and serious) American Catholics also get really into issues of religious liberties. One need look no further than the recent SCOTUS decision on tax-exemption status for faith based charities.
Apologies for being presumptuous.
You have two options. Option 1 is the Jock Wilink "bleak discipline" route. You do your workouts, without exception, every time you plan them. It will not get easier. You just develop discipline. If you miss a workout, it kind of doesn't matter, you immediately get back to the discipline. It's much a more of a mental shift than anything else, and pain and discomfort are kind of the point. Will this work? Sure, in tautological sense.
Option 2 is to find a way to enjoying the workouts in and of themselves. You aren't seeking the reward function of completing them, you are enjoying the process of doing them. This makes you outcome independent. Gym time is equal to fun time. This is what works for me. I did this by combining the "bleak discipline" approach with awareness of the exercises I intrinsically enjoyed at the gym. For whatever reason, I like doing deadlifts the same way that I like the color blue -- I just do, it's "built in." So, I dead deadlifts a lot. And, at first, I didn't do a lot of bench press. But, slowly, I was able to replace my total "bleak discipline" motivation with a mix of "hey! deadlifts are fun!" on the one hand with "okay, fine, I'll bench" on the other. Repeat this cycle a few times and, now, bench is a core part of my routine and I don't find it hard to motivate myself to do it (still like deadlifts more).
I don't know if there's a formal definition for this mental pattern. You're creating new, adjacent in pathways; you put "fun" as close as possible to "have to do it" until the circuit jumps the two wires. Yes, I know that's not how the brain works on a neurological level, but this is actually the same principle as cognitive behavior therapy. You're creating new thinking-acting repetitions until they become habits.
Doing hard things is hard and they don't get easier, but you can become better at doing the hard thing.
There are also indirect positive feedback loops to employ. I enjoy lists and handwritten stuff - so I mark off "workout complete" on a physical sheet of paper sometimes when I feel I'm dragging. Does that "help" in any objective way? Fuck no, but we don't care about the objective here, we're literally trying to alter the subjective experience. So, a wastepaper basket full of "go me!" stickynotes may be the best way to a new squat PR.
Again, very interesting and informative.
If I'm reading you correctly, my updated hypothesis has also been more or less invalidated. We aren't in a situation in which a meaningful percentage of blue collar (or any) careers create the demise of those who work in them. And from previous comments, we can also say with decent confidence that "disability grift" isn't a multi-billion dollar scam industry. Furthermore, with the amounts involved, there aren't really "disability queens" who are collecting thousands of dollars per month. It's an unfortunate group of mostly honest people who get a few hundred extra dollars to get by. Based on your comments on the end-of-lifers, it also seems disability insurance acts as kind of publicly-funded hospice care as well. Sad, but understandable.
Given all of this, I'm actually, now, tempted to think that system works about as well as a system like this could. It's inefficient, sure, but it feels like it's mostly doing a service to those in need (perhaps to an unsatisfying emotional degree) and without a disproportionate drain on public resources.
I'll make the humble request again to get your input on that.
I look forward to his polyamorous wedding with Aella after a tearful, twitter-gangbang based reconciliation. Just like in the movies!
Are you 'Throwaway05' as well? The phraseology and semi-trolling strategy seem similar.
Positive vs negative discipline.
Positive discipline is doing things that are good but that require the completion of a behavior; working out, reading more, writing more, learning a new skill, whatever.
Negative discipline is abstaining from things - mostly that are bad from you - but, more generally, that you want to abstain from for whatever reason in order to shift habits. Drinking and drugs, obviously, are the big ones. But this is also dieting, masturbation, social media consumption, etc.
Positive discipline activities give you a generous feeling of accomplishment and instant reward. "I worked out today!" Negative discipline is more complex - while it creates, for me, a sense of "momentum" and the feeling that I'm "on a streak", if I focus too much on it it warps into an "oh no, don't break the streak!" feeling of anxiety or anticipation. So, the mental model I use is to treat it like a savings or investment account - set it up to be automatic, then don't think about it. Check in on the "balance" every once in a while and smile as it will often be larger than you remember.
Watch real football.
Is this the same Nicholas Decker who wrote the "when to kill Trump" essay or whatever?
As an adult, cars I owned have all been F-150s from 2000-2010. Part of this is due to the fact that I don't fit into most sedans (height) and even the ones that I do physically fit into, the resulting vision angles are so extreme that I feel it's unsafe for me to drive them.
Pickup trucks are big and so I fit into them. I like how they age - if you have a 10+ year old truck with some dings and scratches in it, it looks like you've really worked and used it. I'm suspicious of Trucks that are treated like show cars - glossed to hell and back, not a scratch in sight. If you're keeping it that pretty ... why not just get a literal show car?
There's a lot of debate on Ford/Chevy(GM)/Ram/Toyota. Based on a decent amount of research and a lot of conversations with mechanics at bars, the answer is that for the 150/1500 series, they are more or less all the same. The Toyota's are probably more reliable, but the Tundra is kind of ugly. The real fuckery over the last 10+ years has been all of the digital systems integrated into the engines to manage fuel economy. Truck engines really weren't designed for this and so people are having all kinds of maintenance and reliability issues.
This is why my next truck will be a 250/2500 series. As these are full "heavy duty" work trucks, the manufacturers don't try to play games with the engine, transmission, suspension, or fuel systems. Everything is big, overbuilt, more simple, and more reliable. The downside is they are, out of the gate, more expensive and, if you do need major maintenance or repair, that will be more expensive too.
It has nothing to do with EVs in particular. Emissions mandates and general "green consciousness" have really fucked up the pickup truck market. 150/1500 Series trucks are over-engineered now and, therefore, don't have great margins. The solution? Luxury trucks. Some new trucks can easily hit 70k or more because of a large number of non-mechanical bells and whistles; leather seats, infotainment etc. I would LOVE for there to be a dead simple V8 150/1500 for $25k off of the assembly line. This would be the "work boots" of trucks.
But government regulation has made that impossible. So now, new Trucks have subscriptions to Apple TV.
Here's the security video. The link is foxnews, so there's .... oh so much javascript and other crap. The victim is fully blurred out and there isn't any gore or shocking content, but still probably technically NSFW.
The interesting thing is that there are half a dozen children who act as nothing more than curious onlookers. I could give you 5 paragraphs on Kitty Genovese, but that would be wasted here on the Motte.
Compassion and empathy do not require acceptance or being a door mat.
This is my nomination for one-liner Motte And Bailey of the year (so far).
We have good evidence to believe that free will is mostly BS
Citation needed.
it is still true that childhood abuse ruins your life outcomes.
Citation needed. Also, there's literally a cottage industry in within hollywood that does nothing besides making films about people who overcame their childhood to do amazing things.
We have some knowledge of things like the impact on your brain chemistry and psychological development
Citation needed.
We can point to incredibly poor outcomes and paucity of truly effective treatment.
Citatio--nevermind.
Let's say you come back with bulletproof evidence for all of your claims. Think through the implications. How do we as a society ever hold anyone accountable for anything? What "counts" as trauma? Who decides? How do you account for individual variation in the ability to cope with negative emotions?
The whole point of our legal system is that it is based on the premise that there is the law and only the law. Your personal circumstances have little to do with how you are judged against the law*. "Your honor, I had a really hard childhood. I think you should take that into account during this armed robbery trial." That would be pants-on-head insane because it would mean every single law and every single interaction with it would be an inherently subjective exercise. There would, in effect, be no laws. No laws, no society ... you get the picture.
Compassion and empathy do not outrank truth.
By implication, you're also preemptively condemning literal children to a life of low expectations and patronization. "Damn kid, your mom was a crackhead and dad beat you? Well, don't feel bad about being semi-homeless for a while, it isn't your fault." Or, in this specific Aella case, "Sure, sure, honey, you're a multi-millionaire with a massive online following, but you go right ahead and have a public meltdown." Why not encourage them to rise to their potential? Why not deliver the much, much better message of "despite what has happened in your past, you can create a good life and be a valued, pro-social member of whatever community you choose**"
Pairing all of this with your initial dubious claims we have yet another example of the satanic nature of current therapy. It's the embodiment and fulfillment of the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. It takes otherwise healthy people who may need some encouragement and turns them into fragile, dependent slaves to the cult of "self-care", "triggers", "boundaries", etc. Many are literally permanently drugged and then reminded that such drugging is "necessary" to keep them ..... stable? I'll take volatile but responsible and competent over "stable", flaccid and burdensome.
- Caveat around edge cases here. Self-defense, other in extremis circumstances.
- Except if that contradictions biology.
- Prev
- Next
I think you can point to a lot of societies that absolutely failed to flourish because they didn't do this. I remembering reading the goofy book "Sex at Dawn" some years ago. It purported to show that monogamy and marriage was unnatural and that, akshually, tons of totally fine societies had practiced various forms of poly-like relationships.
Except all of its examples were undeveloped hunter-gatherer tribes that are still mostly existing in the stone age. Lots of sub-saharan examples and even a few from Papua New Guinea, aka the actual murder capital of the world.
When life is a constant battle against starvation, you don't have the luxury of resources to have to think long term. You live that beautiful, simple, horrifyingly savage life of "one day at a time." Once you figure our larger scale agriculture, you start to have more stuff and then you upgrade to the perennial problem of how to organize society. Every society that's flourished has settled on long-term pair bonding and marriage-til-death. Some have carve outs for lawful divorce, but the intent is clear.
More options
Context Copy link