Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
I am amazed that no-one has given what seems to be the prima facie obvious answer: women’s silly faces are attractive to the extent and only to the extent that they resemble her orgasm-face (hence why the aheago is the most popular silly face).
(EDIT: I think the first place I saw this argument was in Christopher Hitchens essay “Why Women Aren’t Funny”, where he opines that men like making women laugh in part because laughing face resembles O-face)
As to why more women don’t do it, I think this has been well answered already: they don’t want to be seen as more attractive, they already have suitors enough. Unless they’re directly monetizing off quantity of suitors, which is why you see it on TikTok.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1d ago
Far be it from me to put HBD evidence in the trash, but I take it more as evidence that acting is trivially easy and the only people who can’t do it are crack babies (a set with significant overlap on nepo babies, which is the real reason nepo babies usually can’t - they are unusually disadvantaged on account of their parent’s drug use)
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
8d ago
I do not understand why you think they are part of something they fervently declare their desire to destroy, nor why you should want them to be.
It’s really very simple: they’re white. They are genetically part of Western civilisation.
A white communist can be reasoned (or compelled) out of being a communist, but no amount of right wing political victories will make the Arab your kin.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
8d ago
Idk about you put I pay within an epsilon of zero attention during faculty meetings, whereas I pay a larger nonzero amount of attention while having coffee with a friend.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
18d ago
I don't think there's any set of evidence short of the actual AI singularity that would cause a doomer to sit back and think "huh, guess I was wrong about AI risk".
Well that certainly wouldn’t make me think I was wrong to be a doomer. Having learned this trick from Nate Silver and his “My model predicted a 90% chance of a Hillary victory and a 10% chance of a Trump victory, Trump won therefore I was right”, we have “There was a 99% chance of unfriendly ASI and we lucked out and got the 1% friendly ASI, I was still right that DOOM was far more likely”.
Isn't this dynamic just the plot of Twelve Angry Men? It's not strictly bad in the context it's played in, nor is it necessarily gendered.
Yes, and it’s why that movie is dumb. The final recalcitrant juror is induced to change his mind not by the others successfully convincing him, but by the others socially ostracising and refusing to talk to him. Tell me your movie was written by a woman without telling me it was written by a woman…
(*Disclaimer: Twelve Angry Men was written not by a woman but by a communist nu-male)
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
Why is there such a large disconnect between being so successful in one domain (e.g. creating companies) and the ability to produce good, well-informed opinions online?
This is IMO the strongest piece of evidence the leftists have for their thesis that “Billionaires aren’t skilful they’re just lucky”. Some captains of industry have opinions that are just SO bad, it’s impossible not to get a sort of anti-halo-effect about them and conclude that they must, indeed, be generally dumb, and so any success they have comes from rolling natural 20s at life rather than having a consistent pattern of beat-the-market intelligence.
It would be quite bad if this became the majority view regarding how we see our fellow humans.
Can you elaborate, because I don’t see how having a more accurate impression of other’s cognition could be bad long-term.
Perhaps you’re afraid it’ll lead to dehumanisation of other people - but if LLMs are showing us that that’s what other people really do deserve, then it’s a good thing not a bad thing.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
People always say things like this, but where I am, I always see plenty of white women with Indian men.
Is it Albania? Because then this would lend credibility to the claimant.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
The right tried and failed to do this with Charlie Kirk and there they had an actual body. It's just not that easy to rile people up over something that didn't happen.
In what sense did Charlie Kirk’s assassination not happen?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
But I don't know, when I see someone essentially laying out a justification for bringing back slavery, how am I supposed to respond, as a black person?
You’re supposed to bring facts to demonstrate that he’s wrong.
People much higher on the Actual Power totem-pole than “internet randos” lay out justifications all the time (followed by, y’know, actual laws) that white and asian people deserve to be discriminated against in hiring for high-prestige jobs (proportionally squeezing more of us into menial labour in the cotton fields), and most of us manage to respond to this without resorting to autistic screeching. Maybe they’re right! Maybe you, or I, do in fact deserve to be toiling on the plantation. If it’s right and true and just, then it’s to be celebrated, not struggled against. The only way we determine if it’s right and true and just is clear-headed discourse.
72% of men under 30 view women positively. 7% view them negatively.
I think this statistic elides some subtleties which women IRL realise but which are non-obvious prima facie. While I am no longer under 30, my opinions now remain as they previously were: in that I would answer a polling question “Do you have a positive opinion of women” with a yes, but this is almost exclusively because I have a positive opinion of titties. “Do you have a positive opinion of women” is synonymous with “Are you heterosexual”; a yes answer comes not because I have a positive opinion of respecting a woman, or treating her and her opinions and professional goals with anything like the consideration I would do for a male peer (affirmative action is a great way to weight my priors that she’s not as competent as a man in the same job, that’s just an inevitability).
So I put it to you that possibly this dynamic is at play, and women are right to infer that mens’ positive opinion of them is positive in a way that they don’t want (or at least they’d like to check height and jawline before they decide whether they want). Under such conditions, it makes some sense that they would not reciprocate the demographic’s affections; and their opinions are based on an understanding of men which is MORE accurate, not less accurate, than that captured by the survey’s relative ratios.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
But there is something fundamentally debasing and ugly about wallowing in your impotence like that.
What I think is MORE fundamentally debasing and ugly is you implying that we’re not allowed to call this Ruiner Of Nations out on his bullshit, in that doing so somehow makes us the ugly ones, not him.
I mean, what even is your entire post except a lengthy shaming of anti-Trudeau people? Read the rules in the header and cut that shit out.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
If this story is true, did Colby think that the cardinal is not aware of the military abilities of Russia and China?
Given that those “abilities” are fairly anaemic, any knowledge that the cardinal has would increase Colby’s credibility.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
Urban II, Eugene II, Gregory VIII, Innocent III, Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV…
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
So. Is the implication that people with the wrong political opinions are a bunch of cucks or what?
What I took from the preamble is that French people are a bunch of cucks.
Given that it’s illegal in France to do a paternity test, precisely because they worry that the results would cause the collapse of society, this all seems to fit together nicely.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
Trump went so far as to say that he was planning to wipe out the entire civilization of Iran. Of course the pope spoke out against him.
A majority of popes would have considered this an unequivocal good. Indeed, several of them have tried to do it themselves.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
I am not sure how you got from “I am glad that bureaucratic bloat has been reduced” to “Americans cannot envisage a positive future”.
Around 200 employees who worked on the issue, including at that office, have been reduced by about 90 percent, according to two current and former officials and a person familiar with the effort. The team that handles civilian casualties at Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, has dropped from 10 to 1.
This information improves my opinion of Hegseth.
It’s bad enough that I have to pay (taxes) for firing tomahawks at Iran; it’s insulting that I simultaneously have to pay for people to sit around and finger-wag that those tomahawks might do collateral damage. So I am very glad that I no longer have to pay for 90% of those people.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
Figuring out a tactful way of assessing whether someone is single seems like a small trade off.
You’d think so, but no, it’s an insurmountable, socially paralysing cliff face for anyone vaguely neurotic (my past self included), especially those who have been involuntarily stewed long enough in the social messaging milieu of “Expressing unwanted romantic interest to a woman is Basically Rape”. But if she’s on an app, then she’s Asking For It so can’t really call you a creeper for cold approaching, can she?
Most people (both here and in wider society) seem to condemn dating apps in The Current Year; I still think they’re fucking great, because - while they certainly have many problems - they also solve many problems.
To be fair, dating apps haven’t gotten me a respectable wife in my half decade of using them, so they have technically failed the assignment. But dating apps have gotten a lot of Zoomer girls into my bed, which is certainly worth partial credit when 6 years ago I was staring down the barrel of incel-dom.
There are indeed a lot of things on the internet, and especially social media, that are bad in the way casinos are bad, but calling this "screens" feels like calling slot machines "levers" or something.
This is the part where I think you’re wrong. Because it’s possible to have a lever that is not attached to a slot machine, so there is no slippery slope from “Here’s a lever (that teaches you the educational engineering mechanics of fulcrums!)” to “You are now addicted to penny slots”. But it is NOT possible to have an internet-enabled device that lacks a slippery slope from “You are watching an educational Youtube video” to “You are now addicted to dopaminagenic slop”. It’s literally one click away. With the physical lever, you have to actually get off your ass and go to a casino; and as Scott tells us: you get an outsize effect from minor inconveniences.
I have a hard enough time avoiding slipping on the Youtube slope, and I’m a 30-year-old academic with enough self-discipline to finish a PhD. You wanna put five year olds on the top of the slope? Get outta heeeeeere
(What I will say, though, is that it’s better to have a five year old addicted to dopaminagenic slop than no five year old at all, so I actually support kids being raised by screens if it means TFR goes up. Just don’t delude yourself that the practice ain’t cookin’ their brains)
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
I counter your n=1 anecdata with my n=1 anecdata; I got dragged to dance classes by my girlfriend and our class is (remains? I don’t actually have eyewitness evidence as to the gender ratio pre-2025) heavily female skewed, roughly 3:2 women:men.
Unfortunately(?) it’s not the sort of skew that tests my fidelity; I would rank the quality of IRL women on offer somewhat lower than I would have ranked those on offer on the apps. And with the significant added problem that the apps were designed to solve: namely that IRL, you don’t know if they’re going to be receptive to solicitation, whereas online, you do.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
Thank you for this. Primary accounts are great.
You say that you have an expectation of psychically dividing your life into “Before Missiles” and “After Missiles”; how do you think your life is going to be different after?
(I ask mostly from the perspective of one of Scott’s old posts, which, to paraphrase, had a thesis of ‘People Who Claim To Have Achieved Enlightenment / Had A Life-Changing Experience Are Actually Indistinguishable From How They Acted Beforehand’)
I did drama in high school (mostly to avoid having to do painting). It was, indeed, ezpz.
More options
Context Copy link