KingOfTheBailey
No bio...
User ID: 1089
I think it looks tacky and dorky, and my default picture of a vaper includes things like libertarianism, cryptocurrency, and fedoras. So why do I see a surprising number of attractive younger women doing it? Does anyone know how that happened?
Well, don't keep us all in suspense! Which book?
Are MPC proxies more expensive than $0.25/card? If not, why not order everything from MPC?
Laser printer and a proxy-making website. Pick up chaff left over from drafts for free, slip your proxy in front of the card using a sleeve, and you're golden. Once you start playing, you won't notice that the cards aren't "genuine", and you won't get into awkward conversations about "counterfeits".
The primary one is noticing and rejecting the following general pattern: if we have a good thing G, and we add some stuff to G, we still get a good thing G that is just as good. It shows up in many contexts. Some examples:
-
The addition of "arts" to STEM, making "STEAM" (while liberal arts are fine in their own right, they're completely different to STEM);
-
The addition of arbitrary numbers of foreigners to a country, while expecting the host country's culture to remain completely unchanged;
-
The addition of experimental mRNA medicines under the label of "vaccine"; or
-
The addition of anything with vaguely-positive emotional valence to the label "democracy".
It is unfortunate that so much of the debate is driven by bad actors, and not by reasonable people like (I assume) yourself who just want to live your lives and be left in peace. But the fact that even the reasonable people will generally refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of bad actors means that ...
I could have said this, word for word, re: Islam during my Internet Atheist years. And the fact that this epistemic rigor was not observed by the people I argued with really opened a lot of cracks in my old, blue-tribe worldview. (Charlie Hebdo and the reactions to it opened those cracks into fissures, and from there it's been rabbit holes all the way down.)
I don't really have a point here, but I found the historical resonance startling.
My observations are reversed: most of the current-generation trans people I've met take on extremely feminine names and presentation, and give me a disquieting sense of being forced to participate in their fetish with no meaningful ability to refuse consent. Older transwomen I've known have given me the "I just want to quietly pass and get on with my life" vibe.
It's a shame that's the one with the unnameable cat, because it's harder to promote it more broadly.
The linked photograph doesn't do anything to dispel that notion either — the woman is shot to be functionally anonymous, an interchangeable rent-a-womb in the background. You get the feeling that as soon as she gives birth, she'd be shoved out of the picture entirely, possibly before she's fully recovered. But she's the most important part of the whole thing! None of this happens without her, and so instead I see a celebration of two men's narcissism, and have the uneasy feeling that the impending new life is going to be treated like a teacup dog or other fashionable accessory.
And there are enough examples of pairs of gay paedophiles adopting children to abuse them or rent them back out that it pattern-matches in unfortunate ways. Example 1, example 2. This is culture war red meat and Chinese Cardiologist stuff, so it's hard to draw well-founded conclusions in either direction. However, it is interesting that the couple in the second example were written up by Australia's national public broadcaster in a very flattering article on gay parenthood-by-surrogacy and "can you believe it's this hard for them to be parents"? (The author of the Quadrant article in example 2 was unaware of the wayback machine — archived ABC link.) When the "happy dads" who get the fawning news article turn out to be child abusers, you can see why some people jump to conclusions.
Based on those creepy paedophilic teddy bear photoshoots they put out, I say instead: there is no such thing as Balenciaga, only degrees of guilt.
Closest I know of is the StoneToss comic where the present elephant says "Democrats are the Real Racists", and the future elephant says "Neo-Leninists are the Real Transphobes".
Of course, a bunch of religious people who think this is all God's will and that they can't change anything accept their lives and all that
I thought conservatives tended to have a stronger internal locus of control than liberals. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and all that - does that change between secular and religious conservatives?
“Did you just divorce-shame me?” she demanded indignantly, as if he’d violated some well-established principle of etiquette.
We could stop doing things like that. Just stop digging.
The reply could at least be "yes, and you deserved it". Removing shame is one of the dumbest things western culture has done, IMHO.
I have no idea what that means, but I'm sure it's lit. Or groovy. Or something.
Alas, no. I checked the guy's youtube page but it seems to be just those two.
I stumbled upon some parodies of CEO Morgan from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and you lot are the only people I can share 'em with. Nobody else I know is both sufficiently unhinged and has enough appreciation for the classics:
I stumbled upon an old HN comment advocating for Bloomfield and Barnhart's Let's Read, a Linguistic Approach (Amazon), which seems pretty promising.
A previous thread (which I can no longer find) recommended Dolly Parton's Imagination Library as a way to get age-appropriate books delivered each month for your child. But most of their books are published by Penguin, and we all know what Penguin just did to Roald Dahl, so I'd vet the book list carefully before signing up.
How did you come to this level of faith? I admire that, but I have no idea how to find it. Every church I look at seems to be institutionally sick, or worse. For example: Catholicism is the (lapsed) faith of my family, but all I see of the Catholic Church is a deeply sick organization more interested in suppressing the one area of growth among young people (Latin Mass), deeply divided about how to worship. The Anglicans (or maybe only the English Anglicans?) are navel-gazing about whether God the Father is actually God the Non-Binary, and so on.
I'm also interested in hearing from Catholics (particular TLM Catholics) about how they reconcile belonging to a church that seems to hate its own faithful so much. I can't figure it out.
Against your point: I've seen the original "Dahl's getting rewritten" story in right-aligned print newspapers and online on The Guardian (original story, more criticism, "collection of Roald Dahl’s books with unaltered text is to be published"). That's both sides, online and in print.
I would gently but seriously encourage them to see a psychologist, because that level of fragility is not healthy,
That's hilarious, imagine spamming ham radio with queer propoganda!
This is exactly what the linked twitter post is pointing at: thinking it not just funny, but hilarious, to have another political tribe turn up and run roughshod over existing members and culture. I imagine that you don't really see the existing members as "people" if you think it's that funny. Potential further reading: Status 451 on Social Gentrification.
I've been in all-male workplaces where talking about sex and sex acts was commonplace (there were porno magazines in the break room).
Me too, but not to that level. And yes, it's just as inappropriate and I don't like it.
It seems like what you're describing is the same thing my trans friends are describing with regard to Harry Potter content? Am I wrong there?
No, I see important differences:
-
It's an explicit attempt to take over and change norms of a group and amp up the sexual content therein. A topic ban doesn't fix that.
-
Video game streamers are expected to talk about the latest video game. People are expected to avoid movie forums if they're trying to see the latest blockbuster without spoilers. They don't get to demand the entire internet censors itself for their sensibilities. Same principle here.
-
It is Not Allowed to push back against trans anything, and saying "please stop turning this technical discussion space into your transition support group" reliably gets one accused of being hateful or phobic.
I don't quite get this one-- is the post quoting an extreme tweet and then providing commentary?
Yes, that's exactly it. I have personally left (and feel driven out of) many hobbyist spaces thanks to coordinated groups of queer people of some type or other showing up and being aggressively sexual. I don't want to hear about how their hormones make them feel euphoric, I don't want to hear about "lol sex act joke", I want to go back to talking about X.
The problem is that the entire point of EA is to stop making decisions using base human impulses and think for a second or two about what's actually going to do the most good. Hence bednets, hence deworming, hence "I care about the suffering of shrimp", hence "annihilate all existence so there's no possibility of suffering", etc. This is a movement that via memes such as "80,000 hours", "the giving what we can pledge", and "earning to give" asks people to redirect nontrivial chunks of their lifetime earning capacity, which those people could have instead used to improve their own lives, or the lives of their families, friends and local communities.
Any redirection of the movement away from this mission is waste by its own definition. That its elites have decided to screw around with polyamory instead of doing the maximally-effective thing in the world reminds me more of a new-age religious sex cult than a movement genuinely interested in improving the world.
I think you might be ahead of the curve. Over the past few years the right has taken the first stumbling steps towards a culture that might actually stand for something, but none of it is in the "respectable world" where people have faces. (I'll ignore the Right Inc. grifters.) My read is that it started in the chans (maybe for the last time), then went to pseudonymous poasters on reddit and twitter, but it's still at the level of books, where a) the author can publish under a pseudonym (pen names being a thing for a long time) and b) the marginal benefit to the author vastly exceeds the marginal benefit to the megaplatform hosting his work. Whereas in theatre, you're putting your identity on the line. I imagine many of the problems you see in theatre are also repeated in Hollywood; either you stick your head down or you go full Daily Wire or whatever. But theatre doesn't yet seem to have a Daily Wire to shelter people and bootstrapping it seems like a hard problem.
Not surprising to me, given the coincidence of autism spectrum disorders with (at least) MtF transgenderism. This makes it easier to deep-dive on things worth blogging about, and possibly makes blogging easier also. After you consider the terminally-online environment, the fact that there seems to be at least some kind of memetic propagation of trans identities (e.g., "cracking someone's egg"), the high base M:F ratio in tech, and the long history of visible transpeople in tech compared to other fields, it seems pretty likely to me that there will be enough men transitioning to easily outnumber the women in this sphere.
I'm completely unsurprised, because progressives generally believe TWAW. In addition, a male transitioning is a two-point swing towards the goal (currently stated at 50:50, but I expect those goalposts to move); a woman joining and becoming publicly visible in the same way is only a one-point swing.
IMHO, the fact that they're CS interests at all makes them niche. You might have "mainstream" interests within the niche, but that just means they're not niche² interests. Consider the stereotype of a C++ programmer vs. a web designer. Pretty much all technical women I know ended up favoring webbish stuff, because it's an environment where you can make cool-looking stuff happen right away and evolve it interactively.
This seems like a correct inference, assuming you're a disfavored individual in a space with heavy affirmative action.
More options
Context Copy link