@YoungAchamian's banner p

YoungAchamian


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 18:51:23 UTC

				

User ID: 680

YoungAchamian


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 18:51:23 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 680

51% German, 48% Autistic. As someone who is diagnosed with Autism, I thought my other score would be higher.

Fair enough, I have zero risk appetite for options.

How? Oil futures are up 82% over the past 3 months, very good, but hardly 50x.

They've been around for 12 years, it has always been a den of scum and villiany but the arguments/discussions were at least more interesting than shit-flinging. Probably 10-8 years ago was peak. so 2016-2018/2019 my memory is a bit weak on the exact period.

We might have different views on what the interesting part is then. The original thesis that I responded to was "here are the observed forum behaviors on lefty forums" It missed the most interesting extension to me, which was that righty forums behave no differently. The behaviors described are inherent to human tribal politics at a cognitive substrate that extends beyond a left/right spectrum.

I had also inferred a larger thesis that right-wing dominated forums are morally better then left-wing dominated because they don't perform the stated behaviors are anywhere near the same rate. Per-capita rate is then a more relevant factor, because my thesis, is that no, the rates are probably similar. And that principled Libertarians (and the permanence of their values) are the larger factor in the openness and quality of forums than any left/right split. And as this comment pointed out, lots of libertarians are realizing that the righties are not opposed to lefty tactics, they just want different targets.

The rate would be per-[leftist/rightist] comment / per-captia of comments rather than just raw instances. If 50% time a human interacts with a bear it mauls them but you only interact with a bear 10 times, it has a per captia rate of 5/10. If 27k murders by men occur but 3 million interactions happen, it has a per capita rate of 0.0076. The Human male still murders more people but overall interacting with human men is safer than interacting with a bear.

If 70k out of 100k of comments on a reddit forum are "boo-outgroup" vs 800/1k on the motte, the motte is far more "boo outgroup" despite there being overall less motte "boo-outgroup" comments. The rate is much higher. Your stated ""rate" is per instance or total count. This manipulates statistics to give the lower population forum more grace when per-captia is more honest, because it accounts for the confounding factor of the lower population.

There is something deeply ironic and funny about having to explain "per-capita" to a claimed leftist, defending righties.

If you aren't going to weigh into "quality," then all you're really doing is commenting on the lack of equality of outcomes (as measured by things like responses that amount to dogpiling, Gish Galloping, etc.) based purely on left-right-partisanship. And that's just irrelevant here, because the point of this forum isn't to achieve such equity. Quality is highly subjective, but it's also not infinitely so, and there are certainly qualities which are agnostic to partisanship that this forum specifically demands of the comments both by rule and by norms, and it is a good thing that a comment's quality determines, in a large part, the pushback it gets from other commenters.

Give me a metric about quality that we can agree on. Because if the answer is "it is subjective" then it has nothing to do with "equality of outcome". Pointing out tribal behavior is not an outcome, and I doubt anyone at the motte will be super plus-ed when we implemented a quota system for responding to outgroup comments/posts. This entire argument is me saying "it exists in parallel" and you saying "nuh-uh and if it did all those comments deserved it", which I believe is the The Law of Merited Impossibility, aka gaslighting.

I second the use of them for rubber ducking. I extensively use the ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking model for putting my thoughts down and then having it mostly organize them into something more coherent, relating them to other things, or using them to find literature on arxiv to peruse along my current thoughts.

I disagree heavily.

Then we disagree. As a centrist, I witness and have experienced it with my own eyes.

The rate at which this happens is orders of magnitude lower than the mirror image in a typical subreddit that has discussion about similar topics as here.

If this is your major point then you are making a point I am not arguing, its not about quantity it's that it happens at all. This place has orders lower magnitudes of people than the mirror image typical subreddit. This is like saying it's safer to be be next to a bear in the woods because bears kill less people then men do. It's bad stats because you interact with an astronomically large amount of men everyday, everywhere. I doubt the Motte has more than 50k-100k active users. Just went and looked at the comparative PurplePillDebate on reddit. It has 121k weekly visitors, and it is very degraded from its heyday.

I'm not really going to weigh into a discussion of "quality". That is highly subjective, to the point, that one could easily just say every post that gets dog-pilled and mass-reported was "low quality". It's a just-so-story.

I agree with the overall schema of how forum cultures work but I think you have a blindspot. The motte is the equivalent to the left-wing dominated forum but for right wingers. Lefties here are absolutely dogpilled, mass-replied, gish-galloped, mass reported, or downvoted. Far more than the reverse happens here. So yes the lefties that stick around here do have a selection pressure, but lets not pretend that righties don't stoop to the same left-forum behavior when they are suddenly the majority.

EDIT: This is straight up just human tribal behavior. Attaching a political label to it is just further evidence.

I haven't been in a year or two, but they were still limping along in 2024. They definitely hit a sort of evaporating cooling effect where most of the intelligent discussion oriented folks left, leaving mostly people in the rage-phase of their various red/pink pill movements.

EDIT: This is /r/purplepilldebate specifically

290, I'm sorta annoyed at the low literary score. For most of them I was really only guessing 4/5 answers every time. the 5th one was always really hard to get. Though I did perfect international knowledge, beating the stereotype of dumb self-centered americans I guess.

What's driving the disconnect between them and me?

An inability to actually model the world. They are so sheltered that they cannot conceive of a lack of material abundance being available. It's too abstract for them. The world is too complex for them.

Not deeply familiar with the Boers, but a cursory read of Wikipedia is it sounds like they got conqueror by the British. But that's a classic Iron-Age problem. Maybe they just didn't go pro-man enough to really give them the superior culture that was needed...

This is apocryphal so not sure how true it is, but a friend who does recruitment for a large hospital on North Dakota told me they are trying to pay rare specialists upwards of 900k to move there and stay. Something about how its ND which makes it hard to actually get these people, forcing them to pay them obscene amounts of money. How true is something like that?

his son and subordinate Uday

Yeah these I know about, I imagine his son didn't fall far from the tree. I doubt lefties have a monopoly on sexual predation.

If 'showing up at orgy island' is your benchmark for rape

Keep in mind its pedo-orgy island. Whether or not Trump really engage in it, he's at a similar level of guilt as the quoted Chomsky. Prince Andrew is definitely guilty and since he's royalty, albeit British, does the left or the right claim him?

Yeah Gadaffi likely got up to some extreme levels of sexual deviancy. You definitely don't have a hot female body squad, just because you are *checks notes * "A strong feminist Dictator"

think I'm gesturing off in the direction of "right wingers tend not to elevate rapists and pedos as leaders,

Feels like a failure of imagination. Monarchists are right wing. Haven't there been a bunch of scandals about kings graping people. Do we need to get into various the various pope scandals, or even priest pedo scandals? We have Trump showing up at Epstein island. I'm sure Saddam, or Gaddafi never ever raped people, and neither have various Saudi monarchs.

I think the much safer claim is that power attracts predators, and the revolutionary leftwing movements are no different.

EDIT: How could I forget about our "allies" in Afghanistan and their practice of Bacha Bazi, due to their strong conservative beliefs in Islam. Definitely not right wingers. /s

You've written a lot, and tied much of it to your personal experience, I'm not sure I can match you in length but I will try in depth. I'm not really motivated to litigate point for point with you though.


Cutting a path through life, towards death, dissolution, non-existence, remembrance, the next life, pick your metaphysical ending. Not every journey is about the destination. I exist therefore I am. There is no purpose other than the one you give your own life. You need to forge your own meaning. That meaning is going to be deeply personal and deeply individual. No one can give it to you, or tell you what it is. The biggest crime our society has inflicted on men, is that by trying to control them, force them to fit in the square hole of society, we have created a class of men who need to be told what to do, how to think, how to feel, how to be. Lo for it to be me to fall to the common trap of now prescribing what manhood means, all I can say is that manhood is forge by the individual. You cannot forge something without resistance, without struggle.

It sounds like to you, meaning was found through family, you see your existence as the perpetuation of your familial line. That's an old meaning, common through history. But it has its risks. As stated elsewhere in this thread, it depends on others to engage with you. You have tied your own happiness to others, and are thus at the mercy of the fates, or the health of our society. You can rage against the darkness but accept it is the darkness of your own choosing.

I have never been one to find meaning in my genetic line. Oh I've had the thoughts about my biological purpose, but I'm not a animal. I am not chained to my biology. I find meaning, manhood, masculinity in the depth and breath of my knowledge and skills, my ability to overcome challenges. To me nothing gives me greater satisfaction than thinking about where I came from: an outcast, autistic child, to a pillar of my local community. I'm not going to humble brag about all the skills I've developed or knowledge I have acquired. But I look back on my struggle, and I find meaning in it.

I'm sure there are broad strokes around what meaning a man can find. What it means to "be a man" but its varied, and subscribing to a one-size fits all; these are the boxes you need to check to be "a man" is exactly the opposite of what manhood means.

Our major viewpoint differences is that you have tied yourself to others, to society, to reward you for "being a man". You have an external locus of reward. All your efforts, gaining skills, knowledge, capability, are all in service of peacocking your way into to having other's recognize you and reward you for those skills/knowledge/capabilities. Incentives do exist, they do drive behavior, but the mistake is that thinking life is some sort of video game where the rewards are deterministic: insert resources, tech, behavior, -> get predefined rewards for doing so. It's not and has never been. Yeah the previous generations paired up more, but those weren't all marriages of love, but economic necessity, social necessity, cultural necessity. Times change and people don't want to be shackled to someone who "was there and available and I could stand", they want a fantasy of love and marriage.

Your entire mentality seems to be as though you can engineer society like its some video game, provide the incentives -> get behavior. And then you get mad because society is not encouraging the incentives you think it should, failing to conceive that maybe society is not a video game. It's this weird technocratic thinking that is divorced from reality.


Different time period, Rome existed in a brutal world where most people died often, and to survive it required you to band together, build a community, struggle together, and win at all costs. Modern life is not that world. If you want to go back to subsistence farming and raiding your neighbors for sheep, then move to Afghanistan or Somalia and Iron-Age Max with the bros. You can forge this men-helping-men tribe the same way everyone has already figured out to: Shared Struggle. Modern life is currently too wealthy, safe, secure, comfortable to really give you that struggle. You find that sort of camaraderie in places where those comforts are stripped, or the struggle is emphasized. It probably doesn't scale well.

And lets be clear, your fantasy of Rome being this Men-For-Men paradise was far from the truth. The society was not propelled by the unified purpose, but by individual agents each seeking what was best for themselves with a society that had converged to channeling that towards its own continued existence. It was not engineered. Nobody sat in the game design room and was like "here add a pinch of republicanism, a dash of social approval from public works, and a splash of citizen armies" For every society that has converged to pro-social norms there are hundreds of societies that have converged on anti-social ones and failed. History doesn't remember them.

And when they didn't have enough women to go around, they banded together and guess what they did. And presumably your philosophy would approve of such path-carving. It shows gumption.

I have a fairly Nietzschean disposition, the ancient world was cruel and brutal. I do not judge the men of yesteryear by what was required to exist in such a time.

Of course, what's the incentive for doing them if the reward isn't there.

Existential self-satisfaction and discovery. Needing to be rewarded for doing/knowing/being good at things is the behavior of a child or a dog. Part of being a man is cutting your own path in the world for yourself, not because other told you to, rewarded you for doing so, told you: "you were are a good little boy", etc.

Yes, collectively society can be at tension with the individual in conferring certification of competence, and even that certification can degrade in actually being a clear signal of competence. Doesn't make that competence any less masculine.

But he will not earn much respect merely for his intelligence and knowledge unless he can convert that into money, which is also made very difficult these days.

For some things sure, but I disagree its difficult. Yes somethings like being handy around the house will not get you money, but being able to do them on your own displays competence, saves you money. People absolutely will respect you for it.

And becoming skilled at 'hard things' ultimately depends on what barriers exist to acquiring the skills. And what, precisely, do we consider 'hard things' in terms of skill?

Idk, figure it out, its a personal journey towards being competent. For some its being handy, woodsy, crafty. For others its great partner dance skills. I don't know of anyone who has ever thought that being a Renaissance man was a negative. Giving people a template to follow destroys the credibility of the signal. You need to figure out what "being skilled or being competent" means to you on your own.

A man is skilled at hard things. A man is knowledgeable and intelligent.

Neither of these require any external input, western society does not deter or hobble you from doing them. It doesn't promote them, but that's the key underlying point. You need to do them on your own, because "figuring it out" is part of that skill. Competence is sexy.

Not going to weigh in on your other stuff because it's not necessarily wrong, but these two were glossed over and you are wrong about them.

we read comments on the internet we use limited information to interpret what perspective is being communicated.

This is not the broader internet, it is a niche community, people's affective information appears in a continuous manner. There are iterative engagements, post history, etc that give greater semantic clarity than shallow linguistics reads. Justifications about deploying rough signal filters ring more hollow. Donny is diminutive in the sense that any more casual nickname is diminutive. Would you freak and call someone a lefty for calling Richard Cheney something so diminutive as Dick? Regardless, it's not something I hear left wing folks say either, so as a dog whistle its pretty weak.

And in this case you are in fact critical of Trump so my read seems more than justified.

The fun part about being an independent that voted for Trump in 24, is that I get to critique him. I earned that right. As I have literally demonstrated that I will move across the aisle, and am not a tribal partisan hack. Unlike a lefty who would never vote for him or a righty who would never vote left regardless of candidate. Hell, my vote probably mattered more than yours...

object-level about Trump and Minneapolis, where I think you're wrong.

What you think shock and awe tactics against an outgroup when they hold a veto enabling minority to fund the group you are using to do shock and awe tactics with, whose budget renewal is coming up, is the smart thing to do? You think American citizen's weren't shot in Minneapolis? There is a smart way to enforce border deportations and then there is the dumb way. It would have been much harder for democrats to resist on principle if ICE looked competent and professional (they still would try, but that's politics). Now ICE looks like thugs who "murdered two American citizens exercising their 1st and 2nd amendment rights to protest such obvious authoritarian brutality. The cost to us citizens thus must be borne by any means to curtail that abuse" (not my words, but that's the general normie lefty view/vibe/interpretation). Meaning democrats can afford much more pain for shutting down DHS.

Ehhh, you're missing the point of the TSA. It's a jobs program for the working class, much the same way the MIC is a jobs program for the middle class. Give them a purpose, some authority, and an income and no one figures it out that THEY have the bullshit email job that exists via government largess.

I am irreverent in the extreme. I don't subscribe to language being "coded" to signal tribal loyalty.

Idk if democrats are really hitting the defect button here, that would imply this is a prisoner's dilemma-esque game. They are just advocating for what their constituents want(in the ideal aggregate). What's really happening is that DonnyBoy, knowing full well that DHS funding was due for a refresh after the last CR, decided poorly that Jan/Feb was the perfect time to go vindictively goad democratic communities. Then American citizen's got shot by ICE... Dude could have chilled on Minnesota until after the budget was passed, but that's not his style. Poor strategic instincts, lead to poor policy outcomes.

Actually, I work in applied research that is funded by the government, I have research work that had strong interest from a division of the DHS back in Jan and have been playing whack-a-mole trying to get it funded since. I am just acutely aware of the funding issues and the reasons for. I think attempting to project my motivations onto your simple partisan 1D axis is a fools errand.

Yes but the core sticking point here is ICE, which is under DHS. DHS isn't getting funded because of ICE. Unless Trump wants to negotiate big on ICE operations, I predict the democrats are unwilling to fund DHS. I don't think Donny wants to make a deal yet.