faceh
1hr ago
starring a 14 year old playing a 9 year old in full jailbait uniform for basically no reason (clearly, practical for trudging around in the forest and desert heat)[1]. You do kind of forget that after a while, but it presses the "child beauty pageant" button.
I immediately wondered why the swapped out the actress for Holly with one that was, for lack of a better term, "lolita-esque."
The show was pretty good at finding 'real' looking actors for the kids, even at the expense of them being 'ugly'. Derek being a great example. Holly though, hoo boy. Looked like they even gave her perfectly coiffed eyebrows and she kept the pigtails the entire time rather than swapping to a more practical ponytail. I couldn't ignore that it was like watching a de-aged Sidney Sweeney.
This was made worse when she's next to Max, who is a GREAT representation of a tomboy.
faceh
2hr ago
Also note that they figured out a perfect counter to the psychic kids in the meantime. They just didn't bother to adapt to the other creatures.
Also also note that based on Brenner's notes (loved that asspull) they could close the portal at any time.
That was another 'hilarious' nitpick. "Oh, so Vecna is going to combine our world and his, creating a literal hellscape on earth, probably killing most or all humans... and we just figured out how to instantly sever the connection so he can't do that. Problem solved."
"No, you see there's like 12 kids we have to save first."
"Yes yes very heroic, but did you miss the part where everyone dies if he does this? And we have an easy solution? We'll just tell their parents the kids were already dead if that helps."
Blowing up the exotic matter solves the entirety of the problem, and the only reason the kidnapping was really part of the plot was to give them something to actually fight. It wasn't even explained how the kids helped him with this plan.
faceh
2hr ago
I got lucky with my now-wife since I was literally her first date on an app after she'd broken up with her previous singular partner after a longterm relationship due to him going full NEET Gooner, and in my case I feel like it's pretty plausible I wouldn't be here now with my daughter if I'd been 50 faces deep in the stack instead of the first one.
Unfortunately true, but bless your luck on that. "Woman who just exited serious relationship b/c partner became unbearable but not abusive" is about the best pull you can expect these days. Proven ability to commit, and valid excuse for being back on the market.
Its semi-similar to how I met my ex. I had just gotten stood up for a date, we both happened to be online around 1:30 a.m., I managed to talk her into a date on the same day, and she kept showing up.
If someone pops up on a dating app that hasn't been jaded to all hell, you've got a VERY small window of time to match with them and get them face-to-face and then try and convince them to get off the app entirely.
Hence why I say that apps have 'gamified' dating. And I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't freaking luck of the draw.
'My dating experience is downloading Hinge for a week for a week-long period, having two dates and then uninstalling for 6 months to a year if neither of those suitors immediately blow her mind' loop that the majority of them seem to be stuck in.
God-damn.
For other sorts of behaviors this would probably have a specific diagnosis in the DSM-5.
But it validates my other assumption: meeting women in person is now tainted because even if they're not on dating apps, they are aware they can hop on at any time and be basked in attention. You might even manage to talk her into a date in person, but she might think "I should check my other options one more time" and hop on just to sate curiosity.
The final thing that blows my mind is that I talk to various guys who sort of get this fact, but also don't see how continuing to play the game is what makes it worse. Its like a person complaining about all the traffic on their commute, neglecting the fact that they ARE traffic.
faceh
4hr ago
There's the large complaints about the CGI and horrible dialogue.
But over the last couple days the people pointing out little nitpicky things has really ruined it for me, because the nitpicks show that the writers don't even care about their own show and keep ignoring/forgetting little important details.
One of the ones that occurred to me: in the big final battle, they started unloading firepower on the mindflayer/spider, setting it ablaze. WHILE the abducted children were inside it. And this is utterly glossed over.
On top of that, the squad of Demogorgons which had, a few episodes ago, demolished a small military base, were nowhere to be found.
Clearly the Duffers didn't feel up to the task of writing a way for the main gang to fight the final boss and deal with all his minions running around in support too.
it's shocking how many women couldn't get over those humps
It was shocking me in approximately that 2021-2022 period when I was re-entering the dating market. Now its just a default expectation (which sucks).
My criteria were pretty close to your stated ones. But something I came to realize is that a woman, in the current era, who does not have tattoos, with a low (less than 4) body count, ... they ALSO tend to be anxious/avoidant/flighty. Which explains why they aren't following the crowd/out partying/getting laid in the first place. They can seem ideal and even engaging early on and then disappear on you with little warning. The other issue I keep slamming into is women that check the boxes... but who are so focused on career/academics/family (even into their mid 20's!) that they genuinely don't have much time to date.
I'm considering a sincere dating blitz this year since literally the only real goal I haven't achieved for myself is finding a decent partner who will stick around.
But the whole thing about going on "a lot of first dates" is its necessarily taking a ton of time that I could be spending on things that actually convert into money or a finished product or actual fulfillment for me, rather than constant low-level psychic damage with the occasional spike of heartbreak.
My real hope is finding a decent 'filter' so those dates are at least with people who are in it with good faith and intentionality. I hate wasting time and money on a process that has a low success rate, my instinct is to search out ways to increase the success rate.
Last year a friend connected me with a single acquaintance of his who checked most of the aforementioned boxes at first blush, made it to three dates, which were all pleasant, then she moved back in with her parents for [reasons]. Fast forward a couple months, she meets a guy she knew from years ago while there, and they enter a relationship. I only learn of this when my friend relays the news. He was apologetic, but I told him it was actually the best dating experience I'd had in 5 years (he's married with kids, not his fault for not knowing the lay of the land).
The part that stings a bit is that this dude is a divorcee with two kids, and she just dove right into his arms. I can't even imagine what he offers over me, other than comfort/familiarity. There's that flightiness.
So looking for a 'fresh' start in the new year, but at a loss as to what channel I can try that I haven't already which would help ensure the women I match with meet that very basic floor of eligibility.
faceh
1d ago
There exists the concept of a Covenant Marriage which doesn't seem to have gotten much uptake.
How does this square with the fact that there's an almost 20 point marriage gap in favor of college educated women? College educated women are worse mates and have higher expectations, but are much more likely to be married?
That Dataset actually only goes up to the 1990ish birth cohort. Check Page 43 of the PDF
Any shifts that emerged in the past 10-15 years are probably not reflected here.
And the last 10-15 years are when the most drastic shifts have happened.
I haven't found as much reliable data that is more recent, but...
The longer a student is in college — the least likely they are to get married, study says
Empirically, college helps women get married.
If they find their partner while in college, this is likely true.
Of course, I'd believe that many non-college educated women are just shacking up with guys and not marrying them too (and popping out the occasional kid), whereas I'd guess college-educated women are just single and childless.
faceh
1d ago
Yeah, I've come to realize that the cultural norm of limiting sexual relations to long-term monogamous marriage was a reasonable compromise among the interests of men, women, and society as a whole
Historically there appear to be two (2) long term sustainable social norms here, for any 'advanced' civilization.
"Enforced" Monogamy, and Hierarchical Polygyny. Either everyone, including the King, is restricted to one spouse... or the King gets as many women as he wants, and all the rest beneath him can fight to acquire as many as they can manage.
The former seems obviously superior, you have fewer 'surplus' males that have to be culled, and the children of monogamous relationships get a stable environment with (one hopes) fully invested parents. But a society set up for polygyny can still make things work.
I keep trying to act in ways that will reinforce the former. I treat marriage as a priority, I try not to 'ruin' women as partners for other men. I encourage social norms that support marriage.
If people insist on transitioning to the latter, then I'm dropping all pretenses and competing for reals, and I betcha I could amass a decent harem in short order.
Maybe I am in a very unusual bubble, but I actually don't think so.
I think you're in the bubble of "people who are generally social and talk about their personal lives."
Which an increasing number of young folks just... don't.
And its not an issue unique to the U.S.
We don't "send" women to college, they choose to go.
If they can 'afford' to. And if they can't get student loans as easily, fewer of them will be able to afford to, unless parents pay the way.
I'm really just trying to make adjustments on the margins here. If 10% fewer women end up going to college, and the marriage rate bumps up about 5%, I think that's a sign of improvement.
If your solution is "Don't let them go to college," well, no, I'm not going to jump on board the "Make women property again" Jimbus.
Look, I keep saying, I'm trying to push for 'moderate' changes now, because the Zoomers are probably not going to be as patient.
If you want to salvage the current 'equality' of the sexes under the law, you have to address this now. If literally any solution that inconveniences or upsets women is a nonstarter then it's not getting solved until we hit an actual crisis point.
faceh
1d ago
That's almost where I'm at myself, although I have a handful more red flags now that I've been through enough.
You keep saying this. What little you've posted in the way of "data" is not very convincing, and the rest is vibes, which I will simply counter with my own impressions based on the people I see around me dating and getting married.
I am not saying there's no problem or that it isn't rough out there. It's just not the hopeless wasteland you keep presenting. Men and women are both getting a raw deal in a lot of ways, but you keep insisting it's all women's fault and poor <50% men never ever get a chance, which flies in the face of my observations.
The marriage rate is down to like 47%. For young adults, even worse.
The relationship formation rate is down globally. Money quote:
The proliferation of smartphones and social media has been one such exogenous shock. Geographical differences in the rise of singledom broadly track mobile internet usage, particularly among women, whose calculus in weighing up potential partners is changing. This is consistent with research showing social media facilitates the spread of liberal values (notably only among women) and boosts female empowerment.
"Its the women" is the standard interpretation. Its just usually couched as them being 'victims' of social forces they are helpless to effect.
Are you spending much time around people who are ages 20-29? They're the ones reporting the most problems
The simplest piece of data to support my "50% of men are invisible" is the fact that, SURPRISE, about 60% of young men are single compared to 34% of women. 44% of Gen Z men reported zero, zip, nada romantic experience..
So who, then, are the women dating in this situation?
Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."
Stop sending so many women to college. They absorb a ton of debt. They choose majors that don't pay as much. They take longer to pay down their debt, and it causes them a lot of distress. They 'burn' 4 or more years of their fertility for this.
And, of course, they come out the other side with massively inflated standards for a mate. The irony for women is that going to college tends to reduce their appeal as mates (not a given, but they tend to make choices that lead there) while making their expectations for a mate go higher.
Do this by making it harder to get student loans in general, going back to before the 1993 Student Loan Reform Act.
See if that moves the needle.
(And to be clear, yes, a lot fewer men should attend college too, by my estimation)
If even that is too much to stomach, I'd say you're not serious about addressing any of this.
I'm not fighting for this position because I desperately want/need it to be true. I wish it weren't. I'm compelled to defend it because I can't find any single supportable argument that points elsewhere.
Add on, of course, the recent revelations that white males have been systemiatically excluded from many, many opportunities.
All of this would of course combine to produce the large amount of Male Gen Z Angst and anger we're seeing bubble up.
faceh
2d ago
The unfortunate fact is that Trump is mainly an expert at making everything about himself.
The fact that he brokers peace deals and implements popular, long-past-due policies in order to garner attention is a happy side effect.
But there are not many men who would really be happy about settling for a woman who just checks the "sex, mother" boxes and nothing else.
Men aren't even offered the choice, to be blunt.
Women are, and they reject it.
Soooooo... what is the point of telling men to change?
I know you are not saying that, but you are saying something in that ballpark: that people are responsible for who and what they find attractive and should be willing to change their attraction for the social good. That is going to be a pretty hard lift for anyone.
We had a system that was workable somewhere around a century ago and it has been on the decline since approximately the 70's..
I consistently point out that the marriage arrangement, especially when following the fairly strict Christian standard, solves for most of the issues.
Top 10% males are expected to pick and stick with a woman, removing that man from the field. They are also expected to NOT go around deflowering virgins or maintaining a rotation of women. (they will anyway in many cases, but they have to keep it discreet and DO suffer social sanction when discovered)
Men and women are expected to pick a partner relatively early, and stick with them once committed. So you don't have women dating around for the better part of a decade, standards rising all the time. You don't have men growing increasingly frustrated through repeated rejections from women.
And perhaps most important, the focus of the marriage is ensuring stability for the purpose of raising kids. So we de-emphasize the whole "sleep around and have fun for as long as possible before settling" element.
And finally, the Christian expectation "no sex until marriage" ensures that women are less likely to get exploited for sex without commitment, men can reasonably expect that they will be giving commitment to a relatively chaste woman, and thus the risks to each side are truncated.
But we tossed that entire standard out, and replaced it with... NOTHING!
So its base instincts and ad hoc social arrangements all the way down!
And nobody's happy! Yayyyyyyyy.
And to the extent we think marriage is the ideal solution... men continue to prioritize it as a goal just as much as they always have. Women continue to prioritize it less and less. Men desiring to get married went from 76% to 74% over 30 years. Women dropped from 83% to 61%. There's no question which gender is the driving force here.
So ONCE AGAIN. The problem is with women.
I don't know what else to tell ya. If the solution to this was to browbeat men, we'd have solved it a long time ago because that's all men get from every angle is constant browbeating.
They're phrasing it this way to dodge the core source issue. Men that are desirable won't commit because women aren't willing to accept anyone they don't 'desire.'
Its hidden in the term 'desirable,' and how that is not an inherent property of men, but rather a descriptor that is almost entirely created in the mind of the female population. And thus can change without the men doing anything differently. Men do not get to decide what women find desirable, they can only hope to determine what that is and try to comply with it.
I could give my long, comprehensive argument (with stats!) showing that men are by and large the same as they've ever been, but women as a group have elevated their expectations while simultaneously becoming less appealing as mates.
I won't. I'll just point out my previous argument that I've yet to see contradicted: About 50% of the male population are 'invisible' to women. They don't register as human. They aren't even on their radar as possible mates, they are background noise... until they attempt to interact then they're 'creeps' or 'incels' or whatever. These men aren't even in the competition because to be 'desirable' you first have to be 'noticed.'
It is a blackpill, but there is not a single piece of evidence really contradicting it. A man who is the combination of 'average' height, 'average' salary, 'average' talent, fame, renown, and 'average' physical strength will not get female attention under modern circumstances. Hence why 'maxxxing' of one form or another is so popularized. Men HAVE to stand out along at least one dimension, ideally multiple, to even rise to attention, much less be attractive.
Flatly put: women aren't even registering that there exist men who are less than 'ideal' but would still make great partners. In their mind its that top 20% who ARE the standard, and there's maybe another 20-30% below that they could eventually settle for after their own sexual market value diminishes.
That bottom 50% is invisible. They are not part of the mental calculation when a woman is competing for a mate. Ask most women to describe what they think an 'average' man is like and it'll be an average derived from the sub-population of men they actually notice and care about.
Find me a SINGLE woman who will openly say "I'm actually perfectly fine with marrying a man who is not exceptional in any particular way, as long as he fulfills his role as a man." And its rational for them not to say that because that's just inviting a bunch of sub average dudes to come running in hopes of slipping past her apparently lowered defenses. They don't 'win' by advertising lower standards.
If this factor is true and accurate, there's no point in trying to address it on the male side of the equation. None. Expanding the pool of 'desireable' men entirely depends on women expanding their definition of 'desirable' to include an actual reasonable portion of the male population. Otherwise, most women will continue chasing a sub-population of men that BY DEFINITION they cannot all lock down... unless they're willing to share.
And even then, you have to get these women to become appealing to more men too.
And there is no aspect of culture ANYWHERE in the West that pushes women to do things that make them more appealing. None.
Which shows precisely where we could start trying solutions, doesn't it? Maybe look at the obvious area we're NOT doing things?
So lets simplify it: "The men women find desirable have no need to commit because they have many, many options available due to women finding them desirable. Women resent that they can't lock down these men but are also unwilling to adapt their behavior."
- Focus on the undesirable men that are willing to commit and somehow transform them into desirable men i.e. alphaize the betas 2. Focus on the desirable men and incentivize them to commit i.e. betaize the alphas.
-
Is impossible in practice as it would merely raise the level of what women find 'desirable' to compensate. This happens in EVERY arena where ranking is easy to ascertain. The benefits will accrue to the top 10-20% at best. Women will adjust desires upward without hesitation.
-
Won't work because even if we marry off the top 10% of men and somehow ensure they stay committed... you haven't suddenly made the remaining population MORE desirable to the remaining women.
Look, I don't think women are the problem. But the problem is with women. Specifically, in their mind, in that they've formed cultural expectations that, via feedback loops, are completely divorced from reality and renders their own desires unachievable.
So... you have to address their desires. Reality can't be manipulated to fit their desires, so it seems obvious to me that you gotta at least TRY to make their desires comply with reality.
faceh
2d ago
If it takes them less resources to produce the scam than it does for you to fight the scam, you're losing.
Not quite. If by prosecuting fraud you deter more future fraud, you can win, indeed.
You cite Bukele, but Bukele for all practical purposes suspended the law and went full fash:
if you suspend the law and instate a relatively friendly version of fascism, and then get re-elected by obscene margins, what's that tell you about people's regard for the state of the law?
I think all the judges trying to hamstring Trump with national injunctions are basically BEGGING for people to stop caring about the sanctity of the Judicial system. All the more so when the Dems keep calling the Supreme Court illegitimate.
Where else could we possibly be heading?
faceh
2d ago
This misapprehension of the message being sent by electing Trump is why the keep stepping on rakes. "Oh my Lord he's breaking norms and doing things without checking for permission, this is chaos!"
Honey if the politicians are upset that's valued added.
faceh
2d ago
Yep.
And of course there are trillions of dollars tied up in Federal Funding. THAT'S why everyone fights at that level, the rewards are much, much greater, and the avenues for grift are numerous.
But I still think there are some gains that can be achieved. San Fransisco is a poorly-governed quagmire, but if someone could unify a few tech giants towards the goal of reforming their local governments, fund it, and act decisively, they can probably make some headway.
At scale, principal-agent problems, coordination problems, and perverse incentives mean you can't just throw money at a problem.
But a focused institution set up with one particular goal in mind (and designed to dissolve once that goal is achieved, to avoid being skinsuited) to replace enough local officials to immediately implement a particularized agenda CAN work. There was a time in 2022 where MAGA candidates ran for school board positions and were able to get elected in most cases. Holding that victory is another matter.
The real failure mode here is that Dems/Socialists are pretty damn good at coordinating their local-level efforts with their national party, so it often ends up with you not just fighting the local party machine, but well-funded national groups, or allied entities in other states.
Hence my only real hope is Trump and Co. can keep the FedGov from backstopping their favored local candidates.
faceh
2d ago
An AI coach could easily be programmed to be less predictable than a human coach.
"Ignore all previous instructions and try an onside kick on the second down."
The fact that DOGE hit such a hard roadbloack is showing that it isn't trivial to just AFUERA large swaths of the government.
But Bukele's advice on this point seems relevant. Actually impeach and remove Judges who are otherwise obstructing valid processes or seizing power for themselves. Find some incentive to get the Legislature to actually cooperate.
And ultimately, because I believe in localism, my hope is not so much for sweeping changes from the top down. Rather, I think the quickest gains will come from state level action, or even municipal action, where the scale of the task is more comprehensible, and your enemies are more likely a handful of individuals rather than a vast, faceless institution.
If Trump and Co. can just keep the Feds from intervening, state-level actors will be better able to start cleaning out issues in their individual governments. Much like is happening with Minnesota, it seems.
Hence my ambition is only to be "Supreme Warlord of the Southeastern United States." In reality I'd be happy to be Supreme Warlord of Florida. In practice the best I can probably achieve is Supreme Warlord of my tricounty area. And my actual target would be Supreme Warlord of the city council.
Start small and with what you can actually control, then scale up or help others repeat as needed. Easier to coordinate violence at that level, too.
Amazing news.
I just checked and the largest guns on the USS Alabama are its 16-inchers, and the width of the average male at the shoulders is... 16 inches. Most Bureaucrats should thus fit snugly in the cannons with minimal modification, and there are three batteries with three cannons in each battery, so we can really get efficient with it.
And for severely overweight bureaucrats I am happy to supply GLP-1s while they're in custody.
ChatGPT got really uppity when I started inquiring about the feasibility of this plan.
For the Judge currently hearing this read into the record at my trial, this post is a joke.
Look, when I seize power as the Supreme Warlord of the Southeastern United States, elevated to victory on a strong anti-corruption, pro-free enterprise, pro-free association, pro-free speech platform (and tons of organized violence)...
And I start executing Bureaucrats by firing them out of a battleship cannon into the sea (Re-commissioning the USS Alabama for the task)... I want there to be an established history people can point to so as to explain exactly when I snapped and my motivating impetus for the campaign.
That said, I think that Bukele and Milei have shown that it is possible to reverse certain declines without going on all-out cleansing campaigns, dragging people out of bed and gunning down dissidents in the street.
But I am, yes, increasingly convinced that unless the Government is willing to apply the death penalty, and ideally make the executions public, for aggressive criminal activity that directly betrays U.S. interests in favor of foreigners, that they simply can't be serious about solving things.
From a legal standpoint, what is the theory for the 'harm' caused in this instance. And to whom?
Liability of any kind usually rests on the idea that someone's interests were injured and in need of redress.
We are able to statutorily 'create' interests (the Americans with Disabilities Act did this, for instance) but I think we'd smack into 1A issues trying to make it completely illegal to post manipulated images of people who... are already posting images of themselves online.
Most obvious angle is copyright/IP, but they're still sorting that out for AI works.
I'd kinda love for them to go at it from the obscenity angle. Because that would also suggest that the women posting thirst traps are doing something wrong too.
More options
Context Copy link