philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Not that many males are either, if they don't share that specific interest. Or at least that's my experience, of being on both sides of conversations like that.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Is it still the same band? I think they have one original member left, and if it's not Paul Kantner (dead) or Grace Slick (retired), I don't see much point. Same with a lot of these "bands of Theseus" that are still running around with names made famous in that era.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
It’s really prohibitively expensive to attend games in person. Taking a family of four to a ballgame, buying each person a snack and a beverage is easily $100.
That's prohibitively expensive? I wish two people could get out of a hockey game for that, and I live in one of the less expensive cities in the NHL.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
the possibility of a human being choosing to disobey the law is just not something that exists within their philosophy even as they complain about rampant criminality.
As others have pointed out aspects of, neither half of this seems even remotely true of the woke progressives I know or the ones I see online (two groups that are quite different in some other ways). Plenty of both break laws all the time or cheer on others' doing so, and they don't seem nearly as likely to complain about rampant criminality as deny or downplay it at best, and not infrequently cheer it on.
but 90% to 99% of Americans have spent more hours than that watching porn
I seriously doubt enough women watch porn on the regular for this to be true. Not that I care much about the larger topic (squaring Trumpism with the religious right is not a fight I have a dog in since I'm just like "A pox on both their houses!"), but that jumped out at me.
What's the greater evil: my psychopathy, or OP's incel-ism?
Since the latter isn't an evil at all, whatever else it may be, your psychopathy, almost by default.
I mean...are you a tall dude that looks like he could be a male model? Are you a multimillionaire with yacht pics? Famous? Or...are you okay with women twice your weight? If this guy ain't conventionally attractive he needs a million a year and enough charisma for a career in politics plus the body of a Greek God, otherwise he's decidin' where he wants the ambulances.
This took me less than two minutes to find and is just one example of you doing the exact thing you claim here that you're not doing, and going out of your way to be clear and explicit about it.
Also, I think much of the objection is not to the content but to the repetitiveness. Making a dozen to a score of posts saying essentially the same thing (including two substantively similar direct replies to the OP) in something on the order of 48 hours is pointless and obnoxious.
Last I checked Facebook was still waaaaaaay bigger than all the alternatives proposed by people who say it's dying put together. I think that's mostly people trying to be all hipster-y.
(EDIT: Looked up some numbers and this is no longer true as stated. Insta in particular is far closer to catching up than I would have guessed. But it's still only close to catching up, not in danger of eclipsing it or anything.)
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Perhaps not the most insightful comment, but I was always like "Why did the name 'K-Pop' stick when 'Seoul Music' is right there?"
philosoraptor
1yr ago
You're missing the point. It's got absolutely nothing to do with wokism, and for that matter, by any non-US standard, precious little to do with leftism of any kind.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Not that there weren't recognizable proto-wokist streams within leftism at the time, but it wasn't nearly the all-encompassing thing it can seem to be now. In particular race was nowhere near as central to North American leftism before about 2014 as it is now. In fact one of the many things I (pretty leftist at least by current Motte standards) lament about the rise of wokism is the near-total absence of, not only anti-war sentiment, but of any consideration of foreign policy at all, from 2023 leftism.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
IME actual doctors are confidently wrong with some regularity too.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Even granting the premise of your whole post, I have to make this one tiny quibble: shouldn't principles make someone predictable rather than unpredictable?
Only to people who understand those principles. My read of the political landscape today is that even the possibility of having them is just invisible to a lot of people, much less the details of any particular set.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Well, what I want to know can be rephrased as "what's so special about nudity"? I mean, surely they see themselves without clothes all the time, and lots of other cultures, and not weird fargroup ones but familiar European ones, don't have these hangups according to other posters. It sounds like you're presupposing an answer to that, and indeed an answer you can't even seem to imagine anyone disagreeing with.
I don't really have an answer, beyond that "kids are property" is a nonstarter.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Only 1/50 parents actually objected to nudity being shown (the other two objected to not being informed)
You (and others) talk like these are entirely disjoint concerns, but how separate are they really? Why is informing the parents required in this case in a way it isn't with, say, multiplication tables? Maybe it's a failure of imagination, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible answer that isn't rooted in what some posters are calling "American prudishness".
philosoraptor
1yr ago
It's not a direct result of that law - it's not like the law required this firing, or anything like that. But do you really doubt that's a significant part of what set the context for this incident?
philosoraptor
1yr ago
When you lead with "but studies show..." type arguments, it's at least implied. Later flipping to "but it's an ethical question, it's not about data" as soon as her empirical case starts to look dodgy does feel like a dishonest bait-and-switch, even if that's her real position and thus, from a narrow point of view, more honest.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Bit late, but:
I mostly see people monogamously pairing off. There's a small number of eternal singles, mostly men, but the norm is long(ish)-term serial monogamy. Getting a new partner generally involves the guy sticking his neck out to much greater extent than the girl but the gender balance isn't off by that much. Almost no-one in my social circles has multiple partners on the regular (even the theoretically poly people have mostly broken down into straightforward two-person relationships).
There's certainly nothing I'd be tempted to describe as "women... sharing a top man". Which for that matter, seems largely absent from your description of the state of play, as well; and this is especially true when you fill the ellipsis back in, because I certainly can't think of anything that could plausibly be described as an active preference for this on the part of women, even of the revealed variety. As has been pointed out before, ideas often assumed here, like that and the whole "alpha fucks, beta bucks" notion, IME exist primarily in the minds of incels and MRAs, and hardly at all in real life.
It's possible my crowd and I are older than the people you have in mind, but the pattern doesn't change that much when you go back to our teens and twenties. Far more frequent changes of partner, certainly, and more (but still not all that many) actively poly arrangements, but only one that I would be tempted to describe using anything close to the text I quoted.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
A significant portion of women seem to prefer sharing a top man over having a sub-par specimen for themselves.
Which women? Where? Based on what empirical evidence?
This seems to be one of those things - it has plenty of counterparts on the SocJus side of things - that's said because it follows from a theory someone is attached to, not because of any particular evidence that it's true. Outside of a very small number of poly arrangements, in which men at the top of the attractiveness scale aren't that overrepresented based on the ones I'm familiar with, I can't think of any cases where this is true. Yeah, it would logically follow if a lot of the ideas that float around the "manosphere" were true, but so much the worse for those ideas. But it's not something I actually see happening at any significant scale.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Ah, pity. I asked because I liked it and wanted to see it in the original context.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
They don't always have good advice though. I have a friend who is pretty average looking but very charming and social and always had a girlfriend. His advice to me - which I immediately recognized as bad - was to just wait because "relationships just happen".
IME that's most women's advice, too, or at least most attractive women. And from their point of view it's perfectly true, but that doesn't make it helpful for people for whom it's demonstrably not true.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Where is the quote from? It's not in the post you're replying to, nor either of the links it contains, nor the OP.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Generally, I've seen a lot of women indicating both that is easy for men to get casual sex, and also women who indicate that it's not super easy for women to do that.
If they genuinely think that it's because they're comparing themselves only to the top few percent of men - the ones they'd actually consider for casual sex, that bar being far higher for most women than most men. At least in that context, virtually all men outside those few percent are invisible to them. It may literally not cross their minds (again, in that context) that other men besides those few percent exist.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
But I don't recall ever seeing dating advice, even from feminists, suggesting that any woman wants a proposition like "How about being my no-strings-attached fuck buddy?"
Not directly, and certainly not specifically about that topic. But there is quite a bit of "always be honest about what you want" messaging out there that, on the surface, seemingly points in that direction. Which does indeed seem disingenuous, because following that advice will rarely if ever work out well for the kind of guys who need dating advice in the first place. I don't really believe that "shit tests" are something anyone does in a conscious, deliberate way, but advice like that makes it easy to see why some people find it tempting to believe in them.
Is he actually omitting stuff, or is the original like that? I was assuming the former, but if the latter, that's just plain incorrect. It's like ending this post with a comma,
More options
Context Copy link