@thejdizzler's banner p

thejdizzler


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 April 17 18:49:42 UTC

				

User ID: 2346

thejdizzler


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 April 17 18:49:42 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2346

Awesome! Glad to hear it!

Good advice. I think I'm honestly too open to giving people chances whereas the dates I've been on where it worked out (at least short term) things just clicked fast.

Careful you don't feel too inferior or I'll eat you too!

Only oysters and clams and mussels and scallops. Shrimp are too developed for me.

God only allows humans to eat meat after the Noahide covenant. Before that animals are reserved for burnt offerings. Adam is almost certainly a vegetarian, at least while he lives in the garden. Thus eating meat is another sign of our fall away from grace.

Beyond Christianity there is the inconvenient fact that my lying eyes (and other senses) tell me that animals are like me and experience pain and pleasure and have some form of consciousness. I don't think it's correct to eat human babies for meat, even though they are objectively less conscious than me, nor do I think it's okay to eat retards, who will never be as conscious as me. Without some arbitrary human/animal distinction (which is one of the flaws of christianity IMO) I don't think you can justify one and not the other, at least in my opinion.

I know sleep is going to be compromised when I have kids. This is fine, and other areas of my life will just have to suffer for a while. I just don't see a need to do this for relatively superficial social reasons.

Car I'm also willing to buy/share when/if I get married. It's not a good investment now, and I have a zipcar membership when I absolutely need it (for a hike or something).

The vegan restaurants issue is not an issue. Because I eat shellfish, there is always something for me, at least around here. What I've done in the past is cook vegan every time my girlfriend is over. She appreciates the cooking even if she isn't vegan herself. In marriage I'll probably continue to do the same. Worst comes to worse I'll have to learn how to cook some amount of meat. Kids are not going to be vegan, at least at first. There are too many open questions about nutrition at that age that I'm not looking to have an argument about.

I think this is a problem with the institution of the Church in the West. There are so many propositions that you have to accept based on blind-faith, many of which I think are incorrect. It doesn't need to be this way. You can have a lot of doctrinal flexibility in your religious community while still maintaining a strong moral core of belief.

I am vegan for ethical reasons. Not open to changing this, although I am open to compromises on specific animal products (i.e. will eat eggs if we keep chickens ourselves). I am happy to do all the cooking myself.

I've done Volo, it's a lot of fun!

Personality flaws: The biggest straight-up flaw I have is insecurity. I care too much about what others think, and don't see my own value. I also am quite judgmental, but I don't see this necessarily as a straight up flaw, rather as something I need to keep better to myself. Other things that might be seen as flaws: pretty strict about sleep and exercise, don't own a car for environmental (but also economic) reasons (I have a zipcar membership so this doesn't have to be a problem), I'm also pretty irreverent to authority/ to any particular "team".

Beliefs that might be seen as dealbreakers. Veganism. Certain women want men who are hunt and eat steak, and many others want their husband to be able to cook their favorite dishes, which usually contain meat. I'm open to comprise as long as it doesn't involve me eating meat or animal products, but this isn't always clear on the first date. Catholicism. For woke women it's usually over (how can you hate women and gay people so much). Truth seeking. This goes with the irreverence above. I will not swear forever allegiance to any institution or group that doesn't allow me to update my beliefs based on my experience in the world. This obviously causes problem with catholics (I believe revelation is incomplete and evolving), but also with lots of secular people. A lot of this comes down to keeping my mouth shut, but I have also been burned real hard when I've expressed these kinds of thoughts to people who I thought loved me.

No specific time frame in mind for marriage, but I would like to have children before I'm 40. When I've dated people over the past few years it has been with an eye towards marriage, and when it becomes apparent that that is not on the table due to personality/ideological differences, the relationship ends pretty fast.

Thanks for the other advice! I'm finding the open-mindedness thing to be very hard. Woke and catholic women seem to find different parts of my beliefs/personality to be a deal breaker. Perhaps this is just that I'm a). not quite hot/chad enough b). haven't found a woman who likes me enough to look past that stuff.

So dating. I'm at a bit of a crossroads. On one hand I want to get married and have kids, so in some sense dating is required for that. On the other, most people I seem to meet through dating apps are not really the kind of person I would like to spend my life with. I have two big requirements: open-minded and physically active, which surprisingly seems to cross out a lot of candidates. Things have been better organically, but those kinds of relationships kind of just "happen". I also subjectively feel extremely busy: I'm working on my PhD, studying for the DELE B2 Spanish Exam, running 50-70 miles a week, and hanging out with my friends. If the right person comes along I'm very willing to sacrifice some of these things, but I feel a bit like I'm wasting my time going on dates with girls from dating apps that I don't end up liking, rather than focusing on job/hobbies/community.

27M living in Baltimore, MD for context. I'm a non-strict vegan (shellfish+honey), and don't care if partner is also vegan. Catholic, but pretty critical of the narrow-mindedness of the church on dogma. Extremely fit endurance athlete. No problem with most drugs, but not a heavy user of anything.

What does theMotte think I should do?

This is bad for me personally. Very bad. Goodbye F31 funding. Goodbye future career in the sciences.

Thanks for this reply. I am indeed a Greer-nik, and it seems that my post was too doomerish (judging from many other comments) to convey that. I share many of the perspectives that you write here as a Greer-sockpuppet. If I were to rewrite my original post reflecting this, I think I would probably reframe it terms of that perspective. Instead of the framing of "why aren't we more worried about these slow moving, natural, and impossible to stop problems", I would try and state instead: "why is the motte so concerned about things like AI/colonizing mars etc. when those things are energetically impossible pipe dreams?" I'm also not advocating we do nothing, but rather I see our resources (energy, but also human intelligence) as being misspent on futile treadmilling rather than "collapsing now to avoid the rush" as Greer might say. Localizing agriculture and manufacturing are really important for preserving the innovations that this civilization has built, and we are really not doing that at all.

I would like to take the time to reply to a lot of those down thread, but I think, because of what you state in the first paragraph, there is not much point. We are looking at different the world through two completely different narratives. Inconvenient facts like declining EROI of every fuel source we are using and greater and greater dependence on fragile global supply change can be brushed away in the name of technological innovation or market efficiency. At the end of the day our system is predicated on infinite growth, which is impossible on a finite planet, and when we bump up against those limits there will be some kind of collapse.

Also really dystopian. Would also explain the success of the new Chinese model. They don't give a shit about privacy.

This could be. Dystopian AF

It doesn't though. In the linked article, there's clearly evidence that synthetic data leads to hallucinations over time.

Okay where are they going to get more training data from? They've already used the entire internet. You also aren't accounting for the fact that OpenAI lost $5 billion last year.

It's not helpful for you to say the article is low quality without providing examples.

Why don't users on theMotte take the idea of societal collapse more seriously? It's not just things like resource depletion and climate change that could cause something like this. Rather I think there are many layers of various pillars of society going towards the shitter that I think makes some kind of collapse of Western Civilization inevitable. I'll list a few below

  1. Resource Depletion/Peak Oil: Although we seem to have stemmed off global peak oil for about 50 years, it seems like the peak is finally actually coming into sight. Some say 2018 was actually the peak, others say it won't arrive until 2030. Whatever the case, it is an inevitability given the fact that discoveries of deposits have been outpaced by demand for the past fifty years. Barring a scientific miracle like effective hydrocarbon synthesis by bacteria, the alternatives don't look promising. Ethanol from corn has an abysmal energy return on energy invested (EROI). Electric motors are not powerful enough to run 18 wheeler trucks, and even for passenger vehicles, we don't have enough lithium in the whole world to replace the current fleet of cars. It's not just oil: copper is being mined at extremely low-grades (because we have exhausted the high-grade deposits), uranium only has around 100 years of proven reserves, and we've already hit peak phosphorous. Further reading: Art Berman, Simon Michaux, Alice Friedman

  2. Climate Change/Environmental Degradation: Anyone with two eyes can see that climate change is happening. It's not just that temperatures are getting warmer, but variation seems to be increasing as well, which is really bad for parts of our civilization that require fairly regular climatic conditions like agriculture. Here in Maryland we had one of the hottest summers on record, followed by an extremely warm fall. Now we're in the middle of one of the coldest winters in the last twenty years. Even if you don't believe that climate change is happening, other aspects of environmental degradation are harder to deny. For the past few summers we've had massive wildfires across most of the Northern hemisphere, and in California during the winter. Some of these are natural, but many are the result of poor management and ecological practices. We've contaminated our drinking water with birth control, our soils have been largely stripped of nutrients by industrial farming, and microplastics are literarily everywhere. None of this is sustainable

  3. Pandemic risk from industrial agriculture: Although COVID was likely a lab leak, one of the initial hypotheses as to its origin was a cross-over event from bats to humans at bushmeat market. We create millions of such crossover opportunities in our agriculture system every day, and it's only a matter of time before the current bird flu pandemic, which has decimated US chicken and cow populations (spiking the price of eggs to $6 / 12 eggs) crosses over to humans. This has happened before in both 1918 and in the 1960s.

  4. Birthrate collapse: Everywhere that modern Western society touches seems to experience a rapid and catastrophic decline in birth rates to far below replacement levels. There's been a lot of discussion of this issue at least here, and it seems like nothing any government does is effective at turning things around. While declining populations may be good for our resource consumption/pollution problems, without some kind of reversal in birth rates, there will tautologically be a death of Western culture. A somewhat related issue is the general collapse of community in the West, which is talked about a lot in books like Bowling Alone.

  5. Brainrot: modern society is incredibly complex and requires a lot of smart people at the helm keeping the systems that keep us alive going. Many of these people are aging out of the workforce, and there aren't many zoomers and millennials who can replace them. Part of this is an issue of desire: few people want to run a wastewater treatment plant or work as a mining engineer when you can just grift with things like crypto and OnlyFans. But I also think we're all just getting dumber to some extent. I put a lot of blame on addictive technologies on the internet (and so does Jonathan Haidt), but I'm sure there's also crossover with the issue of environmental pollution.

There's many more specific issues I could list, but I think you get the gist. Why isn't this community more concerned about these kinds of issues, as opposed to worrying about AI (which is not profitable, or efficient). I think it may have something to do with TheMotte severely overrating the utility of human intelligence in solving large scale problems, but I'm not sure. Is there something I'm completely missing here?

Further reading/listening. DoTheMath, Rintrah, The Great Simplification.

Oh yea I really don't think it's worth it either. And yes it's only a partial solution to the Incel problem. Sex tourism doesn't help the NEET in his mom's basement, or the man who really wants to start a family. But it does like you said, directly make sex interchangeable with everything else through the medium of money. This was the natural result of the sexual revolution, but certain people (mainly women) don't want to hear it.

We were riding through frozen fields in a wagon at dawn. A red wing rose in the darkness.

And suddenly a hare ran across the road. One of us pointed to it with his hand.

That was long ago. Today neither of them is alive, Not the hare, nor the man who made the gesture.

O my love, where are they, where are they going The flash of a hand, streak of movement, rustle of pebbles. I ask not out of sorrow, but in wonder.

  • Czelaw Milosz, Encounter 1936

Natural Right and History by Leo Strauss for philosophy book club. Generally enjoying it, but I feel like he makes some dubious assumptions about things. Also working through Judas by Amos Oz and the last few hours of Solaris.

Oh Houellebecq is very clear that they're partially doing it to themselves. Especially in the case of Cuba. Cubans didn't necessarily believe in Communism and the Revolution and all that, they just wanted to be not poor. So once Che left and Fidel was dead, they went right back to the same old capitalist system, just with different people on top.

True, and maybe this is a weakness of my review: that I'm mixing the a critique of the sexual revolution with a critique of the exploitation of the global South. To steelman myself I think what I was probably going for her was a direct comparison with prostitution (why is this kind of relationship okay, whereas one more explicitly involving money is not).

Right but unlike then we've made those things illegal or at the very least heavily looked down upon in the West. So of course people are going to look elsewhere for those kinds of things.

So I just finished Michel Houellebecq's Platform and have written up my thoughts about it over on my blog. I thought I would cross-post here in text form to get some thoughts.

Short plot summary: Like most Houellebecq novels, the protagonist of Platform, Michel, is a middle-aged frenchman with little in the way of meaning to his life. He hates his bullshit job in the government, doesn’t have much in the way of a social network, and lacks hobbies except for perhaps a bit of cooking.1 At the start of the novel, Michel’s father dies, leaving him with an unexpected windfall. He uses this money to take a trip to Thailand, where he visits some “massage parlors” as well as engaging in the usual touristy pastimes of relaxing on the beach and visiting ancient ruins. His tour group consists of an eclectic group of other French people: the jaded Robert, the working class Lionel, a few couples of various ages, and the smoking hot Valerie. For some reason Valerie falls in love with our main character, and when they return to France the two begin a relationship.

Valerie works in the tourism industry, and upon her return to France she is put in charge of a series of failing hotel chains along with her coworker Jean-Yves. Michel has the bright idea to turn these hotels around by making sex tourism an implicit part of the vacation experience. This goes swimmingly: Valerie and Michel prepare to retire to one of their sex resorts in Thailand, until the usual suspects intervene and it all goes to shit.

I first found out about Houellebecq on the subreddit /r/stupidpol circa 2020. Stupidpol is a forum dedicated to a Marxist/Leninist critique of identity politics: the userbase loved Houellebecq’s irreverence for contemporary “woke” sacred cows like Islam and Feminism, as well as his extension of Marx’s analysis to the arena of romantic relationships highly relevant to our times.2 I didn’t get around to reading any of his books until 2023, where I read The Elementary Particles, which I enjoyed other than the stupid sci-fi subplot. Last year I read three more of his books: Submission, Whatever, and Annihilation. Although he can get a bit repetitive, Houellebecq perfectly captures my own frustrations with dating, and with lack of meaning in the modern world. Platform was no exception to this pattern. Here Houellebecq focuses on our troubled relationship with the Third World and on romance as the meaning of life.

A quick note on translation: This was my first Houellebecq book in Spanish. While my reading experience was probably slightly worse than it would have been in English, as my Spanish is not as good, there were two aspects of the Spanish edition that I liked more than its English equivalent. First: Houellebecq actually includes phrases in English in the parts of the book taking place in Thailand, highlighting the unequal relationship between the languages of the West and the East (and even French and English). Without another language to compare to, you would completely miss this. Secondly, the Spanish translation includes footnotes about the translation itself, and for identifying French celebrities and politicians an international reader might not be familiar with. I certainly appreciated these, and I hope future English editions include them.

So, tourism: It’s not a very controversial position to disapprove of sex tourism, especially in America, where prostitution itself is illegal, and puritanism still holds some cultural sway. Sex tourism is obviously exploitative and coercive of young women: they trade their beauty and their best years of their life for money in a manner that we would never allow here.

Yet even in an era before OnlyFans, this attitude is highly hypocritical in a number of ways.

To start with, all our relationships with the Global South are like this. Our cheap raw materials and manufactured goods all rely on unsafe, exploitative labor performed in the Third World. Is there really such a big difference between selling your body directly to an overweight German, or selling your body to the factory that makes his BMW? The more family-friendly aspects of tourism in dining, beaches and hotels are not really much better. Houellebecq uses the example of Cuba, which after the spent fury of the few years after the revolution siphoned labor off of essential agricultural and industrial work (which it would have needed to become self-sufficient and truly free from the American embargo) to the tourism industry to make a quick buck, leaving the country dependent on the West once again. Even the most benign form of tourism, that which encourages the preservation of historical sites, art, and artifacts has damaging effects on the coherence of a local culture. No longer are those artifacts for the culture itself to enjoy, but a product to marketed towards Americans.3

Secondly, as my Spanish tutor Rafa pointed out, we have no problem with other types of sexual tourism that don’t involve money. Rafa told me a story of one of his German friends who used Tinder Plus as an alternative to hostels in Latin America. Although all these women were consenting to this German man sleeping over and presumably having sex with them, the relationship was no less exploitative than if cash was used. Dreams of being taken away to the West, higher status in one’s local community (for bagging a Blanco), are two big non-amorous factors at play in this situation that many would find just as damaging to the individual women and the local community than if cash was exchanged.

Finally, sex tourism is the natural result of a refusal to deal with the incel-problem. The sexual revolution, and its far more damaging digital counterpart, created a “sexual marketplace”. Like other markets, this created a range of outcomes. Certain men enjoyed a very large amount of sexual success, due to their physical appearance and “rizz”, while others were completely locked out of the market. Most women did fairly well until their mid-thirties when their physical appearance began to decline. Without the marriage and traditional family formation, these two demographic groups (low-status, ugly men and older women) have had to resort to other ways to satisfy their desire for sex and personal connection. One solution is internet pornography, which is obviously bad and frowned upon, but covertly permitted. Another is sex tourism and mail-order brides.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think sex tourism is good. But it’s incredibly frustrating to hear people condemn the practice (and things like it like OnlyFans) without acknowledging what the root of the problem is. Young men don’t want to be alone in their room jerking off to a computer screen, but society doesn’t present them with many other options for romantic connection. And the problem is getting worse.

This brings me to my final point about this book, and Houellebecq in general. Contrary to what many think, the man is not a nihilist. Rather, I think he believes that we derive most of our meaning in life from our personal relationships, and from Romance in particular. You can see this in the way the Michel and Valerie’s relationship4 just lightens up the tone of this book. Their once-every-ten-pages sex scenes and other tender moments seem like something that Houellebecq is happy to be writing, especially when contrasted to the rather grim tone of the rest of the book. Houellebecq is a Romantic with a capital R. Yet he also recognizes that even in the best of times that these relationships are only temporary. We no longer even live in the best of times. Hence the accusations of nihilism.

Personally I am 100% on board with Houellebecq on this. I have never been happier than when I have been in love, both romantically, and in a more general sense with the community I am surrounded by. But those kind of connections are becoming harder and harder to find in a world that is increasingly split into its Elementary Particles.

  1. Although he also spends quite a bit of time throughout the novel reading Auguste Comte, the father of positivism. Perhaps the French really are much more literate/cultured than we are, but I always find Houellebecq’s everyman constructions a little bit unbelievable. If you’re fairly obscure philosophy, you’ve got a bit more going on than the average dude who just likes sportsball.

  2. The title of Houellebecq’s first book in French translates as “the Extension of the Domain of the Struggle”, referring quite literally to Marx. Why the English translator decided to use the title “Whatever” instead I could not tell you.

  3. I think I understand a little better why Palestinians don’t want non-Muslims going up to the Dome of the Rock

  4. This is apparent in Houellebecq's other works as well.