ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2d ago
You need to read less Dread Jim.
Or perhaps more practically, locate the bars that cougars frequent, if one looks/is still on the younger side.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
I'm very puzzled by how a community can have so many knowledgeable (and sometimes intelligent) people and still have such shallow, naive, and simplified takes on serious topics.
I'm not, but to identify why requires a bunch of things that just aren't compatible with a healthy self-preserving worldview (which is why the sibling comment is the way that it is).
The problem with men is that they're in significant oversupply; that's why their ability to negotiate social terms with women (and the authorities, and why the authorities are so gay female-oriented) is so limited as to be basically nonexistent (note that the social standing of men in society tracks the birthrate for that year; that isn't a coincidence, and you can see that effect stretched back into the 1800s with the rise of industrialization -> the disruption of the male sociobiological niche).
Witness that the Western country that offers the most social rights to men, that being the United States, has a birthrate near replacement. Countries that industrialized in the 20th century just haven't had time for their societies to adapt to men becoming useless overnight (or for men to evolve coping or effective negotiating strategies)- of those, Japan is the healthiest, as they've had enough time to make their peace with it and also their social cohesion is high enough to stave off the rampant gynosupremacism emergent from successful men becoming rarer due to oversupply of men in general [or in 'incel' parlance, the Chad/Stacy dynamic; typically claimed to be an inherent problem with women, but buyers always complain this way about sellers when the market conditions favor the seller], but they're still a couple generations behind Western countries with that TFR. The unhealthiest one is South Korea, with Thailand not being far behind.
Historically, when this happens, a general in that society raises an army (if men are sufficiently organized, this general will also be the dictator king) and, win or lose, the male overpopulation problem is solved (either the men all die, or enough living space is created by destroying all the other tribe's men; either way, no longer too many men). European countries tend to have a massive purge every hundred years or so (though to a point, staved off by colonization); the last one following that tradition [where the countries participating didn't all get immediately conquered by foreign powers, like they did in 1945... which is why Western Europe went all weird and feminine after that] occurred between 1914 and 1918. This can also happen by chance- pestilence, famine, natural disaster- but we've successfully eliminated those things (to the point we pretend they're happening even when they aren't, like we did in 2020).
Giving "virtual waifus" to "incels" doesn't solve any issues, it just suppresses symptoms.
Then why are women so afraid of them?
It's because women have no political value outside of that which is provided by men- if men can just... stop being in oversupply due to taking themselves out of the market (further, imagine if your robo-catgirl could get pregnant, which is the only thing women can do that men can't) then women will lose social power over the men who do remain.
Hence, why they're terrified of AI. [That said, I don't think a lot of this fear is conscious or wilful- it's purely instinct.]
we cannot seem to imagine coming up with a way to help people who have terrible social skills
It's not a lack of ability to do it, it's a lack of want; men don't want it because that may be the only thing that distinguishes them in a market where distinguishment is difficult to come by, and women don't want it because social skills then become a less reliable signal to differentiate men.
You'd have to be autistic/childish/self-destructive to want to improve men's social skills under an environment like this. (Which is also why we are completely uninterested in educating young men in general, as we believe that the worthy will distinguish themselves anyway. Provided they aren't more interested in catgirl waifus, that is...)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
Why isn't gay marriage the default?
Because most people aren't gay, and most gay activity doesn't naturally converge on consistent pair bonding as an eventual requirement (involuntary reproduction isn't a risk in gay relationships, obviously).
I don't think it's much more complex than that.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
Well, you can either run the scripts, or pay 10-30 bucks to some reseller so you don't have to re-run the piracy scripts every time or risk them breaking when certain updates are installed, which was a problem back with earlier cracks. (Plus, I just don't really like piracy- though I have much less of a problem when it concerns software the manufacturer is unwilling to sell, including Windows versions that are only generally sold to businesses.)
There are a few manufacturers that offer their hardware without Windows installed (at a substantial discount, no less); a few laptop manufacturers offer this for their business lines (which, naturally, are the only kind of laptops worth buying outside of the gaming ones, and the gaming ones have to have Windows for better or worse anyway).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
4d ago
Seeing people use Excel for tasks which would clearly call for a programming language is like seeing a six-year-old who insists the he does not need to learn his letters because he can just chat with unicode symbols.
Well, not necessarily. You're missing:
- Distribution, guaranteed compatibility, and common UI/UX; all you need to run an Excel spreadsheet and the calculations contained therein is an Excel VM (usually, but not necessarily, made by Microsoft)
- Zero overhead to pick up and use, everyone knows how to interact with a program made in Excel simply by pointing and clicking, which means lots of things you'd normally have to implement in more advanced languages are done for you (UI, saving/loading, the functions themselves)
- Ease of observing, debugging, and tracing functions and program state (it's all out in the open, and the input-to-output function chains can be made as terse or as expansive as you want it to be)
- Ease of printing data (to a screen or a physical page), which in other programming languages needs a bunch of iteration and string-conversion to work correctly
The best programming language is ultimately the one you know how to use right now, and "office worker gets bored, automates themselves" is [or once was] a valid career path. Sure, Excel stops being a viable option once you need to do things like talk to a network (which, totally coincidentally, Microsoft has an intermediate-level programming language called Access that can use Excel sheets as a frontend), and once you outgrow Access you're really in trouble (mainly because now you've created a problem for programmers to solve, and so now you're going to have to pay for the bootstrapping that Excel/Access did for you)... but most people don't get that far anyway.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
5d ago
What is woke?
"Woke" applies to an individual or work for whom all of the following hold:
- whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that this individual's actions, taken as a whole, appeal to the interest of their own class or privilege a set of protected characteristics they share;
- whether the individual in question pursues or conducts, in an intentionally offensive way, the privileging of certain types of sexual conduct or other discriminatory functions, as specifically defined by the letter of applicable equal rights legislation; and
- whether the works of this individual [or the work itself], taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit
The first category is to exclude those who are socially conscious of issues that aren't just a scheme to enrich themselves, which is a key feature of woke thought, and covers the standard "diversity over meritocracy" complaint. Compare stealing offense; they take that which isn't being given to them because it improves their social standing to do so (this is bullying/political strategy 101).
The second category serves to indict so-called "reverse" discrimination as discrimination- the "I can't be sexist, I only hire women" thing (which is usually used as an excuse for unevenhanded treatment when those who interpret the law are unwilling or unable to address it, typically because of the above). Again, if this occurs but isn't intended as nakedly self-enriching at the same time, it's more morally neutral than it is when perpetrated with intent; seeking eradication denies opportunity for education (hardened hearts and all that).
The third category must exist for free speech reasons; after all, are you truly free to possess selfish, illiberal views if you at no point are allowed to voice them? Steven Universe [for instance] thus cannot truly be considered a "woke show" even though it (and its creators) arguably satisfy (1) and (2), because it's done well and actually has something to say; compare how Lolita generally escapes the "child pornography" category.
The same principles we used to be granted offense to, and punish, obscenity serve to similarly convict wokeism and its practitioners- intentional, anti-social, and without any other mitigating merit. (Which is why I borrowed the Miller test for this definition.)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
5d ago
This is the machine speaking, not the prompter.
Yeah, but there's no other context there. I'm not sure what exactly you have to prompt the machine with to get it to give you this level of patent absurdity, but I haven't managed to get it to begin a conversation like that right after I've just sat down. (That said, I haven't downloaded the model yet, so...)
We will suffer the dual indescribable torment of disempowerment/mutilation by a hostile, horny AI
As opposed to disempowerement/mutilation by hostile, horny natural intelligences; henceforth referred to as "my outgroup". They are already actively using computers to conduct those activities; I'm not sure how having the computer come up with its own bullshit is going to make it worse.
Perhaps, since the AI already knows how humans think about AI, we'll get basically every 1980s science fiction movie brought to life at the same time, possibly by competing intelligences. I haven't seen any Arnold Schwarzenegger clones walking around nude yet but perhaps that comes later.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
Maybe, but once you start doing that you start undermining the fiction that consent of the governed is equally geographically distributed. It isn't, obviously (really, it's NYC/NJ, DC/MD, and Bay Area vs. the entire rest of the nation), but the shared pretense that it is legitimizes the government even in places over times where their regional interest parties lose elections.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
I don't believe this is retaliatory escalation. I think the J6ers were ultimately offered up by Trump (he had the chance to pardon them, but refused), Biden had the chance to prosecute BLM rioters for 4 years, and refused to do it.
Biden did not pardon the Minnesota BLM firebombers.
Refusing to prosecute for political reasons is, de facto, a pardon.
And if Trump now goes after the BLMers with renewed vigor (the evidence for the most egregious crimes is still there, of course; kind of hard to erase being caught trying to kill a child* when it's international news), I will accept this is an instance of (3). Until that occurs this is (2).
Naturally, if Biden had prosecuted BLM (and Trump not pardoning the J6ers on his first day in office) we would already be at (1), and if he had pardoned the J6ers like Trump just did (or at least, not pursue them with the flimsiest of pretenses...) we would have arrived at (2) 4 years ago.
* By Blue standards for tribe-aligned militiamen under 18
Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.
Trump refused to pardon the J6ers back when it would have been most effective- the day before leaving office.
He did not do that.
Biden could have encouraged prosecution of BLMers back when it would have been most effective- the day after taking office.
He did not do that.
You claim "both sides never even tried for mutual disarmament", but Reds did offer that opportunity, from January 21st, 2021 through January 20, 2025, for Blues to dedicate themselves to prosecuting [their own] rioters and thus disavow their approval and encouragement of burning, looting, and murdering as valid political strategy.
1- Our rules, fairly: both groups punished [prosecution of BLM rioters will be limited due to multiple factors including widespread public support, taking the L here is politically expedient and ultimately conciliatory]
2- Their rules, fairly: both groups pardoned [we are here now]
3- Their rules, unfairly: one group pardoned, one group condemned [we were here a day ago]
Going from 3 to 2 discourages corruption in the demos just like going from 2 to 1 does.
Ideally, we would have stuck with 1, since going from 2 to 1 is seen as the higher road (against the people but for the laws; though you'll recall this was an argument Charles I used and it didn't go so well for him) whereas going from 3 to 2 costs you support mostly on our side (in this case, our non-corrupt voters can be swayed by one faction's arguments that their corruption was Good, Actually, and then the non-corrupt vote them in and we go from 2 to 3 in an action/reaction cycle, in this case BLM/J6).
It's possible to go from 3 to 1; for example, if one tribune of the plebs (with a corrupt faction of the demos behind him) kills another one (who formed a corrupt faction of the demos behind him as a reaction) the survivor still gets banished. This could have happened on Day 1 of Biden's term, with an effective prosecution of BLM rioters on as flimsy a legal pretense as would be used on J6ers, but of course that's not what happened.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
You’re not being self-centered enough.
Start from the initial condition that everything that prevents you from getting whatever you want, including the environment around you, is an adversary with intent; further, assume not getting everything you want is an injury.
In that sense I am coerced to labor for what I want, thus reality ‘rapes’ me.
(This is why all sex in a relationship, even when the weaker initiates, is rape in the eyes of people who unironically believe the above, as they see themselves as weaker than their partner yet won’t be provided resources unless they put out; sex work being real work naturally follows from this perspective, but it’s not the only perspective that implies it.)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
But most people seem to believe that nonsense.
It’s just modern phrenology.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.
The BLM rioters were already de facto pardoned by Blue.
By their own definition, this is not an abuse of the process. Blue can always change their definition so it isn’t corrupt as fuck in the future.
But then again, I’m ok with the metaphorical battered housewife hitting back, even if that predictably results in an escalation where the batterer murders her. This is the ‘die on your feet/live on your knees’ question (or more generally, safety vs. dignity) all over again.
Since Red is the dignity party at the moment (they can’t out-safety the safety party) this reaction is natural.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
Why consider one adults, and not the other.
Because man bad, woman good. Young men are also more physically disorderly than young women (despite 48% of population, overwhelming majority of violent crime), so you can sell it as risk control.
Any serious proposal to push back legal adulthood to 25 is generally laughed at as an impractical nanny state absurdity
It's certainly laughed at less than any proposals to lower the age of adulthood, which suggests the average person believes it should be higher.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
I can't snap my fingers and get everything my heart desires without having to work for it; rather, if I don't work, I don't eat, and I die.
In that sense, I am raped by reality.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
Nobody has argued for a broad societal reconsideration of whether men are adults
Everyone who has uttered the words "the brain doesn't finish development until you're 25" is making this argument.
It's not laughed out of the room.
Another example is thinking that "love is just chemicals".
Technically accurate but not helpful, and used as an excuse to pretend sex has/had no emotional dimension after the fact in that trademark Annoying Atheist way.
I have this very controversial belief that "sexualities" don't exist in a sense.
I think "sexualities" were created by the same detached/objective intellectual thinking that causes problems when normal people try to use them, primarily since they tend to be used as weapons (when a woman claims she's asexual, or when a man calls another man gay) rather than merely descriptive of {male or female, what characteristics are being pattern-matched on}.
Or perhaps they may have been intended as weapons/distractions from the get-go. I generally see it claimed as "well, it's because all the non-straights wanted to dissociate from the accusations of pedophilia that came with them at the time"... but I think that was a side-effect of the actual goal: censoring the instinctual understanding of 'men dominate, women submit' (children just being a more extreme version of women, which is also why it's stereotypically women using "protect kids [implied: from men]" as the metaphorical nose of the camel into the tent).
(Just to be clear: 'men dominate, women submit' just happens to be emergent from evolutionary biological circumstance, which is probably why it's generally applicable for [the physical dimension of] sex. The fix for 'woman good man bad' is not 'man good woman bad', though the lazy and selfish will jump to that conclusion anyway.)
I once guessed that somebody was gay because I could tell by the art style of their profile picture.
I just look at the head. My working theory is that the longer/more pronounced the snout is, the more likely it is that a man who likes that image will [prefer men on average]. (By that same token, most bronies are straight [note the lack of male OCs and abundance of futa]; see also Brand New Animal vs. Beastars.)
This also works for straights, but in a different way. The more feminine the body looks compared to the face, the more likely a man who likes that image will [prefer women on average]. This is most of why "are traps gay?" is the meme that it is (and the related complaint of "draw a girl call it a boy"), since most men who like that [prefer women on average]; it wouldn't be controversial otherwise.
I thought that your view on sex might have been a consequence of many years of detached and objective thinking, which is common in intellectual types.
No, it very definitely started out that way (and not influenced by any external source). I've learned to describe and emulate the other one over time as required, but it's not native code; maybe this is what ChatGPT 'feels like' when it's asked to ERP.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
I observe those things are called "work" and "taxes", respectively.
That article appears to have been written by someone who doesn’t work with his hands… or drive a nice car, for that matter. (Actually, since this is a female author…)
You put the nice car in the garage so you don’t have to spend a bunch of time brushing off the car when it snows. If it’s a ragtop, you don’t have to worry about vandals slicing it open; if it’s a truck with a tonneau cover, you don’t have to worry about leaving it open lest the tweakers break it open to see all the nothing inside.
You also have a garage so that you have room to do things to maintain the house. Need to paint a door, or space to marshal furniture, or maintain the car? You can’t do that if you don’t have a clear workshop… which is what the people in those pictures with their cars outside are using their garage for, and dedicated shop areas are even rarer than garages are.
Detached garages are still ugly for the same reasons attached ones are, but if your lot’s on an incline there’s usually no place to put one. With an attached garage that’s not a concern, obviously.
Oh yeah, and you can just put another storey on top of an attached garage. Sometimes you can even fit two floors, so you have rooms on the second storey with a better view.
I think the main difference between the far-left and far-right is how they deal with the biological ground truth that "women are useless, men are disposable".
The far-left leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the disposability of men (and that men exist to serve women, "all are equal but men are more equal than others", #itsHerTurn) while encouraging women to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("a good woman is independent and dominates men", "criminals and vagrants can't help it", and the like). Men are not permitted dignity in this society and their masculinity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be communist (where any masculinity-driven private improvement belongs to your neighbors).
The far-right leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the uselessness of women (and that women exist to serve men, "man is head of the household", etc.) while encouraging men to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("women and children first", wars on neighboring societies/white feather effects, 996, and the like). Women are not permitted dignity in this society and their femininity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be [what people actually mean when they say] fascist (where any femininity-driven public improvement is a waste of valuable resources).
This doesn't necessarily mean that these factions are going to state this openly (it's just relying on instinctive human behavior; anyone not following their instincts is naturally suspect), but it is why far-leftism and far-rightism naturally attract women and men (respectively) who are worth less. By contrast, centrist men and centrist women aren't just running solely on instinct (for a variety of reasons) and tend to hold views that are a mess of sloppy, logically-inconsistent compromise between those extremes.
It's clear why the far left and far right hate it: the Fascist-Feminist Synthesis holds that women have no agency in such a situation, and that they must be protected from their own decision to offer themselves to beastly men.
Not quite.
When you view women through the standard "human fleshlight, plus domestic labor" lens (and the far-left and far-right agree that this is the best a woman can do in life; they just differ slightly in their approach to making that state of nature men's problem), prostitution and sex tourism offer a far superior product to domestic women.
Normally, to get a human fleshlight you have to marry it and you're stuck with it for the rest of your life; prostitution offers a massive variety and it's by the hour. Southeast Asia is considered the best place for prostitution simply because there's no minimum (w)age for prostitutes there.
Gynosupremacists are simply making sure there's no competition for domestic women, so they can get a higher price for their assets ('why buy the cow' and all that). Casting aspersions about the safety and morality of the competitor's products is a classic sales tactic.
The exact spear counterpart to this is illegal immigration; foreign men work harder and expect less than domestic men, so it's obvious why the femcels love them.
But why does the center go along with this still?
Because those sales tactics work.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
lolly water
I didn't think that kind of product would be carbonated; I'd expect it to taste rather flat.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
We could always just remove the college part, have your 20s be for marriage/children and your 30s-40s for your career, like it was in the '80s. That way, you've already bought and paid for your kids by the time your [now-younger] husband starts going all weird and moldy on you, and you're still attractive enough at 30 that if you want to try again, you can.
By pushing out adulthood by 10 years, which is what college does (and, by extension, its purpose), you attach higher liability and higher stakes to things that tend to go wrong later in life- if vices are going to take hold at 35, it's better to have the kids be nearly adults when the inevitable divorce comes than for them to be 5 (less stupidity in custody battles because at that point they're a formality). Economic conditions for adulthood at 16-18 is something Boomercons benefited from greatly, and we should try to get back to that state because adulthood at that age is Good, Actually, and important for proper human development.
We won't do that, partially because it would kill the sacred societal cows that are graduation rate and female college representation, and academia is already a welfare system for older women who suffer from what you've listed above (so destroying it would be politically unviable anyway). But speeding up reproduction cycles so that women (and the men they marry) are raising families within their 25 year warranty period (even if things go sideways they'll still have the energy to fix them; 35 year old energy levels are not 25 year old energy levels!) would, I believe, have positive consequences... because they did for the generation born when that was normal.
More options
Context Copy link