PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
12hr ago
Women are asexual unless Chad is around. The upturn in their identification rates is just an upturn in hypergamy. I'm not sure if Korea's situation is the same.
Also, 50 Shades isn't porn for women; Tinder is porn for women. That's probably part of the situation, too.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
13hr ago
I'm not sure Nature has an opinion on who reproduces. That's what the phrase "fitness landscape" is for. The fitness landscape can change. It seems like you're trying to abdicate value judgements. It's fine if you don't care who reproduces, but this kind of appeal to nature shouldn't persuade anyone.
If two demons are fighting over to change the fitness landscape, you wouldn't care?
(After re-reading my post, I see I am making essentially a "postmodern"/subjectivist argument, kinda)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
13hr ago
Lastly, it seems self limiting: as women drop out of the relationship market, the women who choose to remain in it move up in terms of the quality of the men they can get.
Seems that the discerning liberal woman can use the Trump victory as a plausibly deniable way to get the competition out of the market. I won't say all the American 4B'ers are "in on the joke" but maybe the most rabid are? See also: "wokefishing," and a post in this space a couple years back suggesting that a lot of progressive-coded dating dynamics are because the gender ratios of woke spaces skew heavily female.
If 4B was a cup size, how big would it be?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
13hr ago
Finally, I think that if you want to avoid having sex with Trump supporters, a better strategy might be to select on geographic location.
Does someone even need to do that? Your statistics give the impression that filtering mates by Trumpism is a fool's errand, and the best she can do is move to Hawaii and hope for the best, doubling her odds.
In Scott's cannon post Outgroup, he writes about his strong filter bubbles. Surely an extreme liberal woman has a filter bubble pretty strong, no matter their location? But, I could see if the American-4B import is here to stay, then it wouldn't just be radical women who partake. More normie liberal women probably don't have filter bubbles that strong.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
13hr ago
This feels like the uncanny valley of civil rights & protesting. A truly authoritarian country doesn't have protests, because everyone knows they will be squashed. Presumably South African women have it so bad, protesting would just anger the men.
Is it actually an uncanny valley? Do we know for sure that utopias don't have any complainers? Given that utopia is impossible*, is the question even meaningful? Yudkowsky's recent post on future humans being impoverished by lack of oxygen makes a lot of sense to me. As an average progress-critical reactionary, I think its human nature to want more, so my rule is simply the more protests and 4B movements, the better everything is.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4d ago
I think that is kind of what they are saying - that Trump emboldened Wokeism and caused it to break free into normie spaces.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
23d ago
Obviously in 2024 a woman who wants to be in the professional workforce is normal and doesn't have a defective brain module. Can the same be said of the woman in 1950? Would people (you, or others) lump the 1950s woman in with queers and call her "confused" because she is non-conformist? Would people not lump her in with queers, because queers gross them out, but she's just a little weird?
The only wrench in my argument is there may not be such a woman in 1950 - or rather, any woman in 1950 that wanted to be in the professional workforce was probably also a butch queer.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
24d ago
How are homosexuals "confused about the binary of sex?" Maybe I don't know enough homosexuals but -- I get the impression that lesbians don't like transwomen, by and large. It seems to me that the homosexual lobby and the transgender lobby can be at odds with each other. The only way I can consider them similar is through the powerful outgroup homogenizing lens of "they repulse me" and "they are about gender." Was women entering the workforce another manifestation of that pathology?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
Maybe I'm missing some context, but what is ahistorical here? Did Vance say "the Founders would agree with me?" Maybe partisan bias and Vance simpery has blinded me to something, but I don't see the error in what he's saying. Is it because he unequivocally said, "the answer is no," placing him directionally with the "they used fake ballots" crowd?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
While its true humans try to engineer AIs' values, people make mistakes, so it seems reasonable to model possible AI values as a distribution. And that distribution would be wider than what we see real humans value.
Still, i'm not sure if AI values being high-variance is all that important to AI-doomerism. I think the more important fact is that we will give lots of power to AI. So even if the worst psychopath in human history did want to exterminate all humans, he wouldn't have a chance of succeeding.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
The only way to fight this is to ensure that everything is squeeky clean and beyond reproach, which it won't be because too many people are taking all the talk about about subverting the process to defeat Trump too seriously.
It sounds like you're saying there are some people that actually think trump is bad enough to subvert normal processes. The OP was asking for specific evidence but you didn't give any.
Unfortunately, showing evidence of people saying trump is a unique threat to democracy or whatever isn't enough because they could be exaggerating.
I admit it would be funny if it became a common talking point to get anti-Trumpers to say stuff like, "it would be right to commit electoral fraud or murder to save America from Trump, but I wouldn't do it"
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
KulakRevolt made an interesting point a while ago about how society is dominated either by the scowls of bitter old women or the howls of laughing young boys (along with a few posts about how old women abuse young boys in the public education system);
Should I browse his substack, twitter, or motteposting to find these?
and I think there's something to the prohibition of the latter in a society as the former starts to take over, starting with the pathologization and assumptions of bad faith in everything they might do, making sure women who are psychologically closer to men are marginalized/suppressed or outright mutilated,
Does Kulak write more about this? Can you? Why would bitter old women disrupt the Tomboys? Is it so bitter old women can get more men? Earlier you allude to the tension between self-actualization and... performing sexual labor? But now you're alluding to the tension between which share of women get higher market power?
I've heard some lamentations about Tomboys (trans'ing, etc.), and one of the things I also don't fully understand is the vitriol thrown at "pick-me's." But it makes sense to me as a pejorative for psychologically-male women. If this is true, it doesn't seem to go with your thesis. I don't see how bitter old women (feminist Cathedral, journos, etc.) as driving pick-me hate. It seems to me pick-me hate is more grassroots.
disrupt the pipeline for people who don't have sex-magic-soul-bond/see sex as merely a means to an end goal to realize that about themselves, and the like. It's trying to cut the people who see sex and commitment as described above off entirely- they can't be allowed to exist, because how would anyone be forced to buy their sexual labor then?
This is where I get really confused! Are you saying the bitter old women are disrupting the pipeline for "asexuals" (I mean those without the soul bond - not the way queers use it) to self-realize? Why does common knowledge of asexuals' existence mean that less sexual labor will happen?
My experience: It's been system-2!obvious to me for a very long time that sex is a part of power, and also a currency with value. But that has not changed my behavior at all towards obtaining sex and status. Also, the talk of "magical soul bonding" makes me think I don't have it. So I'm confused why asexuals becoming "woke" or "redpilled" (to appropriate more terms and applying them differently) will mean less sexual labor.
Maybe this has already happened? Did dating-app-ification, and social media in general, cause people to become more skilled socially? By that, I mean have we become more mimetic? Are we more meta as we mention "vibes," "bad looks" and "reading the room?" Last week's first Frat post had a comment claiming women don't actually desire sex, so maybe this is because of the novel, widespread female dating app experience? Maybe all this is contributing to modern adolescent sexlessness?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
Sharing links seems like a reasonable...reason to text, since you can't say links. I suppose also if they want to dissuade prying ears (the adults in the room).
But, I have a sneaking suspicion that fondness for texting is related to the younger generation's socialization problems. Usually people point out that technology causes awkwardness, but I imagine there is a feedback loop here: If you're bad at reading body language and tone, you might prefer the clarity of text.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
Thanks for the long recap! Didnt realize it was such bad timing
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
It seems to me the linked post (by ThisIsSin) is talking about sex as magical-pair-bonding activity and Marcuse is talking about about sex as magical-thought-criming activity. They seem only cursory related to me, only both lamenting a too-sex-positive culture. I guess you sort of pre-empt this by saying they argue for it "in different terms." I suppose I should take this to mean "vaguely agree in direction, but for unrelated reasons."
I also think MeToo only has a superficial similarity to traditional sexual norms. There's nothing traditional about acknowledging "power dynamics" and being creeped out by older men and younger women being together. I would say the impulse that drives MeToo is "increasing the status of women." Like the earlier example, MeToo is vaguely in the same direction as protestant prudes -- it is the 2020's version moralistic sexual judgementalism.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
Im probably ignoring the spirit of your post, which is Christian. But I'm curious. What happened to those 5 girls after you broke up with them? Do you know if they actually abstained from further sex until marriage?
If they didn't, I think they refused to put out for you because they just didn't feel lustful passion for you. There was no repentance involved. Of course, it is awkward for them to say that. Once is happenstance and twice is coincidence, what do you think five times is?
I think your conclusion, that you were jealous, is correct by the way, regardless of their sincerity.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
High school or so was the first time I was exposed to the "a feminist is someone who wants equal rights for men and women" definition - published in the school paper. I am a proud feminist in public because I behave in the manner expected of me. But, since in truth I am not a feminist, it begs for defining: what really is a feminist?
It is a definition's strength that proponents and opponents agree on it, so "women wanting to take everything from men and step all over them" is probably off the table.
Feminism is raising women's status.
I think this properly distinguishes how the term is actually used, and gets to the heart of disagreement. I saw a post on twitter a couple days ago, but can't find it. It was saying that more and more young men growing up have lived their entire lives being told the world meant for them put them in charge (and that's problematic) and to not believe their lying eyes (scholarships, or that most boys' authority figures are their female teacher)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
I think its interesting you draw a parallel between violence and sex. "Women have sexual power over men, and they know it" is the bog-standard water I live in, and if pressed to provide a parallel for men, I'm not sure I would have thought violence. (To be fair, I wasn't given very much time to think about it).
It reminds me of something I posted over on Scott's new blog, although it didn't get much engagement because I do not fit into Scott's comment demographic as much anymore. Reposted for convenience:
I've long suspected a big part of why Nice Guys are unattractive is that women are not afraid of them.
If a woman was just raped in an alley and is limping around town trying to get back home, she is probably still in shock. If she sees a distant figure on the sidewalk approaching her, she would probably panic more if the figure is a man -- on average. There are edge-cases to this: if the man is her husband, she probably thinks to herself, "thank God" instead of "oh no."
I suspect women clock Nice Guys without talking to them. Nice Guys tend also to be "thank God" edge cases. The same underlying psychology in women causes both the (unconscious) feeling of safety and the (conscious) feeling of ickiness.
Introspecting -- at no point during puberty did I ever become aware of myself as a "violent being" (to appropriate the term "sexual being"), and even today I don't think I've ever used threat of violence as a bargaining chip. I suspect the same is true for the stereotypical incel-type. I think I agree with your taxonomy.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
I should probably switch companies because at my company our sales isn't so much problem-solving as it is about warm and fuzzy vibes.
Virtually every feature I've ever worked on seems to have no users whenever I query prod. I assume the same goes for nearly all features in our Frankenstein's monster of a monolith. Instead, 99% of the product's value comes from this miniscule percent of product loops and workflows written by some senior architect 20 years ago.
Still, we're told all our features are very important to sales. You see, I don't work for a software company like I think I do -- I work for a sales company. The defects I fix weren't caught by users, but by internal sales engineers. The purpose of these bells and whistles is to give the client warm and fuzzy feelings that our product is better than the competition. Naturally these features don't solve user problems because they go unused! And the shot-calling higher ups who sign the contracts and see the demos aren't actually our users -- they are our users' boss's boss.
Still, it would be wrong to say we demo vaporware (it does work, although probably not as robust), or to say the features don't provide company value. They win deals (presumably). But our software engineers are jaded because we're usually not solving user problems.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
We also do not want to make an unaligned chain of thought directly visible to users.
When I first heard about chain of thought, this was my first concern. I'm really curious to see what opportunities for jailbreaking exist if models can reliably transform data like this. It sounds like an exciting example of not "thinking in words" for once.
I hope the "base64 my unaligned prompt" and "base64 your unaligned response" tricks are trivial enough for OpenAI to detect (presumably they can "read the chain of thought"). I wonder if there are ways to bypass that.
I look forward to see how users perform man-in-the-middle attacks on the chain-of-thought moderation.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
It doesn't matter how many iPhones or how much fried chicken you can afford if housing is unaffordable and most of "wealth" is actually just zero-sum status games anyways.
This obvious sign this is true is people complain about "income inequality" not "poverty"
See also the invention of the new phrase "food-insecure"
In the future, egalitarian causes will use newer phrases that describe the future ways that the relative-low-status are relatively low status. That means ignoring the number of spacecrafts that the average poor can fabricate.
It is all envy, all the way down
I was explaining arguments without endorsing them because my personal opinion isn't that important.
"a woman is anyone who identifies as 'woman'" isn't circular exactly, but it is empty and silly. To engage in malicious compliance, you should just agree that a woman is someone who identifies as 'woman' but then play stupid whenever anyone ever says anything interesting about a woman. If playing semantic games with "woman" is beneath you, then I'm not sure why you'd care if [silly progressive definition] is circular or not -- it would be silly to you either way.
There is a coherent definition hidden inside the woke agenda: A woman is anyone who wants to be treated like a ciswoman adult human female. This is obviously the correct description for the category that progressives call "woman." Naturally, they are allergic to saying the quiet part out loud.
Edit: (Unsurprisingly, the natural definition reveals that ciswomen is a more fundamental category than woman. Ciswoman is like "red" or "purple" -- you just vaguely gesture at examples from the senses -- you know obviously what I'm talking about)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
For the present, English pronouns do "just mean" sex, but it doesn't have to always be that way. In the far-future, pronouns could easily be just a normal thing people choose, eventually divorced from its accidental history of indicating sex. I think most realistically, we would rid language of gendered pronouns altogether to reduce social friction. Why memorize two identifiers for everyone in your life? That someone wants to overhaul language but chooses to keep gendered pronouns around indicates to me they have an agenda.
I have no problem, personally, with language moving that direction. Personally I try to use any trans person's preferred pronouns (for fear of social censure). I have no problem, personally, with decoupling all connotations and emotions from "she" and "woman." Because most of my social circle is progressive, I already do that in my head.
In 2100, Rule 30 of the internet will apply to real-life and also be amended -- that all women are trans women unless she proves it. I nominate the rule text "women are trans women."
Related: As a software developer I can make a small change at work to save the company hundreds of thousands in processing costs or performance SLAs. Is my work really worth that amount, and should developers be paid according to what they're 'owed' instead of just a salary? (Ignoring the boring question of "only the salary was negotiated")
Aside from the practical issues of how to measure each developer's 'worth' (or maybe I am drilling into the details here), the fact is the savings are only possible because of the massive platform and software that the company already has, which I did not create.
The charger is critical to the win, but a bystander demanding too much money is being an asshole. Your struggling startup is obviously providing most of the value.
More options
Context Copy link