site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   1808 thread views

Wellness Wednesday for November 6, 2024

The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:

  • Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.

  • Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.

  • Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.

  • Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Had a random thought that really kinda depressed me. It was thinking about my father and extended family as a whole, and how I can naturally relate to them a lot, while in the world at large I butt heads against people all the time from the sheer fact we're just so different. I remember Westerners laughing at those little tribes in Africa or Brazil with 99%+ genetic similarity that murder fractions of their populations, and do it again yearly, and the punchline is supposed to be Hey look at these idiots killing each other when they're so similar!, and yet they never stopped to think hey perhaps those tribes lived separately because their ancestors hated one another and split off from the same tribe generations ago, like the valley vs. highland people, and this happens constantly in hunter-gatherer societies when there's conflict, and our society is a spectacular achievement in taming groups that should by all accounts loathe one another, by hiding who we are through politeness and living in Dunbar's number-adjacent circles of moderate genetic similarity.

Knowing the reason we fight is pretty much just genetics is a downer.

Knowing the reason we fight is pretty much just genetics is a downer.

Isn't this backwards? The two genetically similar groups fight each other for tribal reasons. The US nukes Japan and within a decade both are cooperating to get rich as hell, improving the lives genetically distinct populations. I'm a realist when it comes to genetics, but en masse we seem to fight often because of the ideas we have.

And what are tribal reasons? Differences in behavior. A symbiotic relation is made possibly only by very advanced social mechanisms, and when you consider the advancement of tribal peoples, you should take it to heart that failure to innovate in these systems more than anything concrete is the culprit for their failure. Someone very well read in Chinese history would probably get me, since this process is much harder to see in Western society, as low population density is the historical norm and we had generous time to figure these things out.

Belief precedes action by necessity. This will boil down to a debate about determinism, but other objections to the assertion made are irrelevant.

Homogenous Japan doesn't feel compelled to attack itself - and hadn't for 250 years - but they became enthrall to attacking their nearest neighbors for a period, then they got nuked, and then they formed warm relations the formerly enemy distant genome.

My point is that John Walker Lindh chose to fight because of idiotic Iron Age beliefs. No advanced social mechanism was necessary. High IQ might help to build better systems for producing beneficial beliefs, but its not dispositive, and doesn't preclude the intrusion of bad ideas. Adopt a low IQ tribe-baby, raise him in the west, and I don't think they'd grow up with a burning desire to return home and fight the Afro-McCoy's.

Keep in mind that religion is a social mechanism -- one of multiple nigh-invisible but indispensable mechanisms to keep us from clawing out one another's throats. In Japan's case what happened is not religion, but something functionally equivalent to one, which is that the entire country sort of melded into one enormous clan, and the operative faith here is that if one performs his duty in the clan to the nth degree he's going to get all the spoils of society, which is why Japanese elders make no bones about picking up trash or being a crossing guard, and why they're so reticent and polite. Japan is also by no means homogeneous, and that word is a phantasm unless you're talking about very old villages or uncontacted tribes.

and then they formed warm relations the formerly enemy distant genome.

Politeness is a social mechanism too

I voted for Harris and I'm annoyed that I have to deal with 4 more years of Trump, but I'm mostly fine. I am even looking at the silver lining a bit since he has some interesting people in his orbit.

But all of my liberal friends are so bummed. I'm not sure what to do about it. I kind of want to take them and just shake them a bit and say look everything will be fine. Stop believing the propaganda. We're not descending to Christian fascism! We're not going to have a national abortion ban! This will almost certainly not affect your life in any way! Nothing ever happens!

But I think that might be the wrong approach.

I guess I'll let them process their grief and come out of their shell when they're ready.

In the meantime, my urge to troll right now is 11/10 since a small part of me uncharitably considers these displays as very histrionic grief vanity. But I am resisting, for now.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that a Trump admin would almost certainly not affect liberals complaining about it, or that a descent into fascism is so ridiculous as to be hysterical. Based on his past record, this is blatantly not true. I don't think you could actually state the former confidently about any president in history, unless you want to make a larger point that the executive branch doesn't wield any meaningul power.

But a few examples that clearly dispel your point. He had a hand in appointing SC justices who overturned federal abortion access. This affected women across the country in states that are not solidly blue. You might say they could still travel or access things illegally, but this is already a sizable effect. Further to that point, unless you want to argue the Supreme Court has no effect on any of these people's lives and could not for their foreseeable lifespans, it seems a strange argument to make that their lives will not be affected at all. Are you that confident the SC will dither meaninglessly for 40 years?

Trump's recent tariff comments. 10% tariffs on imported goods would have an incredible effect on the economy at large, and jobs nationally and internationally.

Perhaps most importantly, he whipped up a crowd around the Capitol and pressured his VP to ignore election results. What do you think might have happened if Mike Pence had agreed to go along with Trump on his scheme? You have to admit it kinda takes the sting out of mocking your friends for worrying about an end to democracy when the guy they're worried about actively already tried to end democracy as it is practiced in this country.

'Nothing ever happens' is the retreat of someone who has not yet been greatly personally affected by policy.

But a few examples that clearly dispel your point. He had a hand in appointing SC justices who overturned federal abortion access. This affected women across the country in states that are not solidly blue. You might say they could still travel or access things illegally, but this is already a sizable effect.

The bomb was already dropped though, in 2020. How would electing Harris in 2024 have changed the impact of this at all? The token conservatve flagship issue was achieved and isn't getting restored without an enormous political shift the other way.

Further to that point, unless you want to argue the Supreme Court has no effect on any of these people's lives and could not for their foreseeable lifespans, it seems a strange argument to make that their lives will not be affected at all. Are you that confident the SC will dither meaninglessly for 40 years?

What issues do you have in mind?

I thought we were discussing the impact of Trump as president vs the counterfactual world where a democrat is president. Abortion does not get repealed with a left leaning SC which would be the case under a democratic president. So clearly the trump presidency had an impact in this regard.

I notice I'm a bit confused by your response. You admit that the abortion change was a pretty big swing. Do you think there's no issues at all remaining on Trump's/republicans agenda for this presidency that will differ significantly from a Democrat? The tariffs and not certifying elections are still points to implement that would affect a lot of people. If RFK gets into some important FDA adjacent position, changes to water fluoridation or vaccine availability will have large impacts on publish health.

If you really want to focus on the SC, I can't predict the future cases that will arise there. But it should be enough to look at their past rulings to determine that they have an impact on a non negligible amount of people.

Obergefell was held up when it became contentious again in the 2010s. If that law had been repealed, do you think it has no impact on people? If it was repealed 3 years from now, would that be enough impact for you to consider?

Based on his past record, this is blatantly not true.

I disagree. His past record shows that his presidency will not be significantly different from any other.

Really? Which other president in recent memory came anywhere close to denying the certification of an election?

I made a few points demonstrating why I think his presidency was exceptional. If you want to disagree, do you want to provide your own reasoning?

Stop believing the propaganda.

This is a good message. I've called out more-liberal friends on this one, at least when the propaganda is really obviously objectively false, to good effect. I don't think I've completely convinced anyone that "the fact that someone as smart as you falls for this stuff so easily once you identify it as being on Our Side is also why you should cut Trump voters a little more slack about the stuff they fall for", but at least there's motion in the right direction. I think this comes easier from me (Libertarian voter, can steelman Trump but would still pick Harris for "lesser of two evils" if I was in a swing state) than it would from an actual Trump supporter, but if you actually cast your vote for Harris then you're in an even better position to insist that you're offering constructive rather than malicious criticism. When the Boy Who Cried Wolf finally gets eaten, IMHO it's perfectly fine to point out that his prior lies were part of the problem and that you don't have to be Pro-Wolves-Eating-People to notice.

We're not descending to Christian fascism!

Also probably true, and personally I'd note the "we have to take away Musk's companies" and "we have to ban The Misinformation" style left-wing fascism while I was pointing it out. But I've never gotten the chance, since I'm not friends with anyone this panicked, and if you do then being very careful about how you try to calm them down might indeed be the way to go here for the sake of the friendships.

We're not going to have a national abortion ban!

Maybe not? Probably not anything sweeping. But I wouldn't be surprised to see something relatively weak, third trimester with rape/incest exceptions or something. With a decent Republican lead in the Senate and probably a small lead in the house, there's at least a chance.

This will almost certainly not affect your life in any way!

And this is almost certainly wrong. It won't be the most important thing in most people's lives, but the federal government writes laws by the thousand and writes regulations by the million and spends dollars by the trillion. Even the second and third order effects on people not directly impacted can be huge.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see something relatively weak, third trimester with rape/incest exceptions or something. With a decent Republican lead in the Senate and probably a small lead in the house, there's at least a chance.

I can't see Democratic senators skipping the filibuster on an abortion ban, Republicans not having three or four Senators flake if the rest of the Republicans try to nuke the filibuster over it, and then there's the lawsuits. The 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban had a third of the Dem Senate cross over to get passed, as a comparison.

That said, I think there are stronger examples. At the regulatory level, I'd expect to see the EMTALA abortion rule nixed, either by the Trump admin removing the rule and/or refusing to support it, and there's a variety of funding levers that can get tweaked (at least until the APA challenge) even if 'officially' no Medicaid money was supposed to have gone to abortion. There's likely to be a lot changed on trans matters, whether through judicial avenues (Skrmetti's getting heard in December, but there's a number of follow-up cases slotted in) or regulatory ones (compare the Dear Colleague letter volleyball). College debt delays and forgiveness might not have survived judicial review moving forward, but they're definitely not going to survive a Trump admin.

And there's a lot of stuff on this sorta path in a variety of spheres. Some of them are unlikely for structural reasons -- a lot of people have tried to pull Project 2025's radfem porn opposition as likely to result in active prosecutions or financial chicanery that the Trump admin just won't be able to pull the DoJ or CFPB into focusing on -- but most of them much more plausible. Sometimes just because the Biden admin made such hilariously aggressive rules, and these people are upset that they're going to lose the benefits of them. But that's still a thing with impact.

This will almost certainly not affect your life in any way!

And this is almost certainly wrong. It won't be the most important thing in most people's lives, but the federal government writes laws by the thousand and writes regulations by the million and spends dollars by the trillion. Even the second and third order effects on people not directly impacted can be huge.

I should say, won't matter in any legible way versus the counter-factual.

Like, obviously inflation affected people but it is debatable whether this would have been worse than high unemployment, and it's not clear at all that Biden would have done one and Trump would have done the other.

Had a fire in my apartment early yesterday morning - bathroom fan burned out and ignited a bunch of trapped lint. Saw it very quickly after it started, thanks flu making it hard to sleep. Didn't remember we had a fire extinguisher until girlfriend called 911. Extinguisher put it out quickly, thankfully the only flammable stuff that was touched was the bath mat and not the very full trash can. Burned my hand and foot, thankfully not too heavily. Girlfriend and cats are completely fine. Currently staying at a hotel, gonna crash with a local friend once we check out tomorrow.

If our management hadn't sent out an email the other week reminding us that it's almost time for the yearly fire extinguisher inspection, I might not have remembered we had one. As it is, I only made the association when GF said she'd call 911. There's a whole lot of little things that have lined up recently that by some factor have contributed to saving our lives. It is a miracle to me that the only casualties in this situation are my bath mat, a bunch of my stuff being covered in soot, and blisters on my hand and foot.

If anyone has any advice on how to de-soot linens and stuff, or anything else I should know about...just processing a near-miss like this. I'd appreciate it.

Double-check where your nearest fire extinguisher is. Make a mental note.

Double-check where your nearest fire extinguisher is. Make a mental note.

Also: If it's far away, just buy one. I'm renting an apartment, and the nearest fire extinguisher is (or at least was) the entire apartment length and half the building's hallway away from me. Now there's one about 3/4 of the apartment length away in the worst case.

Jesus, glad you got lucky. Is your bathroom fan on a timer that runs for hours a day? That was code for my place, but disabled it right away.
Having a washer and dryer in the house rather than a shed sounds like a lot of trouble. I'd never even thought about dealing with lint in an interior.

Is your bathroom fan on a timer that runs for hours a day?

It is not, we just tend to run it a lot cause GF and I tend to nuke the bathroom. Plus the white noise helps me sleep, usually.

Having a washer and dryer in the house rather than a shed sounds like a lot of trouble. I'd never even thought about dealing with lint in an interior.

To be clear, the bathroom fan is on a different duct than our dryer - there was just so much dust buildup/clumping on the fan intake that it was basically the consistency of lint. Sorry if that was confusing. I've had a washer/dryer combo in every place I've lived in and never had much trouble beyond the dryer not drying effectively. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Glad it mostly worked out fine.

The lack of a proper place to mount extinguishers is a major flaw in the residential building code, IMO. Like the IBC spent the last three revisions updating the spacing of outlets on a kitchen island, but there's no standard place to mount an extinguisher.

For those who are not renting, I highly recommend just buying a vent cleaning kit. Online or at the home center. Apparently you are supposed to clean your dryer vent every year, and if you already own a drill and vacuum, a cleaning kit is less than the cost of calling a chimney sweep out. Once you're set up, the additional time per vent is pretty small.

Like the IBC spent the last three revisions updating the spacing of outlets on a kitchen island, but there's no standard place to mount an extinguisher.

Oof, that's annoying. Especially doesn't help that mine is mounted under the kitchen sink, which is a great way to rarely see or think about it.

I'd recommend it even if renting: bathroom fans in particular are pretty prone to get clogged with random junk. And even without a fire, the reduced airflow from lint can be enough to promote mold in bathrooms if you take showers often. Landlord should take care of it between renters, but there's a lot of space between should and did.

Even hand-cleaning with a wire-brush-on-a-stick is pretty effective. Just be sure to hit the inlet at the drier, the outlet where it exhausts, and then run an empty no-heat cycle on the drier for a couple minutes -- a lot of people clean out the side nearest the drier heavily, and then get surprised that the outlet gets clogged.

I am legitimately worried that my girlfriend will break up with me if/when she finds out that I voted for Trump. She has always been an incredibly sweet and kind person, but her social media since the election has become unhinged. Like, some are more hateful than the worst comments I have seen on Reddit. We basically don't talk politics at all with each other, and I have no intention of changing that, but I am a bad liar with a terrible poker face, so if she becomes suspicious there’s not much I can do (I also have ethical qualms with lying, but these are essentially moot given the concerns above.)

EDIT: She found out. She was VERY upset. I'm like 75% sure its over.

I'm sorry this happened. How are you doing?

Did you consider just not voting? Do you even live in a swing state?

I personally didn't vote because I on-principle hate the social dynamics of politics becoming everyone's new favorite hobby, religion, and spectator sport. And I don't live in the state that I'm registered to vote. And the one I'm in now a true-blue state anyways. And I don't like either candidate.

My pet peeve is the toxic interpersonal behavior of political partisans and the creepy pod-person consistency of their agendas. Not voting is the biggest fuck-you to them I could come up with.

I'm really sorry bro. Were you together for long?

We had been dating for over a year. None of that mattered. It was like it retroactively made everything we went through together a lie to her.

I'm sorry this happened. You did nothing wrong.

I'm sorry and it must hurt, but I don't see how it is possible to maintain a long-term relationship and hide who you are. You can disagree, and have different opinions on certain matters, and I've heard about couples with different political views making it work (though it's probably not easy) but if you have to hide and live in mortal fear it comes out one day - it's not sustainable, and it's not the way to live your life.

Was a conversation held? Reasons given? A good old fashioned discussion? Sorry it just seems bizarre to me that personal intimacy to the point where you'd call each other girl/boy friend can be destroyed by this. Facebook unfriending, sure. Dropping of acquaintanceship across the internet, yes, I've seen it. But breaking up with someone you're supposed to be somewhat intimate with? Over a vote? Maybe this reveals enough fundamental disagreements that you are just not compatible, but I would have imagined such things would have come to light earlier.

My best friend--been with me through thick and thin for most of both of our lives--straight up told me if I was a Trump supporter, that was the only thing that could ever end our friendship.

To me, there are far worse things than simply supporting Trump, and there's a not implausiblr chance it was simply a venting/signaling sentence, but it was still a bit chilling to hear (as someone who is most emphatically not a Trump supporter, but at risk of being assumed to be one in certain circles for simply not thinking it's as bad as the histrionics would suggest).

I do not doubt you. I think though what people imagine when they imagine "Trump supporter" is a demon of their own creation, not the actual humans in voting booths with reasonable perspectives. I think also with dialogue that (at least some) people can be made to realize this.

I genuinely think you're typical-minding here. There is a contingent of people so intent on hating Trump supporters that when there's a conflict between their idea that 1) Trump supporters are horrible human beings who support Bad Things and 2) this person I know is good and principled, they'll resolve the cognitive dissonance by sacrificing 2) to protect 1), instead of entertaining the idea that there's a remotely valid train of thought that might allow someone reasonable to consider supporting Trump.

It seems quite bizarre for me as well that this would be someone's reaction, but people can indeed be so afflicted by political derangement so as to do this - they see casting your vote for Trump as tantamount to ushering in the American equivalent of the Third Reich. It's just such an illegitimate position to them that they refuse to humanise their supporters; it's a close-to-irredeemable action that overrides much of the positive personal qualities you may have had and makes them see you as barely even human once you've done that. I am only slightly exaggerating.

It doesn't help if you never discuss it. Steel Manning her position here: she wouldn't have reached that level of intimacy had she known up front, there was an element of fraud to the proceedings.

Divorcing my wife because she fell into debt is very different from deciding not to marry her because she revealed she revealed to me late in our engagement that she'd been in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt all along, even if both could be described as "Making marriage decisions on the basis of money."

Divorcing my wife because she fell into debt is very different from deciding not to marry her because she revealed she revealed to me late in our engagement that she'd been in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt all along, even if both could be described as "Making marriage decisions on the basis of money."

This is a very obvious false equivalency and I'm not sure how you don't see it. Failing to disclose something, like your debts, that you know will affect the other partner personally is beyond the pale precisely because it is so relevant to their future wellbeing - you can't really say you care for a person and yet want to dupe them into taking on your debts.

Something like voting for Trump, on the other hand, is just not super relevant to the other partner's personal life or material wellbeing outside of "You hold opinions I don't like and that makes me feel bad". Who your partner voted for is not your business in the way that your partner's debts are your business. If someone wants to abandon a relationship for that reason, it's certainly their prerogative, but it is their own hangup that's at fault.

I genuinely think you're typical-minding here.

To be fair, the mindset he describes is typical in my experience. People that invested in politics are not the majority, thankfully.

This is true, but typical-minding someone who's been described to pen comments "more hateful than the worst comments I have seen on Reddit" is probably a bad idea. And I do personally know people who have dumped friends who have voted for Trump - incidentally (or not), they themselves generally happen to be fairly shit people in my experience.

The fact that I do not live in the US certainly weighs in on this view of mine, no doubt. I was recently in conversation with solid blue tribers who did not disavow me as a friend, though we did agree to change the conversational topic.

Are politics in Japan as vicious as they have been here lately? Can you summarize the "sides"? Maybe material for Transnational Thursday.

They are not. Others here are probably more cognizant of the machinations of politics in Japan than I. On the macro level the LDP or Jimintō party is typically the winner, with only a few brief periods of upset. The LDP is weirdly partnered with (New) Komeito, which is affiliated with the Soka Gakkai sect (some might say cult) of Buddhism, which has great social and political sway in Japan (if to some degree implicitly).

There are of course randos in Twitter who have opinions, but typically elections pass without great interest, with voter turnout not great, but similar to that of the US.

It's nowhere near as circus-like as in the US. Elections do make the news and on election nights the results are covered on the Japanese TV networks (which still receive considerable viewership despite Netflix) but there's not the wild and woolly atmosphere. It's rare (for me) to hear anyone discuss politics openly, which may or may not be gor cultural reasons (e.g. desire for social harmony )

We did have a discussion. She was willing to hear me out. I am also surprised it didn’t come to light earlier. I think her logic was: “Obviously no respectable person would ever vote for Trump. My boyfriend is a respectable person. Therefore, my boyfriend obviously wouldn’t vote for Trump.”

The conversation was very 2015 Tumblr. The one thing I didn’t have a response to was when she brought up the fact that she has friends who are “undocumented”. I could probably salvage this by going full Hanania and pledging my opposition to deportations and my support for abortion, which is a quite tempting option at the moment tbh.

The one thing I didn’t have a response to was when she brought up the fact that she has friends who are “undocumented”.

There are nuanced approaches. I wrote a kind of steelman a few months back. There really are bureaucratic SNAFUs. And the United States Government is truly not kind when an actual SNAFU happens; they are incredibly by-the-book, even when that book is extremely opaque and confusing. Even though there are significant pro-immigrant advocacy organizations out there who will throw every argument they can at the courts on a pro bono basis (yes, they'll throw utterly silly arguments at the wall which should be rejected, too), the courts are for the most part pretty deferential to the gov't in the realm of immigration. The threat of penalties like being banned from the US for ten years can be bandied about for surprisingly minor things.

Now, the trick is to try to divide that group, who mostly are at least trying to do things legally, but who get caught up in some garbage, from the group of folks who are literally just walking across the border, not even trying. Rhetorically, this may get you a long way with your girlfriend. Of course, that trick is surprisingly more difficult to translate into actual policy, and she may honestly be fully justified in thinking that Donald Trump is not going to thread that needle. He may genuinely make things more difficult for some number of sympathetic folks. But of course, now we're getting into the land of tradeoffs, where it's hard to make good estimates. How many people in the 'mostly good' category are really going to suffer? How many people in the 'not even trying' category are going to be kept out? It's probably impossible to predict what fine-grained policy choices will ultimately be made up/down the chain and how those choices will ultimately come out in terms of the tradeoffs.

If you can get her at least this far, and she's capable of understanding that the truly apocalyptic-sounding BS that people are spouting off (e.g., "They're gonna deport all green card holders!") is completely irrelevant and that the most likely outcome is some shifting around of tradeoffs, which may or may not impact her friends... and that you do feel sympathy for any 'mostly good' folks who get further harmed by the tradeoff game, then you're probably in luck. If not, and she simply can't extricate her mind from the most insane propaganda takes? Whelp, you've got decisions to make.

If you actually are opposed to deportations and in favour of abortion, then do it. Nothing wrong with telling the truth.

Otherwise, I wouldn't advise it.

I'm not going to try and co-pilot your conversations, obviously, and I trust you know what you're doing. I would suggest if she decides to bail on you for this there may be a lack of emotional maturity worth thinking about--and which may itself be a consolation to you. This is regardless of whether you or she is the one "in the right" politically.

I would like to think, however, that she resists the urge to just walk away and rid herself of the cognitive dissonance that seems to be at play, and that this is a kind of wake-up call for her.

Tiptoeing around this is a gigantic mistake - this is going to come out at some point, and the values difference will have to be confronted. If she truly can't handle it and is going to want to force consensus, it's not going to work. I know of a guy who married a strongly religious girl who's extremely domineering in terms of beliefs, and he's slowly changing his own stated beliefs. Not just on religion, too - he's even allowed her to not vaccinate their baby daughter just for the sake of harmony. This kind of relationship dynamic where you just keep quiet and hide things about yourself to keep the missus happy isn't sustainable or healthy, I think, though it's unfortunately common.

My partner and I talked about politics very early on in the course of the relationship (homosexual relationship, take that how you will) and laid bare all of these value differences that bother most people. We knew what we were both getting into before we got too invested. Our political opinions are similarly divergent, and we had pretty gigantic blowouts about it early on - there was a point in which he linked me a BreadTube video and I did not hold back when tearing into it, to the point I had a whole script written complete with sources as to why it was wrong about everything. At this point, we have a pretty high level of certainty that neither of us is going to leave the other for such things, and while we may still disagree every now and then it's not going to jeopardise the relationship.

Come on ya'll we can be better than /r/relationshipadvice

It's possible that the advice of others is the correct way to go, and it may be the case, but don't do it prematurely. People are freaked out right now and the average woman is more vulnerable to that. She may calm down acutely, in which case the fight is not necessary. Like most she will probably calm down in the long run but it would be a serious question of what time horizon you need for people to go normal.

I know totally normal women who are saying nobody should have sex with men anymore. It histrionic nonsense. If you can tolerate taking Trump non literally you can tolerate this haha (again assuming it has hope to be temporary).

I know totally normal women who are saying nobody should have sex with men anymore

The definitions of "totally normal" are getting stretched really wide nowadays.

Wokeness is widely popular with women and necessarily involves holding together a lot of contradictory opinions, so the training is out there. Consider the modern dating market - women still want a man who is masculine, pays, etc. but they also want feminist girl bosses at the same time. These things don't work together, but they manage.

Cultural acceptability is what is normal. Lots of culturally acceptable believes are unwise or harmful, however.

Goatse levels of stretch.

nobody should have sex with men

getting stretched really wide

There's a joke in here somewhere but I'm not the one to make it.

It's possible that the advice of others is the correct way to go, and it may be the case, but don't do it prematurely.

I don't think anyone is saying it needs to be brought up proactively, just pointing out that if it does come up it'll be ok in the end no matter what happens.

I know totally normal women who are saying nobody should have sex with men anymore.

I know it's kind of off-topic, but I would not call those totally normal women lol. Anyone who says that unironically is crazy.

I know it's kind of off-topic, but I would not call those totally normal women lol. Anyone who says that unironically is crazy.

If they are still saying it in a in two months they are crazy, for now? Just angry.

Women tend to interact with the world in a more bubble and consensus oriented way, the ego damage when that gets popped leads to immature defense mechanisms aka the batshit insanity. Most people will course correct.

It's crazy on day one. It's a wild overreaction and a normal, well-adjusted person would understand that.

Ehhhhh I think you underestimate how consensus reality holders feel about things. Most of us here aren't really about that kinda thinking but it is wildly popular, and plenty of otherwise well adjusted little to no other abnormal belief people are shitting absolute bricks right now.

Note that I didn't say "if you're shitting bricks about Trump winning you're crazy", though. It's very specifically the idea of "all women should punish all men by refusing to have sex with them" that I called crazy (and it is). A normal, well-adjusted person isn't going to immediately jump to punishing half of the country because of an election result.

How many Jewish/Italian/Irish/Black etc... women do you know.

They'll say it, but only a fraction will actually believe it.

My wife is black, is upset about the election results (more than I think she should be tbh), and she isn't saying stuff like that. Of course, if she was crazy enough to overreact on that level I wouldn't have married her. /shrug

More comments

Me IRL

You absolutely should not lie to her about it. If she cares about politics more than she cares about you, it's not gonna work. When you're in love, politics don't matter. When she's really into you, your disgusting politics will be at worst a charming and amusing idiosyncrasy, never a fatal one. As the saying goes: "if she's still a feminist with you, you're not the guy."

That said, there are more and less attractive presentations of the same politics, and different sets of politics which cash out to the same voting patterns. An intelligent, reasoned, lived-experience-based argument for why you vote the way you do will get you further than just the bare fact that you voted for Trump, or a negative or tribal logic for your vote. If she is attracted to you, she wants to make excuses for you, give her one and she'll spin the rest out herself.

-EDIT- Started with a lead paragraph about myself that went nowhere. I removed it.

Other commenters have said the right thing to say - "If you're so incompatible at a values level, it's good to get it over with and move on." That is thoroughly correct. But, I'd like to highlight some operational level considerations for you.

You talk about her social media. What about her IRL social life? Does she hang out with Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers? Does she work in a job that is heavily PMC captured? You could very well be the most important single person in her life, but the collective importance of the 20 other people she spends most of her time with outweighs you. Social pressure is as real a force as gravity except for people who have committed to truly Outsider status. And those people often come with their own pathologies that make them difficult to build a relationship with.

If you're ever worried about your relationship status with your significant other, you've probably already lost. If you're married it's a little different. A lot of folks will limp it out until the kids are out of the house. Many won't. You should look back to see when you started worrying about anything besides being the best possible partner you could be. Once it gets externalized ("was she actually angry about x? Did she not like friend y? Can I convince her to z") you've entered a bargaining based transactional relationship with an account balance. Account balances can go up to infinity, which means they're never "full." They can also drop to the negative for long stretches and have you paying out interest only payments.

On the bright side, your ethical qualms about lying are excellent. No matter what happens in the rest of the external world, it's always 100% within your own power to maintain your honor and integrity. You'll done fine.

But if that’s true, I’m still saying no to this one. It cannot work if you’re going to be in her life socially. Sooner or later you will be at a party or something and the topic will come up. Probably not Trump specifically, but some future iteration of the same. And if she feels the need to be proactively politically correct online, she’s not going to allow you to be yourself in the presence of her friends no matter what her IRL friends think. If she’s doing it for a career move, you’re going to either have to act the part or at least bite your tongue whenever politics comes up, or frankly most social issues. And I don’t see tha5 working long term

Was this supposed to be a comment to my comment, or the top level post?

There’s no reason to hide who you really are from your girlfriend, but I don’t think it’s necessary to bring it up while emotions are still running high. I’m not convinced that her political fervor is a deep-seated part of her personality. Likely, there’s more social influence and surface-level enthusiasm than you might assume at first glance, and people’s political views can change significantly over time. While it’s true that women can be more emotionally expressive, I’ve become more understanding of friends with opposing political views as I mature. In fact, I sometimes feel more distant from those who stand on the same side of the barricade.

I know this stuff is scary, but it really is better to get it out in the open. If she breaks up with you, then she was never right for you to begin with and you won't be wasting more time on a dead end relationship. If she doesn't mind, then you can be even more secure in your relationship knowing that she loves you enough to not let trivial things get in the way.

Not saying you need to proactively broach the topic. And obviously it's going to be painful if she breaks up with you. But try to focus on the long term positive, it helps some with the fear in my experience.

When someone shows you who they are (typically in times of serious stress for them), you should believe them. I don't think it's a good idea to carry on a relationship with a person who hates who you are.

Hmm. I would argue that "Who I voted for that time" is considerably different from "Who I Am."

Anything you do is part of you in that "not doing x" isn't part of you.

I did drag for a Halloween costume once. I wouldn't say that makes me a drag queen or a cross dresser.

But it does mean I'm not the kind of guy who would never do that. Such a person exists, a guy who would never put on a skirt and makeup, and we are different.

In the same way, voting for Trump "that time" doesn't define your whole personality. But it does mean you aren't a person who would never vote for Trump, which is a piece of information about you.

voting for Trump "that time" doesn't define your whole personality.

We are in agreement.

Come on dude, I expect better from you.

Sorry to disappoint. Mine was not an attempt at comeback, simply a suspicion that we actually do agree in the essentials and that any point of argument isn't really worth the candle for either of us.

clearly not to the girlfriend, who he is terrified will find out he is the sort of person who would vote for Donald Trump that time

it's part of you, you may not like how some people interpret that, but you are the sort of person who does that thing

it is at least part of "who you are"

Sure, part of, yes. But disagreeing with your choice for president needn't be "hating who you are." That's the kind of thing that reasonable people really need to get past--it's buying into a pop culture meme way of looking at the world, a tacit acceptance of the premise that vibes are some existential manifestation of selfhood.

I'm sure for many here it is outrageous to suggest that core principles can be shared by people on both sides of the political aisle, but I certainly believe this to be true.

needn't be "hating who you are."

it needn't be and yet it is in this described scenario; if you genuinely fear your spouse or close friend would end that relationship if they discovered you voted for a person for president which half of Americans also voted for, then it isn't OP or ME who is claiming otherwise, it's the person who is going to end relationships over it thus showing you the type of person she is

a person who does this isn't a reasonable person

I'm sure for many here it is outrageous to suggest that core principles can be shared by people on both sides of the political aisle, but I certainly believe this to be true.

brother wars consist of two sides of a family who agree on quite a lot of core principles and yet they fight and kill each other because of the stuff they disagree on

to be honest, I doubt you will find a single user here who believes "people on both sides of the political aisle" cannot share some core principles.

Breaking up with someone who hates who you are seems net-positive for both parties to me. I had a friend who dated a girl who cried over a beer-pong game very early in the relationship. She was overly emotional was anxious all the time. To me all disqualifiers to long-term relationship material. But I think my friend thought she would improve, she was best he could get at the time, could fix her (who knows!). But they wasted each others' time dating for several fraught years, where I think they each wanted the other to be someone they weren't, or couldn't be. Now years after the break-up now are both doing much better by all appearances by being with other people much better suited to both of them.

I will have my second therapy session tomorrow, so far I have been able to work a minimum of 1-2 hours daily and I feel ashamed of myself. Wont write much more. I have to finish this book by next week and get my work hours to 7. I did lower my workout weights and its pretty embarrassing, I wish I never listened to alex leonidis about pullovers that caused me a partial slap tear.

Don't be ashamed if the therapy knocks you around for the day. People often underrate the emotional impact of opening up boxes like that.

What book are you reading?

Javascript the good parts, it is a noob guide to the language. I will have to do it cover to cover starting tomorrow, finishing a small youtube course as I write this comment.

Hi all! I'm cooking up a new history of science blog with a side of book reviews, a pinch of games, deep dives into obscurities, and cultural observations. I've put a healthy amount of time into branding, and then let the first batch of ideas simmer until they're fairly strong. As I have (close to) zero audience coming in, I'm optimizing for quality on this first run (1-2 months), shilling it in some relevant spaces, and then basically praying. If you have any tips or suggestions, I'd appreciate it!

Howdy. I'd have to look at more of what you're doing but I'd be happy to talk about it if you want to DM.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats