site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3357 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 22, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do I need to post proof that I am in possession of a one-way plane ticket to Fairbanks?

I am also still waiting for a picture that proves your irrecoverable unattractiveness.

I am also still waiting for a picture that proves your irrecoverable unattractiveness.

While I'm solidly below average physically, I'm no Quasimodo. The unattractiveness isn't the kind that can be readily captured in still photos.

For an extreme example, consider Elliot Rodger. Was it his physical appearance that was the problem?

Was it his physical appearance that was the problem?

No, it was his social awkwardness, introversion, lack of people skills and narcissistic entitlement - his physical appearance had essentially nothing to do with his loneliness. I very much doubt going to Alaska for however long would have helped him with any of the above.

If he cooked up anything that was hock like, he would definitely not have the same type of narcissistic entitlement. Supreme Gentlemen are already Supreme and so don't need to fucking Hockmaxx.

I'm sure others have said this before, and I know this isn't kind - so I apologise, but you have this exactly backwards. It is because of the narcissistic entitlement that he would have required the hock to be a good man.

Similarly it is because of your narcissistic tendencies that you think you require the hock to become a good man. If you can cut out that narcissism you won't need the hock, but if you don't you will surely need it. Because the hock is, and has always been, about you. And given you are already at the point where you have decided, no matter what anyone else says, that you are disgusting and unworthy of love, that nobody else's opinion matters, more narcissism isn't going to help.

What do you think will happen, once you have conquered the hock and found a boyfriend-free girl of your own? You live happily ever after? With a woman you know for a fact (in your mind) wouldn't give you the time of day if you hadn't gone camping? You would not trust her, you would resent her and even grow to hate her. She would become a totem of your inadequacy, reminding you every time you saw her that you are disgusting.

The crazy part to me is that the hock has worked already, in its capacity as a way to prove to yourself that you have the courage to face constant rejection. Because the hock has already proven that you don't have any reason to fear rejection. From the second you first mentioned it you have been mocked and ridiculed for it, so much so that it's a motte meme. And yet your confidence in it doesn't falter. Now you just need to overcome the hock in your mind that tells you being romantically rejected is any different.

I have people that think the Hock is a good idea. And also: "boyfriend-free girl" - I don't care too much about how many previous partners she's had, to be honest. Also, I get the Chris-Chan reference; don't you think I'm at least more competent and less of a weird asshole than that motherfucker? Come on. Even in their prime, that person had to think "Bruh, I'm out of shape AF, I'd be a goddamn popsicle." And I'm in good enough shape to think I can make it through the Hock, I'm well educated, decently determined...the Hock provideth, brother.

/images/16997770122967982.webp

I don't know man, you keep calling yourself disgusting, and when I think disgusting I think cwc.

That's just reflecting your attitude though - I absolutely do think you are more competent than Chris Chan, but it's not the mountain climbing survivalism that concerns me. What concerns me is that I think six weeks of absolute solitude will absolutely change you, but not for the better. If I was going to guess at the outcomes, I'd say 40% chance you go past narcissist to full on solipsist, decide 3dpd and marry a body pillow, 40% chance you have a psychotic break, and maybe a 20% chance it works as intended, although I honestly think that's generous.

Also my point isn't that you are the only person who thinks it's a good idea, my point is that you don't care about the ridicule you have faced. I compared you to one of the worst people in the modern world and you are just annoyed at me! But if I was a sexy girl instead of a sexy man you'd be picking out another mountain to climb. Pretend women you are interested in are motters and you won't need the hock!

That's a sweet flier though. Although now I've read it if you don't turn back up on April 1st I am absolutely coming looking for you. I'm onto you you sneaky bastard, this is all just set up so you can run off to a small rural town full of quirky characters and dark secrets, pretend to have amnesia and become the local sheriff. Not on my watch buster, it's always been a dream of mine to be the major antagonist of some show's second season.

40% chance you have a psychotic break

Reasonably sure that this is unlikely; 28 is a little late for a man to have a first psychotic break and I have no first- or second- degree relatives with a history of either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

So. I'm reading that you think that I'll actually survive the Hock, two or three weeks of trudging through some godforsaken wind-blasted frigid tundra in the middle of nowhere...but mentally more fucked up than before. Interesting thought here...

Anyone can have a psychotic break at any age, no prior history is necessary you just have to believe in yourself! the only prerequisite is a prolonged bout of extreme psychological disruption. Being completely alone doesn't seem too disruptive if you do it for a couple of days or even a week, but two weeks in its a whole different ball game. Not because humans are social creatures (although that is true) but because it is so radically different from the modern experience, where even in rural areas or if you stay in your home all day you can still hear and maybe see your neighbours, cars on the street, the postman and the like. What is the longest you have spent in total isolation?

And yeah man, if I wanted to say something positive about the hock it's that you've put a lot of thought into it. I assume you have figured out exactly what you'll need to survive, plus contingencies. And you're under thirty and in decent shape (and although I can't recall you saying so I assume you have some mountain climbing experience because it would be too insane if you didn't) so while I'm sure it will be challenging, it sounds feasible. If you convinced a friend to go with you I'd be on board.

You've often compared the Hock to fighting in a war, Navy SEAL training or other physically taxing tests of endurance and determination. Your theory assumes that anyone who undergoes a Hock-esque ordeal would never commit a mass shooting (as Rodger did), but I don't even have to go back earlier than this week to find an example of a military veteran doing exactly that. Can't wait to hear your rationalisation for how it doesn't count because he only went through boot camp.

I reiterate: if you want to do your camping trip, go for it, but don't delude yourself into thinking it'll fix all of your problems in one fell swoop, or that it's the underlying secret to human civilization or a male rite of passage or similar. I'm not telling you this out of spite or meanness: I'm urging you to manage your expectations and be realistic. You say "the Hock provideth" so often it's starting to sound like a religious incantation, which is not a healthy approach to adopt in the pursuit of self-improvement.

Surviving the Hock will mean that I am no longer both disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship.

I'll just ask you directly. What is it about you that makes you disgusting or hypocritical for wanting a relationship?

I'm married with kids now. I used to believe that I was fundamentally repellant to all human females. Turns out this was not the case, and significantly improving my personal waterline of sanity allowed me to both discover and capitalize on that fact.

I don't know what on earth makes you think you are disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship now. There are plenty of people who post on this site who are in relationships (myself included) or even in marriages - are they disgusting hypocrites for getting into said relationships without toiling in the Arctic circle for months? Why, of all things, is that the rule-in criterion for who is entitled to be in a relationship (or even entitled to want to be in a relationship)? Should the human race go extinct because most people can't afford to travel to the Arctic circle for months at a time?

I know you're going to give me some self-pitying/self-deprecating spiel about how all those people in relationships have actually made something of themselves, which means they're entitled to want a romantic partner - unlike you, who's so uniquely loathsome and contemptible that he ought to be euthanized unless he can Prove his Worth by etc.. To which all I can say is - bullshit. I haven't made much of myself (overweight, temporarily living with my parents, failed writer, failed musician, boring email job) and have had more than my fair share of attacks of self-loathing over the years - but the last time I actually thought there was something suspect about my desire to be in a relationship, I was a literal teenager. Wanting to be in a romantic relationship is the most normal and healthy desire a human being can have, regardless of life circumstances. I literally cannot envision any person, no matter how pathetic or loathsome, for whom knowing that they would like to be in a romantic relationship would lower my estimation of them - if I met a literal convicted murderer who killed children without remorse, and he said "I'd like to have a girlfriend", that wouldn't cause me to think any less of him. I cannot even fathom how you arrived at the conclusion that the desire to be in a romantic relationship is only legitimate conditional on having achieved XYZ, and is otherwise disgusting or hypocritical. For that matter, I can't, offhand, think of any desire meeting that description. A paedophile's desire to rape children does not become any less disgusting because he is a war hero; wanting to be rich is a perfectly legitimate desire to have, even if you are a lazy bum.

The more you tell me about your worldview, the more baffling and incoherent it seems to me, and I wish you would actually try to seriously consider the well-meaning criticisms or questions people have raised about your beliefs here, rather than just dismissing them with "no, you guys have it all wrong, it's Hock or bust." You've clearly been thinking about this stuff for so long that you've become trapped in a groove, a web of cached thoughts that you can't snap yourself out of. For someone who claims to be uniquely loathsome and awful, you seem to be suspiciously confident that your diagnosis of yours and society's ills is 100% accurate, and your proposed remedy 100% guaranteed to work. It's very easy to circle all the way around from self-loathing and end up at arrogant condescending solipsism (God knows I've done it myself), and there's something uniquely unbecoming about this cocktail of victimisation complex, self-pity and egotism.

So, do me a courtesy. Without any evasions, cop-outs, goofy stylistic flourishes ("provideth", "ambulances", "-maxx") or romantic fatalism (and without invoking the [extremely statistically rare] anecdote about the acquaintance of yours who was stabbed by his partner) - please tell me, in plain language, why you think the fact that you want to be in a romantic relationship makes you a disgusting hypocrite.

I don't know what on earth makes you think you are disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship now.

…

I cannot even fathom how you arrived at the conclusion that the desire to be in a romantic relationship is only legitimate conditional on having achieved XYZ, and is otherwise disgusting or hypocritical.

…

please tell me, in plain language, why you think the fact that you want to be in a romantic relationship makes you a disgusting hypocrite.

I believe Skookum does so here:

Like, the basic premise of the Hock cashes out to "if you're an unattractive person/dude, whether it's because fugly or autistic or physically disabled or whatever, your partners are probably gonna find you disgusting. So you're asking for an awful lot there from your partner, arguably for no good goddamn reason. You kind of suck and are hypocritical if you're not down to freely choose to suffer like a motherfucker for no good reason - you're asking the same of your partner."

TVTropes has multiple tropes ("And Now You Must Marry Me," "I Have You Now, My Pretty" "Scarpia Ultimatum, etc." full of examples across centuries of stories about the suffering of women submitting to the attentions of a man to whom she's not attracted — or even just under the threat of such. How is it not at least somewhat hypocritical, how does it not speak of entitlement, to expect a woman to voluntarily submit to such misery, and not be willing to voluntarily submit oneself to a comparable level of suffering? If not "the Hock," what can match the ordeal a woman undergoes, being in a romantic relationship with someone she finds repellent?

unlike you, who's so uniquely loathsome and contemptible that he ought to be euthanized unless he can Prove his Worth by etc.. To which all I can say is - bullshit.

What about that is bullshit, and what is your evidentiary basis for saying so?

As somewhat similar, from back in 2017 on SSC:

Kevin C. says:

…

I recall once reading, if not here then somewhere in the “rationalsphere”, someone, as an idle proposal, putting forth that with regards to this dynamic, one might consider comparison to domesticated livestock, and how we handle those males who aren’t in the minority that will be doing the breeding. That rather than leave large numbers of individuals tormented by a drive they cannot fulfill, we, as a mercy, take steps to remove or ameleorate the drive.

…

vV_Vv says:

…

It’s not too hard to imagine a not-so-distant future where any boy who isn’t a hyper-masculine Chad from a young age will be pushed, possibly with the help of hormones and surgical scalpels, to live his life as some sort of “queer” identity which does not involve having sex with women. And if the statistics are to be believed, we know that many of these men will eventually end up “taking the exit” anyway.

And further on the livestock analogy, when it comes to chickens — as opposed to cattle, sheep, etc. — the solution is indeed the culling of most male chicks.

So why not at least offer some sort of analogous "relief" for those human males facing a similar life of suffering under such unmet drives? Why not respect the self-determination of individuals to address such an irremediable condition by providing them assistance in attaining a dignified exit from an undignified existence?

And on what grounds do you say that the likes of Skookum aren't "ought to be euthanized"?

I'd point out that in most "primitive" cultures, girls become women — full adult members of the community — automatically at menarche, while boys have to "earn" their manhood through rites of initiation — difficult, usually painful rites. And it was indeed possible to fail said initiations.

I recall once reading a thread on Tumblr talking about how the prevalence of "third genders" wasn't nearly the support for modern transgender and nonbinary identities that some like to argue it is, by going into depth on the Polynesian example, laying out the details and pointing out that the closest modern counterpart isn't "trans-woman" or "non-binary," but a formalized, institutionalized version of "prison bitch." And that often, many who ended up in such roles were indeed those boys who failed to "become men" — that these societies did indeed have a "gender binary," just that instead of "man" and "woman," it's "man" and "non-man," with some biological males falling into the latter category by failure to earn membership in the former.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Women are precious, men are expendable. Women attain full personhood, membership in the tribe, the concern of others, automatically. Males have to earn the privilege of being a person, through their deeds and contribution to the tribe, to women and children. We must earn the care and compassion of society — and those who fail don't matter; those who fail are expendable, disposable. So, in times of modern plenty, and when women have more options outside of marriage and "settling," why not dispose of at least the worst of disposable males, or at least assist them in disposing of themselves?

How is it not at least somewhat hypocritical, how does it not speak of entitlement, to expect a woman to voluntarily submit to such misery, and not be willing to voluntarily submit oneself to a comparable level of suffering? If not "the Hock," what can match the ordeal a woman undergoes, being in a romantic relationship with someone she finds repellent?

How about working a job one finds abhorrent?

That was the deal. That was what marriage meant. The woman agrees to provide exclusive sexual access to a man, and the man in turn agrees to support the wife and her children.

It is not necessary that a woman should be attracted to her husband, any more than it is necessary that a man should enjoy his job. All that is necessary is that they should do their duty.

The welfare state, alimony, and child support destroyed the deal.

Women are not a hive mind: it would be very surprising indeed if literally every woman in the entire world would be disgusted by Skookum as he currently exists. There's no accounting for taste: I routinely see an ugly and/or overweight man walking down the street holding hands with a plain or even attractive woman. Moreover, if a given woman is disgusted by @SkookumTree as he currently exists, I very much doubt that her opinion of him will significantly change once she learns that he went on a hike in Alaska. (If anything they might be even more repulsed: I can't imagine that spending two months completely alone without interacting with another soul will do much for the social skills of someone who already seems to consider himself rather socially awkward.) I wasn't asking why Skookum thinks (certain) women are disgusted by him - I was asking why he himself thinks that he's disgusting for merely wanting to be in a relationship. If he thinks that he's disgusting because he wants a relationship even though he hasn't "earned the right" to want one by proving his masculinity - well, that implies that the vast majority of modern men are disgusting, as most of us haven't fought in a war or gone hiking in Alaska or etc.. That includes most of the men who post on this site: I'm certainly not a hyper-masculine Chad, and I've never been to war or similar. If Skookum literally believes that any man who wants to be in a relationship without having proved his masculinity is "disgusting" and "hypocritical", I wish he would just come out and say "I am disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship, and so are most of you", rather than dancing around the issue by self-pityingly asserting that he is disgusting and hypocritical, but dodging the question of who else is according to his metrics.

So, in times of modern plenty, and when women have more options outside of marriage and "settling," why not dispose of at least the worst of disposable males, or at least assist them in disposing of themselves?

Skookum is able-bodied, physically strong (able to deadlift a perfectly respectable 275 pounds and squat 245, the latter of which far exceeds my PR) and intelligent enough to be training to be a doctor. Any criteria of "the worst of the disposable males" which includes him would probably include you. And, based on your weird comment history, on the off-chance it turns out that you're really Skookum using an alt account, I will be very annoyed by the run-around.

More comments

The unattractiveness isn't the kind that can be readily captured in still photos.

https://www.themotte.org/post/485/wellness-wednesday-for-may-10-2023/100343?context=8#context

I talk about being unattractive. My physical appearance is...20th percentile, I'd say. Not Quasimodo, but not at all good. Add autism to that, and it's not looking good at all. I will contend that autism functions in more or less the same way as physical deformity or ugliness. Someone could watch me talking with my friends and form a durable opinion on my awkwardness after just a couple seconds. A single still photo would be enough.

Okay, it's not unattractiveness, but awkwardness leading to unattractiveness.

Still, pics or it didn't happen.

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