domain:tracingwoodgrains.com?page=6
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Yes, but you're not male. Gays/transgenders larping as women come off as a bit gross to straight men, the sort of person who'd make you want to wash your hands after shaking theirs, but not scary.
It's ultra nerdy male. There's jockish spaces, normie spaces, etc that are just as male.
hunting
Most women hunters are not actually shooting. They're allowing their husbands/fathers/whatever to use their tags. This as participation in the sport is... debatable.
NewCharlesInCharge
1d ago
Not eligible, but at least in my state of Washington they still get notices to appear. They're required to refuse due to their citizenship status, but that requires them to both read and fully understand the summons they've been sent.
Sometimes societies just do crazy things. Consider foot-binding in China. Enormous amounts of pain and life-long infirmity inflicted on young girls for basically no reason other than it being high-status to have these small feet. The origin was in some dancer who the emperor praised, nobody is quite sure. It makes zero sense. The process is actually sickening to read about, wikipedia casually adds that the death rate from gangrene could be as high as 10%. There were full-scale wars less deadly than this 'cosmetic procedure'.
But it took on a life of its own. Foot-binding became a kind of resistance movement to the Qing dynasty (who tried to ban it several times but failed). We can only assume it was ferociously popular, a way of marrying up in society, conforming to norms. There must've been very deep and powerful emotions behind it, if it subverts a basic parental conception of 'not torturing your child'. But today it just sounds completely retarded to us and to everyone, especially the Chinese.
I agree it would be kind of hot to be a very attractive girl. But that's not something that's realistically possible. I have heard horror stories no less disturbing than foot-binding about those who try and fail. We should strive to think reasonably and logically before falling into either a collective or individual social phenomenon like this.
TwiceHuman
1d ago
I agree, but not many people realize that psychology is the way to go, and get stuck trying to solve life using logic. I think what I wrote above is quite important, since it may help some people take the "leap of faith". When the brain gets anxious it starts questioning and deconstructing things, as well at looking for holes or imperfections which is how we even come up with crazy ideas like "What if you're actually in a coma right and imagining all this?" or "What if you're the only conscious person?". Once the brain hits something unfalsifiable, we get stuck, and that's mainly how philosophy is created.
It's great once people realize that they're a human and that everything important is inside themselves, but to fully go this route, one needs to realize that the subjective is more important than the objective, or that objectivity is limited in the first place, which is difficult for many intelligent people to do
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Gay men generally don't want to do things that would have a different impact on other people based on whether they are gay.
Is your argument that Gay men are generally concerned at making sure that the men they hit on are gay, or that they are scrupulous at avoiding statutory? Because that is... debatable.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
...there are a million 'bad decisions' a guy can make in a bar that will 100% get him beat up....
...society ... mostly treats barfights over dumb shit as plus-or-minus [consensual]....
Yes, I am aware that there are many ways in which our society fall short of perfection.
If Adam and Bob get into a bar fight, with Adam being the first to escalate to physical attack, then Adam not being charged with assault does not mean that Bob was not wronged, any more than a lack of response to Charles stealing David's bicycle means that the bicycle in question was Charles' property all along.
(Although I could see the case for dismissing charges against Adam if Bob had referred to Adam's ethnic group as 'cockroaches', or called Adam's disabled relative a 'useless eater' or a 'life unworthy of living', or accused Adam of some grave act of moral turpitude such as sexual assault against an infant; but anything short of that....)
if the aggressor is too hard to ignore
...which includes any instance in which the aggressor is substantially stronger, or arranges to have a half-dozen friends when the victim is alone. (If it is two people of approximately equal strength inflicting approximately equal damage on each other, one could make the case for limiting the societal response to a sternly-worded "Don't. Do. It. Again.".)
maybe you meant to say 'protecting women from extralegal violence?'
No, when I said 'people' I meant 'human beings.' The principleÂą that Alex should not be obligated to follow the demands of Bob the Random Nobody merely because Bob happens to be stronger than Alex does not depend on Alex's gender.
ÂąA principle originally dating back to at least the Bronze Age, even if inconsistently applied.
To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."
-- Code of Hammurabi.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
My guess is that Gaetz will probably come back to the Trump White House in some form that doesn’t require a Senate confirmation, after the news dies down.
This is entirely possible, and furthermore, Gaetz may well have been the driving force to remove himself from consideration, rather than doing so at the behest of Trump.
daguerrean
1d ago
I remember there was a Motte survey a few years back (when on the subreddit), but I haven't seen one since unless I missed it. Do you think there would be any interest in a new one? Any questions you would like asked?
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '21
1d ago
Thanks for the details! I'll try these out.
ultra-fine nylon mesh strainers
Great tip, this is what I was missing. Internet recipes always instruct you to "strain through a cheesecloth" which is horribly tedious and messy.
chooky
1d ago
I understand this - what is not clear to me is if OP would accept this definition of woman being given access to ladies' restrooms. They seem to want only "buologically female", but it is not clear to me if that means "female at birth" or more like "post-op".
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
Three separate objections, I guess:
-
Generalizing from the most visible member of a population is probably not a good way to draw conclusions about desire for attention. Most of the trans women I know very much care about unsexy, routine things so long as they can be labeled femme.
-
Wait, do you know any common fantasies that don’t involve being on the tail end of a bell curve?
-
In the spirit of the “male fantasy” meme, I think you could swap out “AGP individuals” for most any recognizable subgroup. They don’t just wanna be tradcons, they wanna be the 95th percentile tradcons, with a homestead and 11 children!
AlexanderTurok
1d ago
The challenge with striking against the pro-life movement is it's unclear what exactly the pro-life movement wants. Do they want more children or fewer?
-_-_-_-_-
1d ago
Now, I'm given to understand, he declines to write about these matters at all. Taken in sequence, it seems to me that the trajectory isn't hard to plot.
He wrote "Some Practical Considerations Before Descending Into An Orgy Of Vengeance" just four months ago. "Be Nice At Least Until You Can Coordinate Meanness" -> "Congratulations On Beginning To Coordinate Meanness, But Your Meanness Is Just As Shitty As Your Outgroup's Meanness" isn't much of a "trajectory," so far as I can plot, the original blogpost just had a wry title.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
Much clearer now that this is a set of allusions that not unsurprisingly flew over my head. Thanks. The Motte really does keep me on my toes.
jkf
1d ago
if the 'consequences of a bad decision' include extralegal violence, protecting people from it is one of the most fundamental functions of society, and protects you from somebody else deciding that some aspect of your life-style is a 'bad decision' that they are entitled to assault people over.
Donno man, there are a million 'bad decisions' a guy can make in a bar that will 100% get him beat up -- wearing a dress probably isn't even top 50.
And yet somehow society, while it will sometimes intervene if the aggressor is too hard to ignore -- mostly treats barfights over dumb shit as plus-or-minus consentual, and the response trends in the direction of 'even less than if you report your bike stolen'.
That seems incompatible with 'fundamental function of society' -- maybe you meant to say 'protecting women from extralegal violence?'
Terracotta
1d ago
That would certainly explain a lot. Including, potentially, the silly debate over "what is a woman". Because if by "a woman" they inadvertently mean "a 95th-percentile hotness woman," i.e. the concept of womanhood inheres in the hotness not vice-versa, then "I'm smokin' hot because I feel hot/ because I believe in my hotness" actually is a popular meme in the wider culture.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
In my experience, they totally do. Not the pregnancy ones but the social through romantic ones. The o the point of loudly proclaiming how great it was to do housework.
I’d have said it was downstream of viewing everything through a gendered lens.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
Why are they usually in those? I seem to remember reading it was a default option. If true, the U.S. would just pivot to holding them somewhere else.
Ben___Garrison
Voltaire's Viceroy
1d ago
Last week there was a discussion on the motte about Trump’s cabinet picks, in particular about Rubio who is something of a hawk. This goes against what many of Trump’s isolationist supporters want. It’s almost certain that Trump is making these picks extremely haphazardly, deciding on names after a bare modicum of thought and prioritizing vibes, “loyalty”, and Fox news appearances over any other concerns. The NYT has documented this extensively, and it’s entirely in keeping with the chaotic nature of his first term.
One of the goofier explanations given by those on the right was that nominating Rubio was actually a 5D chess move to get Rubio out of the Senate, which is apparently extremely necessary for some unexplained reason…? As opposed to Trumpian loyalists like Murkowski. It was just a silly idea altogether.
Why do I bring it up again? Well, because it might have actually worked! Just… on the wrong person. Trump nominated Gaetz for Attorney General, and Gaetz almost immediately resigned from the House when the news broke. This is a bit unusual, as most people stay in their seats until their confirmation is done. There was the looming release of an ethics report on Gaetz which will likely damage his reputation somewhat, so there’s a chance that Gaetz was always planning to resign, although I somewhat doubt it. In any case, Trump yanked the nomination when it was clear that there was bad press coming from it, and now Gaetz has said he won’t come back to Congress even though he probably technically could.
One might ask why Trump would want to get rid of Gaetz from the House. Well, Gaetz was instrumental in paralyzing Congress over the last term, so perhaps Trump wanted to avoid that. The issue with that explanation is that Gaetz is a fiercely pro-Trump, so it seems weird that Trump would promise something to an ally, and then leave them high and dry. The word “backfired” might be a more accurate description in such a case.
My guess is that Gaetz will probably come back to the Trump White House in some form that doesn’t require a Senate confirmation, after the news dies down.
cae_jones
1d ago
Considering how many false positive trans kids would otherwise have just turned out gay, one could argue that gay kids are disproportionately affected.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
I mean, the solution for this poor unfortunate is to work through whatever issues drive interest in transgenderism rather than transitioning. Make your bed and now lie it, I suppose- using the men’s locker room is a risk for some biologically male transgenders, but society oughtn’t to be in the business of protecting individuals from the consequences of their own bad decisions at the expense of people who haven’t made such bad decisions.
This proves too muchÂą; your argument could be adapted to defend either cancel culture or Jim Crow laws!
I mean, the solution for this poor unfortunate is to work through whatever issues drive interest in
transgenderism[wrongthink] rather thantransitioning[expressing their opinions]. Make your bed and now lie [in] it, I suppose-using the men’s locker room[disagreeing with grievance studies departments] is a risk for somebiologically male transgenders[white males], but society oughtn’t to be in the business of protecting individuals from the consequences of their own bad decisions at the expense of people who haven’t made such bad decisions.
or
I mean, the solution for this poor unfortunate is to work through whatever issues drive interest in
transgenderism[race-mixing] rather thantransitioning[integrating]. Make your bed and now lie [in] it, I suppose-using the men’s locker room[using the whites' water fountain] is a risk for somebiologically male transgenders[[racial epithet redacted]s], but society oughtn’t to be in the business of protecting individuals from the consequences of their own bad decisions at the expense of people who haven’t made such bad decisions.
Your argument also begs the question² of whether transitioning is a bad decision; furthermore, even if it were, if the 'consequences of a bad decision' include extralegal violence, protecting people from it is one of the most fundamental functions of society, and protects you from somebody else deciding that some aspect of your life-style is a 'bad decision' that they are entitled to assault people over. (You still Kant dismiss univeralisability.)
ÂąProving too much: an argument which, if valid, would also prove something known to be false; elaborated here.
²In its older sense of 'a proof of P that assumes P'.
crushedoranges
1d ago
No.
But only because my answer to all calls for empathy, unbidden and spontaneous, is no. I'm not going to participate in the hyperreal fixations of others. Nor am I going to be coerced into accepting the implicit axioms such worldviews come with.
Others may support you. I will not.
waffles
breakfast food
1d ago
I do have one of the gradual brightening wake lights. I purchased it probably 6+ years ago now, but I believe it's the Philips HF3520.
Dumb idea, but you might be able to try a fluorescent light in the fixture. Those usually take a few minutes to get up to full brightness, especially if it's cold in the room. The wake light I have can be programmed to brighten over about half an hour.
You're welcome. Again, We Apologise For The InconvenienceÂą; I usually connect to the Internet using a desktop browser with a mouse-and-keyboard interface, in which I can open a new tab by pressing the scroll wheel, and forgot that some people are using systems in which opening a link is less convenient.
(That was what the phrase 'check your privilege' started out as meaning [e. g. a dog forgetting that a gecko is less able to withstand cold] before it got twisted into "I am a member of the oppressed class, you are a member of the oppressor class, therefore ipso fatso I am right and you are wrong.")
I will try to explain things in footnotes in the future, so that you and anyone on a smartphone, non-tabbed browser, or otherwise unable to open links conveniently can still be part of today's lucky 10,000².
ÂąSpoiler for a 1980's sci-fi novel:God's final message to his Creation, in book four of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide To the Galaxy series.
²From an xkcd comic making the point that if 'everyone' knows something, 10,000 people (in the U. S.) are first hearing about it today; therefore, one should not judge people for not knowing something.
More options
Context Copy link