My experience as someone with excessively geeky and male interests is that I needed to build a whole different skill set of talking to girls/normies about topics that weren't my "interests". I had to learn to be interested in more things.
A decent girl with a couple very general shared interests is a reasonable aspiration. A manic pixie dream girl who is into model trains AND confederate reenactment AND the Persona franchise probably isn't. Not to be snide, just trying to make a silly point.
The competition for women who are into male-dominated interests is intense, and you can tell from the physical mismatch of couples how much some men are willing to sacrifice for that shared interest.
I don't know what you're into, but when you go to events for it, are the men notably more or less attractive than their female partners? How many of the men have female partners? How many unattached women are there? Where are you in the social hierarchy of that interest? And can you do the math for what that means for your chances of snagging someone from that particular pool of potential partners?
JTarrou
1d ago
it is now much more widely accepted in society that insulting and abusing the disabled is a shitty thing to do
Is it? Concern for the less fortunate was not invented in the sixties.
JTarrou
1d ago
Imaginary mental anguish is a common manipulation tactic.
Who is out there informing all the retards that someone said the word? Do they have a daily call-in show?
JTarrou
1d ago
Socialization is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If someone has been socialized to be an adult by twelve, they'll mostly live up to that. If they've been socialized not to be an adult until 40, they'll do that too. It's mostly a function of what we all demand of adolescents. "Teenagers" are a modern invention. Legally and socially we need a clear line, which has for the past fifty years or so been eighteen. For the most part, that's not a bad compromise. But the socialization about what is expected of those age groups changes much faster than law.
JTarrou
1d ago
Now I think "interesting women" are a sorta-gay straight-male fantasy. Like a bro, except hot and and female and you have sex!
If you must have an interesting woman in this definition, you better get interested in chick stuff, or start hitting on Camille Paglia. The venn diagram of attractive single women with a 40k obsession and a geographical proximity to a given nerd approaches a geometrical line.
The ways in which women are interesting has little to do with their hobby interests.
JTarrou
2d ago
The whole secret of fishing is where and when.
If there are no suitable mates where you are fishing, try a different hole.
Also, perhaps think long and hard about what you mean by "interesting".
Long ago, I thought interesting women were women who were interested in the same things I was interested in. Which meant all the interesting girls were lesbians.
JTarrou
2d ago
Virality is probably not correlated with pro-sociality.
So far as people like this are concerned, they're just overoptimizing for one aspect of social status and mining the cognitive dissonance for clicks. And what's the goal? In much the same way that bodybuilding quickly loses any connection to actual sex appeal, this "lookmaxxing" or whatever is another proxy being reified.
Young men will always be looking for ways to hack the social milieu in some way that gives them sexual access to young women. Most of them will be looking for One Simple Trick to avoid having to work too hard at it. Drugs, surgery, PUA classes, whatever. The con artists who sell them these fantasies may have a kernel of truth in their spiel, but only that.
Here's the reality: Becoming an expert at seduction, whatever we're currently calling that, is something many men are capable of but far fewer are willing to put in the work to achieve. Most men are best off building a decent life for themselves and trying to find a monogamous wife/girlfriend, not dating as a method of getting laid.
The fantasy is that you can do something easy to change that. Sexual access is competitive.
JTarrou
2d ago
Mid-40s now, drank hard for a decade, then what civilians would call "hard" for another. These days I drink relatively little, maybe a case a week during the summer and fall, plus a few binges in there for vacation, fishing, deer camp etc. Substituted weed for the daily use, pain management etc. The friends I've kept have slowed down. Some of the ones that drifted off are still hitting it hard.
Every year at guy's weekend the drinks get gayer and gayer. Zero sugar fruity spritzers and vodka fizzes rather than SoCo and PBR. Every New Years involves finding out that the kids these days can't hang with an old cunt who barely drinks anymore. I'm stuck between that and the real motherfuckers who don't consider beer to be drinking and still take road fifths.
JTarrou
2d ago
So far as the guns go, laws were enacted in the sixties and seventies known collectively as Saturday Night Special laws. These made much of the existing stock of cheap shitty self-defense guns for poor people illegal to sell. These were most often small pocket automatics in "mouse" calibers like .32 and .25 as well as snubbie revolvers in .32 and .38. Probably into the eighties, these would have been the most common sort of gun stolen or used by criminals.
The eighties and nineties saw law enforcement coalesce first around the .40, then in the early oughts to the 9mm. Bullet technology brought the 9mm on par with the more powerful, larger cartridges and "won" the handgun caliber wars for the current generation. Today you can buy a gun the size and weight of an old five-shot Saturday Night Special .32 which carries twelve rounds of 9mm.
The downside is that the most commonly stolen guns are now better, smaller, lighter, with higher capacity and more powerful rounds than they were forty years ago. But they are still the cheap, shitty guns mostly. For every real Glock used in a crime, there's probably three Tauruses and two Kel Tecs.
JTarrou
3d ago
Charitably and technically, it's any time the function of government doesn't follow the constitutional rule. When the structure of the constitution runs into the practice of power in reality.
Realistically and politically, it's whenever the opposing side does something that can even tendentiously be considered a constitutional issue.
But there are and will be actual crises. The constitution has been partially suspended using military and emergency powers (Lincoln, FDR, etc.). The Supreme Court has decided presidential elections, and so have private political parties. The President has started an awful lot of wars without a declaration of war.
In reality, unconstitutional behavior only becomes a constitutional crisis if another branch of government is fighting you on it, and both sides are relatively evenly matched.
JTarrou
3d ago
If you're thinking of this in terms of race, you gotta be more granular. Look for big families. Races don't have kids, people do. And people come from families with their own norms about kids. All you gotta do is find a big, close family to marry into. Find you a girl with double digit siblings, that will do more for your genetic legacy than trying to read the tea leaves about future social climbing.
My grandfather has nearly eighty direct descendants, I have thirty nieces and nephews and almost two hundred cousins. My family reunions are hundreds and hundreds of people strong. Some of us are criminals, some are religious nutcases, some are poor, more than a few are a bit trashy. But we are fertile. There will be no shortage of my clan in the future.
JTarrou
5d ago
It's quite the gambit to move to a foreign country for a better life and then extoll the virtues of your former society whilst being loudly racist against the majority of your new one. Bold move Cotton.
"Yes, I moved to China for a six-figure salary, but I would never let one of these chinks marry my son or daughter, they're racists!" - op-ed in a chinese newspaper
Of course, it says something about US culture that our "respectable" media organs are gagging to print this sort of slop.
JTarrou
6d ago
The American left has always sided with the opponent. They sided with the Confederacy, with Germany and Russia and Vietnam and Afghanistan etc. etc. etc. The only war in our history they supported "our" side was when they got faked out by the collapse of the Nazi-Soviet pact. Had Hitler not invaded Russia, the American left would still be on side with the Nazis and Stalin.
That's what it means to be "left wing". There is no other meaning or definition that explains the political phenomena.
No national identity can include the left, because the left definitionally opposes their own nation.
"Dangerous right wing hate groups" are so thin on the ground they literally can't hold a meeting without funding from the Deep State funneled through NGO cutouts like the SPLC. I'm reminded of the tale of the anarchist newspaper in which every one of the dozens of editors, employees and writers was an intelligence agent or informant for a different government. "Anarchy" groups were a whole thing for intelligence services to conceal their doings back in the early 20th century. If you've heard of a "white supremacist", odds are good he's being promoted by teh glowies.
More options
Context Copy link