@100ProofTollBooth's banner p




1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 03 23:53:57 UTC


User ID: 2039



1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 03 23:53:57 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2039

Maylene and The Sons of Disaster are on an east coast tour.

Cheap beer and parking lot cigarettes before and after the shows.

Lots of piercings and multi-colored hair. None of the chicks really dance. There's a scary Russian who plays bass, I think.

Is this a post from /r/thathappened ?

This sounds like such a fucking LARP

I think Terrence Howard has a truly above average aptitude for language and verbal reasoning.

The scientific underpinnings of what he's talking about are nonexistent. It's gobbledy-gook nonsense. But it sounds cohesive and logical. He is obeying and staying within his basic axioms (which are all bananas). It is no different that a buzz-wordy consultant who says "if we align incentives to drive synergy, we can realize asymmetric outcomes that act as network multipliers" or the Progressive Activist who says, "active anti-racism necessitates a conscious awareness of embedded attitudes and beliefs that are not necessarily learned but may be, nevertheless, omnipresent due to cultural inertia."

They're all playing by their own rules, but the rules are made up and divorced from reality. This is LARPing, this is D&D "You can't use lightning bolt without rolling at least 15 on summoning first!" It's fun to do with your friends, but you're not allowed to call it science ... or non-fiction.

Because it is fiction! And fiction is about creating engaging stories and narratives for people. And this is exactly what Terrence Howard is doing - creating a narrative for people to feel like they've "uncovered" some hidden truth about basic math, multiplication, the elements, space, whatever. And the bonus narrative is that he's like really,really,super,duper genius smart. So, I can feel good about watching Hustle and Flow because the dude playing the street pimp is actually on a meta-narrative about the frequency-hopping abilities of music and sexual slavery .... I think.

Truth is elusive, but we love the sound of it.

Not quite an overlap, but I always thought the Bosch series on Amazon would be good couples watching. Start with the first season and give it time, the characters take a little bit of time to get dynamic.

Turns out that general information standards a kind of timeless.

There are some elite level ML engineers I've worked with who all have .... Library Sciences degrees.

with sufficient will-to-power and unquestionable primacy, have power over what is in a man's heart itself.

I like, and agree, with this.

By contrast, liberalism and progressivism fundamentally surrender that what others do or are is out of one's control

Totally agree re: liberalism, but, in the case of progressivism I think the case is that while it does "surrender that what others do or are is out of control," it also makes hard right vs. wrong value judgments. Phrased differently, "I can't control what's in another person's heart, but I can damn sure tell (with authority) if it's good or bad and, therefore, if that person is good or bad."

And that's a massive, massive problem because, followed to its logical extreme, you get to genocide. No, I don't think that's hyperbolic. From some of the speech laws in the UK to BLM in the US, progressive movements move quickly down the path of "disagreement with us is a clear demonstration of evil." If something is truly, deeply "evil" you can easily deduce what the next logical step would be in "dealing" with it.

As an (aspiring) TradCath, I am actually very much okay with hard good vs. bad value judgement - but only in a transcendental sense. I have no problem thinking someone is evil but will wait for The Big Man Upstairs to mete out whatever punishments are warranted in the afterlife. Back on planet earth, I definitely do not want The State to be the high moral arbiter. That's insanely dangerous.

I am not a squishy "live and let level" humanist moral relativist. I believe there is definitely right and wrong, good and evil. I think it's often plain to see which is which. But a political ideology shouldn't be the rubric for that judgement, and certainly not the enforcement executive for perceived transgressions. Progressivism doubles down on all of that by creating a kind of secular quasi-religion. It's a cult, and we're seeing it go through what all cults do; internal strife and self-destruction because of untenable internal contradictions.

I tend to associate progressives as moving more quickly toward a destination, and conservatives as pulling back and slowing the rate of change to prevent mistakes.

Couldn't agree more.

There is a basic, universe level quirk of math that, I think, does a great job of capturing the conservative mindset:

The relative loss-gain imbalance; If I have a 10% reduction in any starting quantity, what do I need to reclaim to get back to even? It isn't 10%, it's about 11% (roughly).

Recovering from a mistake or loss takes more effort than the magnitude of the loss itself. Therefore, massive changes happening quickly in any direction are a bad thing. I am some (rare) times empathetic to progressive policy intended outcomes but their proposed policy functions are simply too large, too fast and, therefore, the risk of a fuck-up is so large that I think, in many cases, it represents a society level threat.

Promiscuous girls with tattoos and one side of their head shaved make me go crazy.

Hit the nail on the head. I will never not be attracted this aesthetic, but have enough first hand experience to know where it leads. I think for a fair amount of guys who have had above average "success" with women (and who can review their experiences thoughtfully and with honesty), there comes a point where they decide to trade high variance and FUN for lower variance stability. In other words; never try to make a ho a housewife, but trade in the hos for a housewife. That's a little crass, but it's the most accurate reflection of what goes in a lot of guys 30s.

But I also think that's all downstream from a larger shift in mindset. At some point, an intelligent person is going to choose between pro-social behavior and libertine personal freedom so long as it doesn't "hurt others." We can quibble over direct vs indirect harm; that's the culture war thread. But if you choose the former (prosocial) you changes all over the place; how you vote, who you date, where you live, etc. Which brings me to the first thing you wrote;

Politically, my preferred outcome would be to exalt White bisexual antitheistic males above all others

Okay, that's a preference. Enjoy the endless Sam Altmans.

make this identity the pass to being treated as aristocracy. I don't want meritocracy, equality of opportunity, judging the content of someone's character [...] All I want is progressive stack with me at the top, laughing as I kick those below.

I don't see this as either prosocial or libertarian-libertine. I see this is a sort of hierarchical-authoritarianism. You even use the word "aristocracy" with a pretty loaded subtext. I see this a bad for everyone. Those on the bottom literally get kicked, those at the top are going to fall into hyper-paranoid behavior patterns to try to guarantee their positions and society will stagnate, rot, and collapse. It's the illusion of mastery over human nature when you're really just cultivating the worst parts of it.

I think parents should have right to terminate defective or unwanted children for even a bit after they have come to full term.

And this is where we're just going to disagree intractably. So be it.

I was a casual pro-choicer for much of my teenager / early 20s cause I just hadn't thought through the issues (and their interesting parallels to end of life ethics). But the thing that really pushed me hard to hardcore pro-life status was thinking about future robot wombs. There will be some amount of people who decide that a fetus they were previously all in favor of will now somehow inconvenience them - and this fetus will be otherwise healthy and the technology advanced enough that a successful completion to term will be all but guaranteed.

And yet, somewhere out there, people are going to get righteously indignant about being "forced" to raise a child. I think that would be a fundamental failure of the social contract that's hard to come back from.

Should we really force a family and society to raise a retarded child?

I mean, your parents obviously chose to. I would think you'd be thankful for that.

(Sorry, Mods. I really tried not to, but then I did.)

To add another thing that got memory-holed for me; the Blurred Lines song by Robin Thicke and the ensuing controversy.

It's crazy to think that got released (and was a major hit) in 2013. Would any music studio release it just 11 years later?

I'm so sorry, Mr. Tarkanian!

Dude, chill. I went to Wikipedia to get the guys name so I could reference it with specificity here.

IMHO the man who was menaced in his vehicle by armed protestors, and ran over several to escape at the Virginia Charlottesville riot was railroaded even harder, but I sincerely doubt any governor of ours will have the balls to pardon him.

Is this the James Alex Fields Jr. case? If so, I am genuinely curious to get some non-biased background on it. Wikipedia (yes, I know) lays it out as a cut and dry "domestic terrorist" attack.

Thanks. I'm happy to defer on this one because I wasn't citing stats, I was just thinking in terms of combining two known trends. (TFR, infant death).

If you want more people 150 years from now you're going to have to grow them in a vat and raise them with a robot. That is just how it is going to be unless you're in some kind of originalist cult in AD 2174.

Well, shit. We agree

Getting pregnant yourself when a machine womb can do it for you will be seen as grotesque and unnecessary.

Yup! And this is why I am Pro-Life on the grounds of future concerns. "My body, my choice" holds some water, but when the robot-womb babies start, there's going to be some portion of the population that wants to reserve the right to unplug (read: murder) because they change their minds 6 months in.

Surely we can develop better norms for women to filter men for a kind of stick-to-it-ive-ness than creating strategic ambiguity for rape.

I can't find the link, but see a recent Twitter fracas wherein a young lady invited a man to her apartment, told him she wasn't interested in sleeping with him, he respected those wishes, and she then made a TikTok (or other video platform) bemoaning that he didn't "go for it."

I am unclear on what it means to "hold them accountable for crossing various milestones." I agree that women should be more honest with partners, that was my whole point!

Step one would be dating / sleeping with more than one person at one time (for both men and women) is seen as bad behavior.

you obviously can't stop some man eerily similar to you from acting in hardcore pornography

This seems .... oddly specific. And an epic humble brag if so.

The r/K selection theory has pretty much confirmed what you're skeptical of.

Human women have a very long and difficult pregnancy and an extremely long child rearing period. They have a massive incentive to mate with a mate who is going to stick around.

Playing hard to get is a filtering mechanism for a man's ability to stick with an effort despite initial failure or hardship. It's as simple as that. Phrased differently, "if I make it easy for him to come (that's an unintentional double entendre! hahaha, nice), it will also be easy for him to go...Therefore, I have to make it a little hard up front to test out if he's going to see it through"

We can't and don't want to hack our own biology. The "hack" is the social norms and culture that we build to compensate for our biology. In sexual relations, ambiguity is a real problem. Playing coy is intentional ambiguity. We used to deal with it by creating more obvious courtship milestones - she's playing coy, so you ask her to "go steady" or go to the dance or whatever, that's an obvious next step with some built in commitment by both parties. Nowadays, however, literally sleeping with someone is ambiguous. "I know we fucked, but I'm not sure I like like you" is in the head of hundreds of thousands of men and women right now.

This is all a way of saying that we shouldn't ask women not to play coy and start announcing their intentions in a legalistic format upfront (that's autist level 4000 thinking). We should, however, provide the social pressure to hold them accountable for crossing various milestones as well as general honesty with partners. Likewise, on the male side of things, we should be coaching young men on what a good courtship looks like, penalize them for cad-ambiguity behavior, and harshly socially penalize them for abandonment, absentee fatherism, etc. Fortunately, male coercive sexual behavior is still universally recognized as abhorrent - at least in the west

Ahhh, AhhTheFrench.

My personal value is that humans are awesome and we should do a lot (within reason) to keep the species going. I don't worry about population decline per se, but I worry about the fundamental relationships between men and women (who need to get a long to maintain the species). The global drop in fertility rates is real, but I think the jury is still out on if its actually a crisis (for instance; while fertility has dropped, so has infant death, net-net are more people making it to adulthood?)

Nonetheless, these are problems I think are (a) problems and (b) worth solving. Is your contention that either or both (a)and(b) aren't true?

I don't think the social technology to do it right is even possible to develop in a world where porn and birth control are legal and easily available.


Traditional purity culture struggles to exist in a world where both cheap pleasure (porn/OF/casual semi-prostitution) and consequence erasers (the pill) exist in abundance. I think another, even larger layer is the existence of social media which becomes a sort of constant relationship rubric, realistic or not.

The abundance of choice is so great that the very act of choosing - let alone the act of choosing not to do something - can feel like missing out. To sort of steel man dating apps; the image sold there is "go on dates with amazing beautiful people and have wonderful romantic trysts!" And that's a compelling narrative to both men and women alike. And it's at least plausible because of the technology today.

So the only way "out" is to actively not take part. To make a choice not to indulge. And that's the essence of the TradCon position; yes, you can go out and have casual sex. Don't do it because it's bad.

Eliminating the availability of those choices is close to illegal in the US at least (the porn-as-free-speech fight was done decades ago). It's bananas to think that adult women would have to get the permission of their fathers / brothers to go on dates. I don't necessarily know where the line is on prescription versus over the counter birth control, but I know it will never be as tightly controlled as even oxycotin ... which isn't very tightly controlled.

If you give people choices, they'll make them. Meaning, they'll make all of them (that is, over the entire population, not that one person will make every possible choice). The whole point of culture and sub-culture is to encourage good choices because we don't want the State to preemptively eliminate certain choices. That is the classic liberal (small L) argument and the begrudging position of all TradCons who aren't theocrats.

So what to do about the impending end of society because of horrible male-female relations in the west?

I've linked to it before, and you can google it - Lorenzo Warby's massive substack series

It's about the additive effect of multiple culture war angles:

  1. Corporations are greedy and bad. The concert organizers didn't think through a lot of basic logistics and pretty much just sold tickets for attendance and not much else. This led to;
  2. Price gouging for basics (most notoriously, water). This led to;
  3. Pissed off people being pissed off without water. This was abetted by some of the more popular music of the time (Nu Metal) acting as an accelerant to the mood in the crowd. This led to;
  4. SA and Rape of female concert go'ers.

All of this was on top of;

  1. The name and symbolism of "Woodstock." The original Woodstock in 1969 held a place of amazingly high esteem in multiple generations of American popular culture. It was the Zenith of the counter-culture and Youths being Youths in the 1960s. It like, ended the Vietnam war, maaaan. So, to have it's directly sequel (actually there was one before in 1993, but whatever) turn into a literal orgy of SA and arson with some corporate greed overhangs was pretty jarring.

Were all of the bad things that happened at Woodstock '99 unique to it and no other large outdoor festivals? Obviously not. Were they an order of magnitude more extreme? I would also be doubtful. Were they more publicized? Absolutely. The original sinner here is actually MTV (specifically MTV news) who aped the Woodstock chaos non-stop for several weeks after and, I think, would occasionally do retrospectives on it or otherwise weave it into their programming even years on.

Now, as for the timing over the past couple of years, that I do not know. Maybe part of it were the deaths at Astroworld (with Travis Scott) serving as a memory refresher? That's just off the top of my head.

Are there any Mottizens who are regular or semi-regular festival goers? I most certainly am not, but would be very interested into what the median level of price gouging / blind eye to drug use / criminal activity / hostility and violence goes on at these kind of things.

Details matter, and your outline of Saudi custodianship / colonial admin at least makes plausible sense. The idea that the Saudis will commit thousands of boots-on-the-ground troops to try to hold some sort of man made artificial border over/between southern Israel is nonsense.

The milestone to look out for, imho, is any of the major Arab states (so really just Saudi or Qatar ... the latter being very, very unlikely) endorse a relocation of Gazans to the West Bank.

Would recommend posting this in maybe the small scale thread for today asking for pointers on how to do things like this.

Non-consensual mind control is a capital crime, at least if you're not on a leash by a state.

So, uh, asking for a friend (that friend is the Culture War Thread)

What are your thoughts on social media and porn?

performing full population transfer and deploying international troops enforcing the border (and possibly also a temporary "colonial regime" to "dehamasify" the Palestinian state, run not by the Israelis but by some far-removed and suitably ruthless third party like the Chinese, or even the Saudis), would in fact be achievable and likely solve the problem.

Let's inject the number one strategic enemy of the west and/or a ruthlessly authoritarian monarchical regime into the most sensitive geopolitical spot on earth. The UN will also deploy troops to great effect; just look at their track record in Africa.

Is this a serious proposition, or am I missing some deeply nested online sarcasm and irony?