100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
No bio...
User ID: 2039
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
went off the tradcath deep end
Except, as you yourself have done a good job pointing out, it was the very, very, very online "tradcath" deep end.
I've listened to about half of the SSPX Crisis in the Church Podcast. These are IRL TradCaths who go off the deep end in relation to all sorts of actual theological, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical topics. But it doesn't make for good television. "The Vatican forced Archbishop Lefevbre's hand! He had to do the Econe consecrations!" is a snooze fest from the jump.
Online Tradcaths, being very online and aware of the mechanics of social media, thus decided to release the mixtape of; Flat Earth (Remix), All Them Hoes is Dudes, and (Living in a) Pedophiles Paradise.
I never followed much of Candance Owens' career. A limited background being my caveat, it appears to me she lost some esteem when she went out on her own and has dealt with that poorly.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
Chuck Schumer (who's wife is very unfortunate looking)
Holy Jesus, you weren't kidding.
I even saw one random "uno reverse" meme trying to say Melania Trump was transgender.
This has been one of my top "obviously I know its conspiracy theory bullshit, but, hey, let's have fun" topics for years. The insane angular face, little media engagement beyond released statements. Trump's historical preference for 1980s style Big Buxom Blondes (BBBs).
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I would, and have, called out both men and women to their face on issues of promiscuity. I don't mean passive aggressive quips. "What you are doing, I find disgusting and degrading." - "Random sex with a silly girl you met at a bar last night makes you look desperate and weak." This has resulted in the termination of friendships and, in one case, a received threat of violence.
I appreciate your quick resort to hypothetical child abuse and felonious assault, but I don't think any of what I wrote can be construed as me flinging a burden of mine onto society.
Thank you for calling it a repressive sexual project. That is exactly what it is. Sexual gluttony should be viewed the same way gastronomic gluttony is viewed; with a recoiling disgust. I will add, as this was not clear in the original post, that I am equally against male promiscuity. The Andrew Tate's of the world that try to perform the mental gymnastics to square the double standard of "men can sleep around, woman cannot" not only fail in that task, but end up revealing their own lack of self-control, lack of adherence to higher principles and virtues, and high likelihood of defecting from a male group for their own selfish reasons. By their fruits. I am glad they are so open about it.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I had a very difficult time following your writing and was unable to understand your arguments (or agreements?) with my post.
Could you perhaps try an abridged version with a simpler structure?
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
And all along the way, it's all as Zeus wills it. Zeus doles out success and failure, and the most common reason anyone's attempts at murder, thievery or revenge fails is insufficient piety. Even the most talented individuals must be beloved by the gods for their murder and mayhem to succeed.
Agree. And it's important to remember that traditional Stoicism was one of the first sort-of-trasncendental philosophies to come into existence. And far from the "I take cold showers" bro-Stocism of today, it was more about being happy with whatever your station in life is because you were acting in accordance with Zeus' ordering of the universe ....
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I don’t see why the default for promiscuity should be to forbid it rather than allow it.
Because it destabilizes any society in which it takes root.
Male violence is centered on three things; money (or money producing commodities; drugs), social esteem (or "respect"), and intimate partner exclusivity. This is as close to an iron law of humanity as possible. Men kill other men for the first two reasons and men kill other men and women because of the last reason.
We've advanced enough that killing for "respect" is penalized with swift and uncompromising punishment. You shot some guy because he called you out? That's a life sentence, pal. We don't, however, criminalize the proximate cause - you can talk shit about anyone pretty much to an unlimited extent (libel and slander notwithstanding) and there are zero legal repercussions (although perhaps there are social ones. More on this later).
The money/drugs questions is an interesting goldilocks situation. We criminalize murdering someone over money/drugs/assets/commodities. We criminalize the unlawful attainment of those things (theft) and in many cases (though less and less) we criminalize the mere possession of drugs. This is because drugs are still recognized as inherently high risk (if not outright dangerous) - especially when put in the context of male on male violence. Nobody should kill you over money and drugs, but if you did some crook shit to get them, you're still doing crook shit and can face consequences.
Now, promiscuity or intimate partner exclusivity. You can't kill your wife or girlfriend because she cheated on you. And, mostly, we don't think adultery should be criminalized. Up until the mid 20th century, however, adultery was harshly socially punished (I'm thinking of something beginning with a big Red Letter - "A"). As an interesting side note, adultery was and is still an offense in the United States Military. They don't give you 10 lashes or throw you in the brig, but it fucks up your career. That's interesting to me.
Only in this last case, promiscuity, have we seen a full scale social revolt on the social penalties brought on by the action. Are you selling drugs? Probably shouldn't do that. Did you steal a car and sell it to a chop shop? Bad. Did you start talking shit about Big Jim down at the pool hall? Better watch your mouth, son.
Oh, you slept with the nanny, or you slept with the pool boy? No one should deny or criticize your sexual self-expression and autonomy! Of course one can rationalize that argument into an isolated issue; a person's private sexual conduct with a consenting partner is no one else's business. But in a social context, it gets murky fast. Adultery ought not be criminalized (and, on the other side of the coin, both divorce and marriage ought not have any financial incentive tied to them), but rampant promiscuity and adultery still ought to face social consequences because that simply means the society in which they occur is aware of the high stakes of promiscuity / adultery's likely outcomes.
The 30,000 foot question this rolls back up into is; do members of a society have duties and responsibilities outside of themselves to that society that are not codified in law? Or, do we race to the bottom and leave it at "as long as you don't break any laws, you're fine."
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
Romeo & Julia
Juliette was too busy shooting her latest OnlyFans album, so she sent an undocumented stand in. Romeo later tweeted, "whatevs. still smashed"
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
The managerial class has to go.
I agree, but I think the death of it will be the same thing that brought it into existence; technology.
A big part of the emergence of the PMC was that technologies in various domains, but most especially in transportation and communication, allowed for corporations and governments to become larger and more complex. Where, before, a company was only about as big as the number of relationships a central manager (often The President of the company) could, well, manage, telecommunications, expedited travel (for purposes of shipping if nothing else), and cheap and quick document copying made the entire idea of "middle managers" possible.
Anyone who's worked in software knows that the primary responsibility of a Product Manger (PM) is to mostly coordinate between sales, engineering, marketing, and the executives. Depending on the specific company there may be more or less stakeholders, but you get the idea. While the PM job is always marketed (and self-reported) to be about "crafting a vision for the product!" the truth of it is you're dealing with multiple groups that sort of hate each other or, at the least, don't get along. You facilitate the communication. If you do it well, you slowly accrue political capital either explicitly or implicitly. The PM vertical is often a path to COO or CEO because of the ambiguous soft-power nature of the job. It is the ultimate technical-adjacent PMC gig.
LLMs / A(G)I is going to destroy the power of the PM by making their job easier. PMs will request that all of the various stakeholders (marketing, engineering, sales, etc.) simply send various documents and reports to the PM. He or she will then point an LLM at it with vague prompts along the lines of "resolve conflicting priorities, organize a sprint plan, calculate budget" etc. etc. etc. And the LLM will do it. Well enough. And the covert power games that a lot of PMs play including hiding information between groups, playing politics and personalities off of one another, injecting themselves into obvious successes while running away from failures, and trend-chasing budget leverage matches will disappear because ... the information will simply be flowing between these groups with far, far less friction.
Bezos at Amazon had an infamous e-mail wherein he essentially told all of the product groups within Amazon that they had to work with one another using APIs only. Here's a link that explains it well. Bezos realized that if these different product teams needed to cross-coordinate, it would eventually break amazon as they would scale to so many product teams that coordination, done manually, would easily eat up 1000s of collective hours per week. LLMs 10x or maybe 100x the reduction of friction based on the same principle Bezos relied on here.
Culturing warring to change the culture (i.e. get rid of the PMC) might be noble, but, at best, its a war of attrition with a very entrenched interest who will use all sorts of nasty tricks (DEI etc.) to keep itself in place. But it's far harder to fight against a good technology. Take the best software engineer on the planet - if he has to write all of his code on a typewriter, he is now the worst software engineer on the planet. So, a PM who continues to try and run time consuming team Zoom meetings, who wants to create process forms left and right, and who plays office politics will simply start to produce less than the LLM enabled PM. But that very LLM enabled PM will reveal the job for what it is - glorified Virtual Assistant. Executives will start to realize they ought not to replace their engineers with LLMs necessarily, but that they should replace folks who's jobs' are mostly about coordination and communication. (Side note: Coordination and communication don't require absolute specific correctness the way say some financial jobs might. Hallucinations are totally acceptable as long as the "gist" is clear conveyed).
So, Elon. He's got his chainsaw, he's got his DOGEs with him, he's getting into fights with Little Marco Rubio.
A better move would be to find another $1 bn for Grok.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
Joe Biden's mental decline.
Although I agree wholeheartedly with you about the media cover-up / lying about the Biden cognitive decline .... I would never, ever want to get a beer with this anchorwoman (or podcaster? whatever the correct term is). It took her less than 90 seconds to go full reeeeeeee and actually use the phrase "I can't even..." Again, this is despite the confirmed fact that I agree with the general story here.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
DOMS?
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I appreciate the effort in attempting to try "make the government numbers work." Spoiler alert: they seldom do.
Welfare programs that try to hypertarget one subdomain of life are hopelessly naive because they fail to accurately model individual financial realities as what they are - a complex system. As an analogy, it's like looking at an estuary in Mississippi that has run dry and saying "I'll solve this! By dumping this one bucket of water into the Mississippi river. In Minnesota"
Food stamps are only a part of a household's budget - yes, even for food. And it's not as if these kind of households are carefully categorizing different budget allocations. It's much more of an ad hoc "use whatever you pull out of the drawer" situation. In my experience, a poorer couple with or without kids has an income that's a mix of legal and grey market. One or other of the couple has a totally "straight" job with W-2 income or, at last, 1099 income that's being accurately reported. The other picks up a lot of cash odd jobs and semi-work and/or cash-tip heavy jobs. Sliding down the scale, you have strippers and onlyfans (I'm not really joking about this) and light "community" drug dealing.
The straight job is used on paper for a lot of these benefits programs and for apartment rental needs. The cash is used to finance a lot of the "operations" of the household - food, car and gas, clothing purchases. Savings aren't non-existent per se, but "savings" as a concept is just different. When you have leftovers from dinner, do you consider that "food savings?" No, that's just some extra that didnt' get consumed today but probably will in the next 1 - 3 days.
So SNAP and WIC are just other handfuls of money (albeit arbitrarily limited to grocery stores). They aren't conceived of or employed as the cornerstone of a family diet, or even supplement diet enhancement.
Beyond the raw numbers, this is the larger failing of government "assistance" programs. They are all built and deployed with these actuarial and academic economic concepts of complex systems of behavior. "Of course these folks will recognize the marginal benefit of this proportional 8.7% increase to their income for primary goods!" Not only is this elitist, it's stupid (a frequent pairing). The endemic illness in poverty is the mindset that sprouts within in [^1].
And this "mindset" argument is where progressive and liberal policy thinking really goes off the rails. "They need help! counseling! therapy! They've never been told how to make a budget etc. etc." You can see the surface level attraction here. People love to feel like they're doing something in the face of a problem wildly out of their control (hashtag Ukraine Flag). But run the thought experiment out; anybody who's sitting around going "Gee, I really wish there was a better way to organize my money so that I could maintain some consistency month to month" is miles ahead of the median reality - "I want food now. Food time!" Impulse control and (slightly) delayed gratification are things typically developed in later childhood and refined during adolescence. Yet the very people to whom we send SNAP and WIC "benefits" are those who fall on the sad end of the distribution of these traits!
Government cannot (and absolutely should not) be in the business of trying to re-shape an individual's character. State mandated virtue ethics? No, Thank you. This is a duty that falls to families and local communities. And, therein, we get to one of the stickier realities of poverty - it has areas of hyper concentration. Almost as if some folks revel in it. The very communities that most need to shape the character of their children are those most suffering from long term degeneracy in family formation, social and civic engagement, and long term consistent employment.
But here's $9.50 / day for Dr. Pepper and Hungry Man.
[1]: To some extent, it never totally exits a person. My father, now a boomer-multi-millionaire, stashes large boxes of raisins in odd spots around his house because he remembers what hunger felt like. It's a benign enough eccentricity we mostly joke about it, but it's plainly unnecessary - I've seen him order uber eats when he doesn't feel like cooking. This has precisely zero percent impact on his retirement budget and future year allocations.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
VDV barracks
A deep, yet topical pull.
I appreciate the important addition of age as more than an additional variable, but a whole new (and indispensable) axis in the very rough model my first post attempted to sketch out.
It leads, I think, to some uncomfortable confrontations with reality in today's world. We just had an election where the sitting president knocked himself out of it by being himself at the first debate. One of the internet's most famous Guys Who Says Stuff asserts "many of the problems of Western society are caused by ... privileging the old over the young.".
The classic RETVRN concept of a patriarchy fails to reconcile the fact that, for most of human society, men reached their wise and philosophic years starting at 40 or so. Then, they were expected to move their talents to the afterlife in their 60s - and this for the luckiest!
Most of us reading this forum will probably live to see extreme scale issues of care for elderly folks in their 80s and 90s with tragic yet real cognitive decline. Obviously, we should not be deferring to their collective "wisdom" in any domain.
I don't have good answers. As much as I have emotional sympathies and inclinations towards a kind of traditionalist social redoubt, the world only moves forward and you have to live in it (but not of it) the way it is.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I'll admit imprecision here was a mistake.
I should've said that the group organization mechanisms present in prison are what "pure" or perhaps "raw" male organizational systems look like. You are correct that the general character flaws of most prisoners are not representative of society at large.
Widening the aperture to the military, we see the patterns continue; explicit hierarchies with unambiguous leadership. Strict behavioral codes that, when transgressed, are met with physical violence or, at least, extremely high tension verbal intimidation. College fraternities reduce the propensity for physical violence (mildly) because they still exist in the context of civil society - if you beat up your Frat Bro, you're still probably getting arrested.
The point is this is how men organize themselves when female organizing principles are absent or extremely muted. I'm not an expert on how, say, the eastern Saudi tribal folks organize their extremely patriarchal societies, but I'd be willing to guess we can see some continue through lines there as well.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I was being deliberately hyperbolic using the word "RUBE" (hence, the capitalization).
It's not that you and people like you are stupid or being tricked, it's that you're paying the freight on those who defect socially (degenerates) and paying more than your fair share when considering that the elites shield themselves from taxes.
I should note that I am not in favor of some communist Elizabeth Warren style "wealth tax." That's confiscation by the government, clearly unconstitutional, and would also destroy markets overnight. Mostly, I'm in favor of cutting both corporate and individual income tax and making new capital and business formation easier. You say that hypothetical businesses require "seed capital [you] don't have" - yet you say you're investing in ETFs / Mutual funds (presumably). I'd love to a scenario in which you and a couple buddies, over the course of a few years, collectively save maybe some level of money and are then allowed to make a bet on a new startup or something. Right now, setting up an investment firm to do that is cost and regulatorily prohibitive if you aren't starting with at least $20 million or so (and that's a micro amount). If you're investing personally, you literally have to be rich enough to be allowed to do that (see "Accredited Investor"). This in the same country that allows any adult to literally gamble on their cellphone 24/7.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
I appreciate the well thought through feedback. I think it adds a lot to the discussion of the topic.
But women can both love and hate their friends, bicker about them in front of some mutual acquaintances and stand up for them in front of others.
May I request you go into more detail here? A lot of men would see this kind of behavior, in a male group, as sowing dissent and/or destabilizing the group. This could prove fatal in a situation in which group cohesion is necessary (i.e. some sort of intergroup violence). Thus, "talking shit" in male groups is dealt with severely.
Why is this not the same in female groups? Genuine question, not trying to lead anywhere.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
In my analysis, the core of the difference between male and female social status arrangement is the locus of the evaluation rubric.
For men, it's an external, verifiable, and discrete measurement - performance. Who scored the most points? Who brought in the most dollars? Who got everyone to show up for the party/vote/heist? While there is certainly haggling over who should get what percentage of "credit" for a particular success, there is still a "thing" that happened and that everyone can point.
For women, it's the constantly in flux consensus mechanism for status. You're "cool" because enough other people decided you were. Why or how did they decide that? Irrelevant they just did, and at a critical mass that those who disagree with the coolness assessment are necessary in the minority (perhaps not in number, but in social capital within the group). I think you see this in a lot of female coded activities - fashion, art, food, entertainment. Anything that is governed chiefly by the hard to define concept of "taste." There's no discrete external rubric for what makes this year's pants/tops/shoes "in" yet, somehow, everyone seems to know (or is forced to accept) what is "in." Interestingly, this creates a constantly updating mechanism wherein whatever is current in terms of taste sets up its own demise by creating the opportunity for an opposition to develop. You can't get whatever is "in" right just once, you have to update lest you fall "out."
This, to me, is why you have the infamous gender specific difference in neuroticism. Why bitches be so crazy? do women, as a group in general, exhibit higher neuroticism? It's because their constant task is to covertly poll their social groups for the days' social standings which are, in turn, based on subtle expressions of taste (fashion, style, memetic currency etc.) without explicit voicing of opinions by the group members. Male or female, if this was your life, you'd be a little stressed, no?
I'd implore anyone reading this to avoid plunging into normie-feminist rage responses. I tried to describe what I see as differences while doing my best to avoid any implicit value judgements. The female means of determining social status is critically and necessarily important to human families, communities, and societies. A world without women? The closest approximation we have to that is roughly prison. I'll take a daily "mean girls status market" over a daily "avoid random lethal violence" roulette wheel. Furthermore, I do believe women have outsized importance in building and maintaining culture. Politics flows from that, and laws from politics. Many societies have tried to sequester women away from culture and politics - universally, I would say, to their existential risk and eventual death.
But the problem of our time, I'd argue, is that the west has, for 30+ years now, actively fostered cultural developments that try to maximize female styles of behavior, communication, and social status regulation. In the past 10+ years, it has risen to the level of doing so in explicit opposition to all male styles of behavior, communication, and social status regulation. But, wait, please don't think I'm saying "What about men?!". Far from it. The insidious and tragic result of the rise of extremist feminism has been it's disastrous effects on social order as a whole and women specifically. We eat our own with the best and most earnest of intentions.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
1mo ago
(tagging @jeroboam as well)
It gets even worse when we consider nerdy economist concepts like marginal utility and opportunity cost.
Those of means who contribute more to social security than they will receive from it are also not using their monthly payroll contributions to social security to invest in other areas. Likewise and conversely, those who do not contribute much to social security during their "careers" but then receive disproportionate benefit should they make it to 65+ are often - date I say - engaged in activities that may be net socially negative. This ranges from the pleasantly degenerate (drinking to excess, casual illegal gambling with friends, other high risk activities) to the actively and proudly felonious (violet semi-organize criminal activity).
We take meaningful amounts of money out of the hands of the pro-socially engaged and demonstrably more capable in capital allocation during their highest earning years in order to subsidize the poverty-lite elderly years of people who have had a rocky relationship with society and community for, perhaps, decades.
I'll admit I'm painting with broad strokes here and will further confide that I spent too much time this past weekend looking at how taxes, transfers, and social programs actually shake out in the US. I, therefore, am still riding a hell of a rage high on this particular topic.
Still, the basic (and good!) arguments against social security still fail to adequately capture just how perverse it has become. It is no longer a "help out the small amount of old folks who make it to such an advanced age" program. It's a multi-generational ponzi scheme complimented by a massive DEFECT, DEFECT, DEFECT incentivized prisoner's dilemma. Throw in the deadly sisters of housing, education, and healthcare costs and the picture gets even more grim.
The economic tragedy in America is that, today, the dutiful "middle class" career person or family who pays all of their taxes, saves responsibly but without being monkish about it, and tries to setup a self-sufficient future is actually the RUBE. The equity owning elites use the various tax loopholes to keep cash that isn't income but "dividends" and the devotees of social degeneracy simply enjoy a taxpayer subsidized orgy of irresponsibility from their earliest adult years all the way through silver years' death, if violent calamity does not land on them in the intervening decades. The government pursues monetary and fiscal policy that inflates the dollar to oblivion and takes yet more of those dwindling dollars out of the hands of the earnestly, albeit naively, pro-social.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2mo ago
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2mo ago
I'm sort of getting the feeling that it's going to get a whole lot worse before there's any hope that it'll get any better
My prediction for failure mode of us healthcare;
-
Good doctors (most, not all) become too frustrated with the insurance regime and become cash only concierge providers for the wealthy.
-
The surging demand paired with vanishing supply for those who cannot afford out of pocket healthcare creates healthcare gridlock (look at the British NHS for an example of this). No one can get seen in a timely manner, the care that is provided is perfunctory, follow up visits are non-existent.
-
Amateur and grey market pharmacology takes off and we see a spike in accidental overdose deaths. These stats, however, are probably laundered by calling some of them suicides, some of them related to pre-existing conditions, or even more blatant cooking of the books.
-
Eventually, Federal laws do change for "low level" or "routine" medical care; You can do visit local clinics to get band-aids and aspirin and not have to get it from a doctor, but some sort of glorified EMT. This expands to cover most types of prescription drugs as well.
-
Medical insurers become financially insolvent gradually as the healthy and wealthy drop out of the system. Eventually, some tech company figures out how to create non-insurance-insurance wherein they can deny you based on risk factors (like insurance used to work). The work around is that they aren't technically insurance, but function as some sort of mutual liquidity market (you're, very technically speaking, exchange mutual contracts with other individuals to help defer costs of medical care at an undetermined date in the future, the tech company in the middle just provides a digital marketplace ... something along those lines).
-
All of the Americans who want health insurance have it (Obamacare: Hooray!) but all of the Americans who have health insurance cannot actually see a decent doctor in any timeperiod less than 1 - 2 years. Most simply rely on long term prescription drugs for pain management and placebo effect.
-
Americans without healthcare (and without independent wealth) create this wholly new side industry of non-insurance-insurance and, in so doing, create new demand for medical care provided by doctors, perhaps, not from this country originally - or ever (i.e. medical tourism partially or fully covered by the not-insurance-insurance).
-
People (not yet doctors) see that they can pursue medical careers without going to the traditional medical schools or passing boards. A whole new shadow-doctor industry staffs up. After 5 - 10 years of this group demonstrating not only equal, but superior health outcomes, the traditional Medical School cartel is finally broken up.
I think this takes about 20 years, starting roughly the time the Social Security Trust becomes insolvent.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2mo ago
but most florists are the female version of model train enthusiasts,
Excellent analogy. And fucking scary. I once met an actual "foamer" and my spidey sense went off like an air raid siren.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2mo ago
- Politicians and "domain experts" craft exams for all sorts of things
- People take this exams, often with more "domain experts" arriving to act as add-on guidance.
- Simulators, complex liability forms, probably several legal loopholes about informed consent and procedural integrity.
At this point, we're just living in a "light all of the tax dollars on fire" fantasy land with a ballooning bureaucracy to boot (who else administers all of these very involved exams).
I can't think of a worse hell for personal liberty.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2mo ago
Well sure if you already assume the sociopathy.
I do.
It would be like saying “I think Person X is a sociopath. He did something that generally would not be sociopathic but because I think X is a sociopath he must be doing it to hide his sociopathy.”
This is a good point. It made me think of my own post on conspiratorial thinking and I think that I might be a victim of that in this Altman case. I'll reconsider.
Rejoice, ye mods! The spirit of the Motte lives.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2mo ago
Yes!
Although there is still a body of evidence before the kid that would point in that direction.
I hope you knocked it out of the park.
More options
Context Copy link