100ProofTollBooth
No bio...
User ID: 2039
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
I don't let it make me support policies that aren't supported by statistics
I think you might want to take a little peek at the theory of black swan events. "Stats say this crazy man only has a 1% chance of ending my life. No need to worry!"
or utilitarianism.
You mean the philosophy that leads to eugenics and "global optimization via local genocide." Fuck outta here with that nonsense.
'toxic masculinity' and 'the patriarchy hurts men too'.
Spoke too soon. Fuck outta here with THAT nonsense.
@Mods: I'll self-penalize here with a one day self-ban for this "boo outgroup." I should've not engaged. But I failed.
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
I’ve read enough PUA material and know enough high body count guys that I feel like I know how they think.
Let's remember that there is online PUA (un)reality and actual physical world PUA/high body count guy reality.
Online PUAs go hard into things like "last minute resistance" and "anti-slut defense." These are absolutely rapey and awful. And they're pretty much theoretical rationalizations and analysis created by soy boys LARPing as "PUAs" (any online subculture that has lots of acronyms is often populated by the same basic template nerds with various extra skins and other DLC attached.)
Actual, real life "PUA" types experience consent in absolutely black and white scenarios like "has she leaned over and asked me to f**k her? Is she actively unfastening my belt? Has she already gone ahead and leaned in for the kiss herself?" Real life PUAs look at a grey zone not just as a potential risk, but as a failure at the application of their skills. The idea isn't to jump her bones as she is perhaps just beginning to imagine an encounter, but to push the pre-physical seduction to such an extent that she is actively soliciting it in no uncertain terms - and will look back on it with genuine happiness. The parallel between real world PUA stuff and corporate sales is undeniable; don't sell them, make them want to buy the thing so bad they're shoving money at you. And make them happy to see you when you come back for a second time around (am I talking about sales or sex here .... I don't even know anymore).
Real life seduction / PUA / whatever you want to call it is about the challenge of generating real and powerful desire. It's not about weaseling into a grey area to be the sex-bandito who's in and out in a flash.
This is also why lots of (again, "real") PUAs leave that subculture - they want to level up to the next stage of generating real, powerful, and enduring desire over a long term relationship.
Because that is incredibly hard. And supremely worthwhile.
100ProofTollBooth
4mo ago
You hit it on the head when you said "a single dad's romantic market value is much higher than a single mom's." The only place where this isn't necessarily the case (although, mostly still is) is in the PMC, wherein divorces are so common, along with professional single women running the household, that single motherhood is seen as no-big-deal to almost-a-badge-of-honor.
Very different situation for a working-class woman with children trying to date/re-marry.
This is another reason in favor of the theory that many products of the sexual revolution (no-fault divorce, abundant and common contraception) disproportionately benefited an upper-class that we now call the PMC, while disproportionately penalizing the working-class. You have a whole group of highly educated 1960s women who've tricked themselves into thinking they're oppressed, aided and abetted by the sexually and ethically incontinent Don Draper types. The latter now has no conflict of responsibilities in sleeping around, because the baby no longer has a say. The former can pursue endless responsibility-free self expression and simply jump in and out marriages when the flavor's gone.
All this happening just when the poor (of any color) were able to develop more solid family structures and starting to enjoy the benefits of escaping an agrarian hand-to-mouth existence. Emphasis, there, on family instead of individual.
Within a decade, it all get's ruined for them. Then, by the 1980s, those just above them (the mythical steel / auto factory workers and longshoremen types of the Rust Belt and industrial Northeast) become tragic characters in Bruce Springsteen songs because it turns out they weren't that far ahead. 2023: "Rich Men North of Richmond"
100ProofTollBooth
6mo ago
entering the shadow realm
Peace be upon you, fellow gym-meme brother/sister.
Re: "20 pullups, but no deadlift?" The case that comes to mind was a long distance runner who I saw doing a PFT. Rail skinny, but did kill his pullups. By sheer insane coincidence, ran into him at the post gym later that day. 2 plate deadlift, had to cat-back it by the third rep. My theory is that the hyper-specifically trained for his pullups on the PFT by doing .... a shit ton of pullups for several months. I can see how that would over emphasize biceps-to-lats but not actually develop the full posterior chain through the glutes and hamstrings. I think you're also probably correct in the "form" argument - he had no conception of how to use his legs to start the rep.
Now, would've been able to rack pull 225? Hey, maybe.
100ProofTollBooth
7mo ago
I'm a Big Man.
I don't mean fat. I'm 6'8" and go about 245. Through almost all of my 20s, I was maybe 200-210. In college and before I was below that and so noticeably in the "bean pole" range of skinny. A late 20s dive into lifting paired with finally hitting the big metabolical downshift means I'm no longer "potentially a basketball player" but firmly in the land of "hey, that's a Big Dude!" No tattoos, but do have a trimmed beard and close shaved head. I've been called Nordic-looking often (I'm not).
Question is; what are some things I should be aware of in terms of perceptions by other people. I don't want to come across as utterly clueless - I already go out of my way to be a little goofy / ice-breaker-y when meeting new people. I smile (and am concious of it) a lot when dealing with bartenders / cafe people / passers by on a day to day basis. Still, I think I may be oblivious to some things. I'm especially worried about professional context. COVID had me fully remote for two years and Zoom meetings take a lot out of relative physical size awareness. New job (as of the summer) has me in a suit 4 days a week in a more conservative / traditional setting and I'm wondering if that's modulated my smiley/goofiness. FWIW, I don't think I perceive much hesitation from coworkers, and I'm getting a normal level of invitation to informal drinks after work etc.
Would also appreciate any insight on NON-romantic male/female dynamics. On the dating side of things, there is a consistent volume of women who straight up tractor-beam to Big Dudes. (Yes, it's Daddy issues and Lumberjack fantasies as far as the eye can see. SNL had a skit about it with dudes from the Chiefs after the won the Superbowl).
100ProofTollBooth
11mo ago
Any sort of legislation mandating nutrition facts at sit-down restaurants would end with class action lawsuits.
"Why does it taste so much better at Applebys / Cheesecake Factory / Ruth's Chris / Nobu than what I make it at home, I'm a good cook!" Because that stuff is straight up loaded with salt, fat (usually butter), and sugar (the white death) to levels you would never even consider at home. The big "fancy" Italian spots like Maggiano's (spellcheck) are especially egregious here where their seemingly large menus are the same half dozen ingredients recombined and then coated in some variety of unbelievable fat-and-sugar sauce.
Quick aside: I fucking love all of those kind of places and consider them to be the crowning achievements of Western Society. Fight me
But the fact that people eating there don't have to actually look at the quantifiable hated they're laying down on their gastrointestinal and endocrine systems means that the meal is guilt free. In some weird backwards-economic-behavior way, I think the mid-tier expensive ones make people think that, because it was so pricey, it must be some level higher on the health scale. I believe this to be false. I think on a value-and-health adjusted basis, McDonalds/Chipotles are probably the best on the planet. I think prom-dinner-fancy places (Maggianos, Cheescake factory etc.) are heinously expensive and disaster for the body.
But fuck it, lava cake makes Mrs. Tollbooth frisky AF and your boy can go HAM on those breadsticks.
100ProofTollBooth
1yr ago
I agree with your final point about the evolution of human relations. People do own their own labor and time to a degree never before possible.
However, @FiveHourMarathon has a point I don't think you can totally dismiss as "relativistic nonsense." Take an example that hasn't fundamentally changed in at least 100 - 150 ears; the Military.
A 2nd Lieutenant is typically between 22 and 25. A Platoon Sergeant (typically somewhere between E-5 to E-7 depending on factors and how fucked up the enlistment cycle has been) is within just a few years of age of that 2nd LT .... probably late 20s.
On paper, the 2nd LT is utterly superior in everyway to the Platoon Sergeant. Short of physical violence, the 2nd LT has dictatorial control. In real life, the platoon sergeant has about a decade of experience (and, for this generaiton, a lot of that in combat if its a combat arms MOS). They know then ins and outs of the organization, the duty station, the personalities up and down the command. If the 2nd LT does not strike a balance of experience deference to the Plt Sergeant while not looking weak in front of the men, he's going to have a bad time. A lot of self-conscious but very gung ho 2nd LTs will totally blow off the subtle suggestions of Plt Sergeants ... and learn some hard lessons about leadership the hard way.
The point is, even in a situation where, yes, you have close to absolute superiority in every way over a "subordiante" (fun fact the etymological root of Sergeant is Servant) if you're going to have a long term or just a non-transactional relationship with that person, you have to invest in the relationship somehow.
100ProofTollBooth
1yr ago
The length of my reply may not communicate it, but I've been thinking about this question pretty much daily since 2017.
The answer is that if either a Man or Woman is looking at what the other can "bring to the table," the relationship is going to fail at some point. First, remember the passion-to-companionship cycle. At the outset, both parties generally want (and receive) fireworks. Somewhere pretty early on this gives way to a more "fun friends who have sex" situation. If it makes it two years (look around at your social circle and mark this as a milepost for breakups) then a lot of couples will get married if both parties are 28+. 7 Year itch within a marriage, 50/50 in America make it. Kids show up a lot of marriages are effectively dead but keep on going for the kids. Divorce late in high school or early college is most common for upper-middle class suburbanites.
The point of the above paragraph is that a romantic relationship and marriage that last 10,20,30 years changes so much that it is not possible for either party to meaningfully say "Yes, I'm in this for life" at the outset if the rubric is simply the "match score" for the other partner.
What's required is a personal commitment to the idea of a long-term relationship before you even meet the other person. And a recognition that the relationship will drastically change multiple times and require constant work. If that is the starting point, you've got a shot and then you can sort of grocery list for all of the matching attributes. If that is not your starting point, I think you can still have a decent enough romantic life, but you shouldn't think you're going to make it long term.
I don't blame this totally on the failing character of contemporary western folks. Most of marriage in human history (and, I would submit, the majority of it today worldwide) is basic economic survival and co-dependence. The idea of learning to love whichever person you ended up shaking up with to not starve to death is far more common the world over than "omg, this is how I met your mother" fairly tale stories. For a trip, read up on the emotional development of the arranged marriages of first generation Indian Couples in the U.S. from maybe the 1970s or so.
The idea of deep emotion, long-term pair bonding as the everything of marriage is a product of the massive growth in personal wealth the western world experienced after World War 2 and is also a good outcome of the mid-century feminist movement. It's just super, super rare. The bad outcome of this has been the destruction of the nuclear family since the 1960s. When the primary motivator is personal emotional satisfaction in a highly individualist society, the family is going to have a bad time absent some very strong microsocial pressures (i.e. high religiosity communities, or hyper invested "helicopter" parents who see the performance of their children as reflective of personal worth).
To conclude, however, I wouldn't call myself a marriage / long-term relationship cynic. In fact, I still think I want to get married (I just think the odds are low). I'm slightly optimistic that there's going to be some level of Gen-Z backlash to the crazy 4th wave feminism we see now and that may prompt new personal commitment to having a nuclear family and shedding some of the "but how do I maximize my own personal emotional state?" thinking. I am not Gen-Z, however, and their customs and ways are strange to me.
TLDR; It isn't about your partner, it's all about you.
100ProofTollBooth
1yr ago
I think the concept of parasocial (self) relationships applies here. People, disproportionately those with an underdeveloped sense of self, can develop "relationships" with characters or other mediated personalities. Almost be definition, this is a very imbalanced relationship as the viewer / audience has strong feelings of attachment, connection, and attraction to the character. This can range from a relatively benign situation ("Beyonce and I would be best friends) to crippling dependency (camgirl addicts who over-invest into the parasocial camgirl relationship to the level of personal financial ruin).
In terms of your alternate definition of "gender identity" I think there's a case to be made that trans/non-binary folks have created a parasocial relationship with an idealized version of themselves. Falling in love with who they think they want to be. To me there's some circumstantial evidence to support this; the disproportionately higher rate of schizophrenia and other psychotic features in the trans population etc. When the sense of self is severely warped or underdeveloped, bad, bad things happen. Remember, simple isolation and prolonged solitary confinement is recognized as torture. To remain healthy and mentally stable, humans need reinforcement loops with other humans. If you've substituted your own self-perpetuating and idealized feedback loop within your own head ... wearing funny clothes is the least of your concerns.
100ProofTollBooth
1d ago
just that one must be careful that it may not apply to everyone,
Then let me be explicit; my advice may not apply to everyone
and if it doesn't work for somebody, it doesn't mean they are even more of a loser than they thought
Nowhere did I say this. You did. My introductory "loser" comments were caveated upfront.
but that there are other ways that would be better for them.
How can I possibly know this about another person who I have never met?
Like, for example, find communities online where once could practice talking with various people.
This. Isn't. Talking. To. People.
Maybe even with people of female persuasion without trying to score with them ;)
OP is literally asking for ways to get better at dating
just maybe not jump right into that if that's not what you're comfortable doing.
What is more important to OP? Developing comfort with current situation, or seeking to change current situation? I suppose that's a question for him.
That depends a lot of what you mean by "said".
Dude.
What was the first thing for which you used your face hole to send sonic vibrations to her?
Whenever there's a line-by-line quote-response breakdown in the replies, it's always because someone (in this case, me) has taken issue with what they feel to be a very bad argument. I freely admit this is the case.
None of what you have said is in anyway wrong, debased, or could be considered offensive. But I think literally all of it is ineffective based on what I believe OP's goals to be. I know I'm getting close to Jordan Peterson territory here and I'll resist the urge to start shouting "MAKE YER BED." But I think that most gradualist self-improvement advice is ineffective and is ultimately a road to developing new and fun copes for bad situations. All good self-improvement advice is a variant of "you're going to have to do things that aren't comfortable, but then things will improve for you." So, that's what I'm offering OP. That it may not be comfortable for him is precisely the point. Now, to try an find some middleground, if OP really does believe my advice will also be ineffective, he's more than free to ignore it.
I believe you haven't offered any advice that is more effective. I believe you had only offered advice that is ineffective. I believe you have prioritized comfort relative to the current state over absolutely improved future state.
I will await your reply wherein you tell me "Well it must've worked! - I'm married!"
100ProofTollBooth
4d ago
Is there any good online poker (actual money or just fun money) left? Or is it all weird bots / scams?
I'd like to start playing mostly as a way to have some non-passive fun (I can't just do movies / shows / books every night).
Related; any good medium to advance "how to play poker" guides? I don't mean absolute beginner stuff, but anything that gets into deeper probability / behavioral theory. Think if Doyle Brunson wrote Super System but he was a MIT game theory PhD dropout first.
100ProofTollBooth
6d ago
But yes your overwrought "I can't even leave my red state or I'll be persecuted" schtick is silly, false and just wrong at an objective level.
Why do you need to say this?
Up to this comment, I think you could summarize the exchange thusly:
TollBooth: Something something, I'm a red stater, get off my lawn
French: "That's goofy. You're goofy. Stop being goofy"
TollBooth: "Fine. You got me. Here's me being tongue-in-cheek and a reasonable cessation to our mostly pointless disagreement"
And then you have to go "you are just wrong at an objective level."
Y tho?
100ProofTollBooth
7d ago
Yes, that's the one.
I take your reply as meaning "Because the Schedule F reforms were done at the end of the term and, further, that they stand a reasonable chance of being undone by SCOTUS, one can't count that as striking back at the civil service."
That's a perfectly fine position to take. Let me ask, then, what is the rubric for a successful strike against the civil service? And how does a President get there in one fell swoop?
To me, this feels like goalpost shifting and unrealistically high expectations. As an aside, I"m saying all of this as a never-Trumper. I don't like advocating for DJT for really any reason. Still, I do see things like the Schedule F effort to me meaningful attempts to root out what is perhaps the most entrenched self-serving bureaucratic mechanism in American history.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
QuantumFreakonomics's comment did the most to influence my thinking. The car analogy is a good one to ponder.
Implement of mayhem aside, the issue of concern in my book is another small step forward to "lock up the crazies fast" but now expanding to the indirectly crazy - the parents.
Ever since the Virginia Tech shooting (possibly earlier) a steady mid-brow point has been "people with, ya know, really bad mental health problems, shouldn't have firearms ... and maybe knives ... cars could be bad too ... maybe we should commit them." The obvious slippery slope there is (a) There are plenty of well adjusted people who have mental health histories - what's to stop the state from arbitrarily deciding they are now a threat and (b) The obvious market adjustment that those with new mental health problems will simply conceal them and not seek help because of the risk of deprivation of basic rights. Where this gets especially dystopian is when known associates of any individual start to use "hey, you know he/she is really crazy right!" in vindictive personal lawfare. The best existing example of this is the weaponization of mutual restraining orders in divorce proceedings to try and secure an advantage in custody. I can see an easy early version of this in parents who, exasperated with a rebellious child, decide to inform "the authorities" that their angsty teen is, in fact, super coconuts and should be sent to one of those padded wall spots (while Mom and Dad enjoy some childless stay-cation time).
With this case, the message has been sent to parents of "troubled teens" that they might want to consider severely restricting their child's access to myriad things/activities/privacy/independence and, perhaps, even to begin involving "counselors" and other semi-state apparatchiks all to avoid personal liability in the event something drastic happens.
OR
The message has been sent to parents to not at all engage with their child's problems, and essentially hope they go away. But its important to maintain that plausible ignorance - again - to avoid personal culpability.
Being shitty parents has to absolutely remain 100% legal. If it becomes illegal to be a bad mom or dad, we're directly on the road to State-As-Parent, the elimination of privacy, and the enforcement of current political majoritarian monoculture at the nuclear family level.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
anec-datally, I worry about multiple decades of Long Slow Distance as a training base for running. So many lifelong runners end up nearly unable to walk. Joints just ... go.
To that end, a lot my cardio is based around doing the long duration stuff in low impact activities; swimming and rowing machines. But, I intrinsically like running and so pretty much only do intervals for it. N-of-one-personal-report, this has resulted in an increase in all of my short and middle distance race times.
Am I off base, tho? I truly would enjoy input.
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
Is there some sort of tactical school of thought on the efficacy or even purpose of early morning raids?
My suspicion has always been that the cops use them to literally catch crooks napping, but as @2rafa points out, it seems like the potential for "WTF IS GOING ON" violence really goes up.
I assume that surrounding the domicile would probably result in too many barricade events?
100ProofTollBooth
1mo ago
This just evades the point, try again but for soda
He "evades" the point by offering directly contradicting evidence to your assertion? And then you literally move the goalposts by shifting the object from water to the substance that is single most responsible for the American pre-diabetic and diabetes epidemic.
This isn't just poor argumentation, it's a lack of understanding of the nature of consumer demand and vendor supply.
McDonald's continues to exist and generate profit because American (and foreign!) consumers really enjoy, and therefore demand, their product. Every time I hear someone go on about "the corporate overlords" I get a strong suspicion they've never worked in one of these large corporations. They're bureaucratic, slow, with pockets of poor management everywhere. Often, they're coasting on brand recognition and incumbent advantage. Sure, they may still have top line growth, but they're not innovating outside of buying potential challengers (see: McDonalds and Chipotle). The idea that there are these Gordon Gekko greed machines with incredible ability to manipulate the public is laughable. The lizard people don't exist.
The sad fact of the matter is that McDonald's CEO is a former soap salesman who did the handshakeful path of Harvard Biz School to Big Consulting. This is the kind of dude who looks forward to "networking with the family" for 45 minutes of Christmas Eve before diving back in to the sweet sweet womb of quarterly reports. He is a business nerd.
But you know who aren't business nerds? Construction workers getting their morning coffee, single moms too tired to cook, stoned teenagers, and (years ago) my drunk ass at 2 a.m. And we all like the convenience, predictability, and location density of McDonalds. And so we spend, together, billions of dollars on their product.
It would be more efficient if, for super-sized corporations, an agency stepped in and “auctioned” off the corporate positions and ownership according to who will do the job for the least amount of money
An auction. Yes. Like, perhaps, at a market. Like where people would buy and sell assets they own - their "stock" you could say. A kind of "stock market" if you will.
If that’s too much government interference, then allow the employees to form powerful unions.
So we solve government interference by creating organizations that are intrinsically tied to the government.
primitive capitalism
What does this even mean?
we should have some kind of Honesty Regulation
Tell some undefined "truth" or you're committing a crime? George Orwell would like to see you in the hall.
But in an intensive competition what they do is compete over psychologically manipulating the vulnerable
This is just outlandish and I'm beginning to think I'm being trolled.
100ProofTollBooth
2mo ago
I know this is an excellent appraisal because I had never thought of it before yet it's so obvious once spelled out. This tracks fluidly with the fact that all people, when asked to give advice, often give advice calibrated to themselves, their circumstances, and their experiences. It's why billionaire tech bros say "take big risks and skip college", supreme court justices say "be diligent and patient in your studies", and broke boomer beach bums say "just keep on living, man."
This also tracks with something I've noticed over the past five years - young women today have ZERO game. I won't speculate on causes. I would state firmly, however, that mid 20s - 30s women of 10 years ago knew how to flirt (i.e. express interest in a masked way so as to promote escalation while mitigating the possibility of direct rejection) and otherwise be a complement to the strategies that men used to pursue them (if they were, in fact, willing participants in the seduction).
In fact, a lack of flirting was a pretty good signal to perceptive men that she wasn't interested. Nowadays, apparently, a blank stare and monosyllabic responses can mean everything from "you are the most repulsive creature in the galaxy" to "please take me away to the magical love castle on your sex unicorn now."
100ProofTollBooth
2mo ago
My Catholic instinct is to tell you to Jesus up your Jesus meter until you get a sick Jesus turbo boost.
But, I'm aware that, on the Motte, the kids would say that's "sus" and I may even be accused of "cappin'"
Thus, allow me to perform a sinful heresy on your behalf and secularize what's basically a Christian imperative.
-
Ask yourself the question "What would you want to have happen in the world even if you were dead?" paired with "What do you want the world to be like 100 years after you die". I'd recommend doing the old trick of asking this question, going on a walk wherein you don't try to direct your thoughts, and then come back home to write no more than a single page (maybe 300 words at the most) to capture your thoughts. Do this once or twice a week for .... as long as it takes!
-
A little more prescriptive; read Infinite and Finite games by James P. Carse. And then find an infinite game to play.
100ProofTollBooth
2mo ago
Excellent encapsulation of the root problem.
And this is exactly what the concept of non-family arranged marriage has tried to solve for thousands of years. You (women) get to be the sexual selectors and a pick a mate. No one can force you, and men must compete. But once the choice is made, you have to stick with it so that society doesn't collapse in on zero-sum Chad-The-Warlord mating patterns.
This is the reason conservatives, like me, point to no-fault divorce as so incredibly damaging. It means mating patterns revert back to a situation that was worse for 99% of men and >50% of women (i.e. most of everybody). Stable marriages make stable communities with longer term outlooks. This is a great way to build society. Fluid marriages with easy opt-out clauses as well as a material incentive in many cases create a constant state of next-optionism and institutionalized anxiety. It's easy to see why your average secular-humanist married couple are neurotic basket cases. They are dealing with the >50% odds that the person they wake up with and go to sleep with will leave them and, maybe, take half of their stuff at any moment.
I see the polyamory movement as a weird cope to some basic realities. They're smart enough to accept human nature, but not pro-social enough to understand the value of discipline and final choice in marriage. So, they settle for what becomes a shared Chad-harem and a weak peace. I don't see how polyamory works out for your median non-Aella woman, however, as mate stealing just becomes (covertly) more acceptable and thus favors inherently more manipulative and anti-social women.
100ProofTollBooth
3mo ago
Thanks for this. I'll pay back the favor with an X-rated companion piece...
This post means I should write about the dual-episode of finding my Mom's old playboys (it's a non-twist twist part of the story) the same week that a friend introduced me to a guy who used to run strip clubs in the 70s - 90s.
The sophistication of smut is a lost art. To take this metaphor into orbit; Intern porn today is as to 70s - 90s smut as Michael Bay action movies are to Platoon and The Deer Hunter.
I'll set a reminder to write this. Let's get weird.
100ProofTollBooth
4mo ago
Historically, divorce was very difficult to obtain, and it was more likely than not that the father would retain custody of the children (so there were definitely cases where the wife was blackmailed with "if you ever want to see your kids again..."). If a woman was at fault in a divorce, she was ruined socially and probably economically as well. Even where the husband was the offending party (e.g. cruelty or infidelity), a divorced woman still found it difficult to resume her life afterwards.
This is why I'm not against divorce legally or even culturally (cue: But TollBooth, aren't you a TRAD?). I've been in enough relationships (and exited them) to understand that the same person who you feel deeply connected and wholly in love with in Month 2 can be the same person who you literally never want to speak to again in Month .... 8. I've been safe enough to avoid getting married, but it is not at all hard to understand that some couples in the exact same situation - and millions of similar ones - would. If that turns out to not be a good match, an exit ought to be possible.
But the costs of divorce for both partners seem quite high. What's more, I've seen no evidence that pre-marriage cohabitation (i.e. a practice run) helps. Anec-datally, I've seen it do the opposite. So, we've a situation in which lots of people are entering into an agreement that will entangle them deeply for a long period of time. Financial and social penalties abound. It's very hard to actually tell if you and the other person are going to "make it" no matter what you do.
Quick aside: Pre-marriage counseling, usually in a religious context, in my opinion, does nothing to help with the choosing of a partner. Instead, I think, it mostly just doubles the level of commitment on the part of each party and kind of builds in a fatalist co-dependence. As Catholic as I am, I've seen many catholic marriages that probably should've ended drag on (til death!) out of a grim determination to the idea of marriage. More on that later.
Yet, it's close to self-evident that a stable, two parent household is the basic building block of society. If they start to disappear (even more than they already have (!)) bad things happen. But The Institution hasn't kept up from its 1000+ year history of being, at its core, an economic contract for mutual survival and reproduction. I don't know how to fix that, but I have a hunch it's important.
On folks who get into and stay in marriages because of an external commitment to an idea / ideal (mostly the very religious) ... That selection bias ought to be obvious. Anyone who can commit themselves in a meaningful way to an abstract idea, ideal, or metaphysical concept is going to have a level of self-discipline, thoughtfulness, self-awareness etc. that puts them into pretty safe territory across a whole host of Big Decisions in life. That's not the audience that matters.
100ProofTollBooth
4mo ago
Uncut Gems is a miracle of writing, directing, and acting.
Even in films that are well written, it's pretty common for me to sort of detach and think, "Oh, this is the redemptive scene. This is the contemplation scene. This is the remorse scene." And I'm not a very talented cinephile. I think it's just incredibly difficult for a director to utterly absorb the audience for 2+ hrs straight.
But Uncut Gems! I can't imagine how much attention had to be paid to every line of the script both in writing it and then acting it out on screen. It's like a swiss watch in terms of complex integration yet almost no extraneous material.
100ProofTollBooth
5mo ago
Riddle me this, Batman - doesn't "Wawa" sound suspiciously close to "Yaweh" ??? Think. About. It. All roads lead to the One True Hoagie Lord, and the rich and poor shall know him alike.
But seriously -
I like your Wawa honesty index quite a bit. To add some specificity, I think it's a good index for a very direct person-to-person level of honesty. Let me explain. If I'm a no-good-nik walking into a wawa to swipe an order from the ToGo rack that isn't mine, that's quite literally stealing someone else's - one, single person's - lunch or breakfast. It strikes at a deeply personal wrong that's been obvious since childhood. The trope for bullying is literally "stealing someone's lunch money." So, as far as directly personal honesty index goes, I think you've nailed it.
I think, however, it breaks down when you add some ambiguity and turn it from person-to-person to person-in-society. The great, recent example I have for this is from the San Francisco Streets mini-doc by Channel 5 News with Andrew Callaghan (successor to YouTube gonzo journalism channel "All Gas No Breaks"). He interviews a semi-organized stolen goods crew who enjoy haughtily recounting their felonious exploits. They run into high end retailers in the downtown shopping district of San Francisco, Union Square, and quickly snatch as much merchandise as possible. This is done with little to no stealth or concealment. The primary issue at hand is San Francisco's laws related to theft and larceny, but that's for another thread.
A key, but quick, line from one of these non-cat-burglars is "for most of these corporations, it's a write off anyway." Leave aside how valid that is on a legal level and leave aside the downstream impacts of increased insurance costs. That's beside the point. What counts is the revelation of the person-in-society mindset. "I'm not hurting a person, I'm causing a few corporate numbers on a spreadsheet to shift from one column to another...I'm not stealing FiveHourMarathon's sandwich, I'm effecting the same outcome as lost inventory in transit...this isn't a personal crime because I don't conceive of people being harmed or even involved in a direct and meaningful way." When you turn society into an abstract concept, you can abstract away very real and damaging actions. Let's not even get started on "selling some drugs just to pay rent."
(Back to the Hoagies...in a second.)
If everyone could rely on the mental model of person-to-person concepts of honesty, society would be safer, higher trust, All-Of-The-Good-Things. In fact, I'd argue that the primary "low brow" teaching of all of the Abrahamic religions pretty much amounts to "think of all of your actions as essentially person-to-person (or, really, person-to-God) and behave accordingly." Stealing isn't just wrong because a Holy Text says so and because you may be punished for it, it's wrong because it "hurts" God/Society/A stand in concept for another person even if it isn't an actual physical presence.
I don't think a totally secular society has a good replacement for this concept. The "best" I have seen is weak sloganeering - "don't be evil ... don't be a dick .... not cool!" It's underdeveloped and light on content and metaphysical heft. It's not specific enough to guide behavior and is used more as an after the fact admonishment. You do have over-thinking and secular-moralizing intellectual arguments about the moral fabric of society and social contracts but, again, I don't see their utility as behavioral guides. By the time I've digested Sam Harris' long winded treatment on the compound ethical implications of impersonal petty theft, I will have already digested FiveHourMarathon's Thanksgiving Hoagie with extra cranberry sauce.
Told you we would wind back up at Hoagies!
"I would respond to someone's principled, albeit harsh, verbal condemnation with physical violence." I'm really not sure that's the kind of argument you want to advocate.
I don't read OP's comment as having contempt for Bob. He has a sincerely held belief that marrying Alice is a bad move based on his sincerely held values regarding prostitution and promiscuity. He's try his best to articulate that to his friend, Bob. This seems, in fact, like the opposite of contempt. Contempt would probably take the form of a quiet chuckle followed by, "You do you, man" on the part of OP.
Slippery slopes are greased by the shrugging nonchalance of the agnostic and conformist.
More options
Context Copy link