@4doorsmorewhores's banner p

4doorsmorewhores


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:39:06 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 223

4doorsmorewhores


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:39:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 223

Verified Email

I just read about a real life version of the "isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" meme. Woman finds out a guy in his 30s dated a girl 13 years younger. She writes a story with their details, except in her story the guy is a creep. And now they're making a movie based on the story.

This is the short story: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person

This is the movie trailer: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J2VukOLSxoY

And this is an essay where the girl in the relationship says the guy was great: https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-viral-story-about-me.html

Alexis, a senior in high school, briefly worked with Charles at a restaurant. She was a hostess and he was a waiter. They liked each other and texted a lot. They slowly started dating. He was the liberal type who wouldn't own a car because it was bad for the environment. He even asked for consent before he kissed her for the first time. She said he was very gentle and caring and they had lots of things in common.

The only downside of the relationship was the fact that she felt people judged her for it, and that she felt she was growing up too fast by being in love with someone so old. They eventually grew apart and broke up when she was a sophomore in college, after dating for 2 years.

A few years later, Kristen Roupenian has an "encounter" with this Charles, after which she finds out that he dated someone much younger than him. She decides to write a story that includes personal details about him and the girl, including their small hometowns, places they worked at, the place they had their first date at, the way the guy dressed and a description of his house. Except in her story the guy is a creep, bad at sex, a liar and manipulator, who becomes abusive when the girl breaks up with him.

The story goes viral during the metoo movement. Alexis and Charles find out and are weirded out. Alexis thinks the author couldn't have known so many details about her life without stalking her online. Charles said he started questioning whether he was really an asshole and would go through old texts to make sure that was not the case.

A few years later, Alexis finds out Charles died. No cause of death is mentioned, other than the fact that it was unexpected. Earlier in the essay she says he was on antidepressants, so suicide is a possibility in my opinion.

Alexis tries to contact Kristen and she responds via email with a half-assed apology in which she says she shouldn't have included some of the details. Alexis writes this essay to tell her side of the story, but it doesn't change much.

And now they are making a movie based on this story.

Also, these are the pictures of the women mentioned in this post. I will let you figure out who's who.

https://imgur.com/2gApE3K

https://imgur.com/l2cfZtd

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-ubc-covers-for-bad-science-in-homeless-cash-transfer-study

A major university (in Canada) published another one of those studies where they give homeless people money and see if they spend it on crack or job applications. Mostly this was met with admiration and joy by the journalist class. The more right-leaning publication I posted above is more skeptical, pointing out of some of the potential problems with the study:

Unfortunately, putting a thumb on the scale was almost the first thing the researchers did. 732 possible participants in the study were screened. The UBC folk didn’t want their sample to include the long-term homeless, so to be eligible, participants had to have been homeless for less than two years. Also, they rejected severe drug and alcohol abusers and the mentally ill.

...

Note that the researchers didn’t even consider including the tent-dwelling, park-occupying homeless: merely by working with shelters, and with the people who prefer to sleep indoors despite some filth and danger, they were giving themselves an enormous implicit advantage. The study, having kinda announced at the outset that it’s garbage, goes on to describe how 229 people were chosen from the screening sample to provide the experimental group for the study. Alas, of the 229 people who took $7,500 payments, half (114) of them disappeared from view and didn’t complete the series of questionnaires and tests they had supposedly undertaken.

This isn't that interesting, it's just a bad study done in Vancouver, what I found interesting was the writer starts with a brief summary of the replication crisis, to an audience that is presumably not intimately familiar with it:

You ever hear of a guy named Daryl Bem? Bem is a social psychologist from Cornell University, now retired at age 85. In the ‘90s, after a long conventional career as an experimenter, he took up the cause of establishing evidence for human extrasensory precognition, and did some studies that seemed to confirm it exists. This set off a war in psychology as critics descended on Bem to nitpick the flaws in his studies and citations of psychic phenomena. Article content

In the end, the consensus about Bem’s research was mostly not that he used mainstream tools of statistical analytics improperly. He had mostly coloured within long-established scientific lines and followed his training in hypothesis tests — everyone’s training. Article content

Bem is now widely regarded as a weird sort of antihero who inadvertently demonstrated flaws in classic hypothesis testing, and whose late work was ground zero for the current “replication crisis” in psychology. It is not that humans are psychic: it is that you can prove the absurd proposition “humans are psychic” by very lightly abusing the received 20th-century scientific method.

There has been and is lots of discussion here about relaying rationalist concepts or ideas to outsiders or average random people in Mottizen's day-to-day lives. With the rise of culture war divisions, and especially the political rhetoric surrounding the Coronavirus Lockdowns and other policies, I'm wondering what approach if any you use when talking to acquaintances or friends who skew liberal, who broadly are happy to have the inertia of universities or the intelligentsia on their side, that you often reject social science research or findings unless personally having vetted them, without sounding to them like a low-IQ backwater hick redneck science denying flat-earther. I suspect that this is impossible.

You think it's true that there is a coordinated effort by millions of gay adults and teachers and community-leaders to manipulate children into acting trans and gay and then have sex with them? Obviously "the meme" could refer to a broad range of stuff - but I think that's the gist of it. That seems very outlandish to me. Do you have any evidence?

And do what, specifically?

Repeal Bill C-21. For other specifics the party convention is this weekend. Feel free to follow along: https://cpc23.ca

🏆🏆🏆

How many of us are there?

Do you genuinely believe Joe Biden is in a near vegetative state powered only by drugs, and lacking normal cognitive abilities?

A nuclear warhead isn't a big gun, it's a big bomb. Bombs explode roughly equally in every direction. Bullets travel in a forward line. That's their main distinction.

I don't understand the basis of that determination. We have lots of good comments or posts which don't provide context or an argument, but just themselves. Like this jolly little story for example: https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/e5odim/the_barbarian_and_the_711_clerk/

Would it be a problem if I painted a picture (Think like Where's Waldo not Ben Garrison) of my view of some present issue, or a song, if I didn't provide context and explanation for why I think it's interesting to have a picture instead of a comment thread? Where is the dividing line that I can intuit?

  • -11

I just checked his comment history in disbelief, you haven't heard of the majority of: : jimi hendrix, bob marley, neil young, alice in chains, eric clapton, black sabbath, the commodores, cat stevens, nitty gritty dirt band, nick drake, donald fagen, little feat, traffic, the beach boys, cat stevens, yes, beck, the orb, dungen, neutral milk hotel, fleetwood, wilco, pure prairie league, jade warrior, black crowes, hot tuna, bon iver, peter gabriel, blood sweat and tears, james brown, jurassic 5, madlib, bob dylan, sam cooke, grizzly bear?

Not trying to be aggressive, but if someone told me they haven't heard of most of these, (6-12 seems totally normal) I would assume they're under 15 years old or a pop-culture disconnected old person who only listens to beethoven and wagner

By your logic

This is usually a thought-terminating phrase and should probably be avoided here. Arguing that because someone thinks X about Y, they might also think A about B, and since you disagree with A and B, they should reject X and Y has several problems.

  1. There are lots of other confounding variables (In this case London in the 16th century and Polygamy in Portland) that make the comparison meaningless
  2. We don't know anyone's beliefs of A and B, so framing the discussion is just your opinion
  3. People don't reflexively have consistent opinions
  4. The phrase itself connotes a negative stereotype of an annoying twitter or forum arguer.
  5. It's easy to dismiss your parable example and is therefore unlikely to be productive (Yes, London would've been a population sink if not for factor η)

I don't understand what your issue is with this. The goal of the party is to pass a few laws, enact what their voters want, create some jobs, etc. This is what happened under Harper. If "The party will do things their voters want" isn't enough for you then perhaps electoral politics isn't for you. Do you want me to point to some zeitgeist I think will occur that lines up with someone's wonkish substack because a different party won a majority for 4 or 6 years? That is unlikely.

I haven't nor do I intend to read this fanfiction, nor have I played Pathfinder, and I don't know some of the terminology used here beyond a google search ("Isekai"). That said, I have problems. Someone from the Pathfinder universe (especially with spell training like a Paladin) would probably be familiar with food preservation magic since it exists, I also find it very personally offputting to shoehorn into a story about a child (admittedly one who considers herself an adult) about how actually most of the time when people get raped, they didn't actually get raped since nobody had a knife to threaten them. There are probably a dozen examples like this where her being from Pathfinder doesn't actually mesh with the story very well. Again, haven't read it, other than the excerpts here, but if there is nothing interesting between the comparison of her Medieval-ish world or her oath as a Paladin and our modern world, and it's just a generic medieval fish out of water tale, why is she a Paladin at all? Is it an in-joke between the Pathfinder player author? Does it mean anything?

I don't really think The Motte is the place for literary criticism, since it's a largely non-rational practice. But god, the writing here is just bad. Maybe if you're a direct person who likes it when characters spew forth punctuated idea after punctuated idea it's the right pace for you, but these paragraphs are a hard read. If you want worlds-colliding or a reflection of modernity fantasy fiction, there is lots of stuff you can find with enjoyable prose. Try /r/fantasy. I don't get the giddy appeal of having the author stand-in character give a "glorious" "refreshing" look at our modern age. I've seen dozens of posts here with better rundowns of how things operate and the problems and virtues with society. This strikes me as midwit-tier.

I'm not sure the responses at a single comedy venue are a good stand-in for culture war attitudes, people might just think he's an asshole and not like him.

Regardless of that his response is deeply pathetic: https://i.imgur.com/jRyHIK2.jpg

He's doing the Boo-urns thing, talking like a dweeb "It's almost as if" and is way more insecure than the richest man in the world should present himself as.

who is hlynkacg? can i get a summary of who he is like any top level comment would be expected to give? this seems oddly vague given the standards we expect from people posting a link to their blog for example

I find the moderation hat here putting me in a difficult position since you incorrectly claim I uncharitably characterized it with my question, but 4 other people are replying to my question, "Yes, absolutely that is what influential gay people are doing" albeit sometimes in smaller numbers. It seems I'm not allowed to discuss the non-conspiracy side of this issue earnestly.

Other users feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found that the most economical choice is actually to buy new iPhones whenever my old contract ends. Simply because I can sell the old one for 500-900$ and use that to pay off most or all of the cost of the new phone (which is usually discounted when you sign a 2 year data contract). I have found that the resale market for 2 year old Android phones is not as active (1 exception being the Galaxy series which are typically more expensive and feature-laden than iPhones)

Which sweeping societal reforms do you believe the LPC passed? Mostly they are just corrupt with ineffective or misguided tax policy and virtue-signalling feminism.

So that Canadians can continue to freely own guns.

Don't you think that the USA actually has the most aggressive judicial review and interventionist courts of common law countries?

Longshot: Does anyone have that 'chart' from /pol/(I presume) about conservatives in the USA slowly giving up on every social issue since the 60s, until they get to the 2020s and its something like "Sure we're ok with gay trans interracial marriage, but obviously pedophilia is unacceptable" with each iteration coming the decade prior?

I totally reject the idea that the mods can detect and enforce bad (rules-breaking/bad faith/problematic etc) comments or topics in spite of other commentators engaging with it fruitfully. Dialogue is a two+ way street, if a comment hasn't led to mass rule-breaking or other problems then I don't see how you can pin the good-discourse on other people, and the bad discourse on the OP. That isn't how forums or discussions work. This is terrible.

I suppose this is intended to be a catch-all response to the various people here and elsewhere saying that this is actually a demonstration of good healthy democratic-body function. This doesn't concern arguments about a) The inability of a GOP house to take meaningful action with a Dem Senate and President, or b) the belief that a non-functioning House is a positive because the federal government mostly harms and doesn't help.

The issue I take with this viewpoint is that while other parliamentary systems operate in a manner which is more similar to what we're seeing - the norms and practices of the house are actually reflective of the consent and will of the people who participate in it. There was a process to determine the speaker at the Republican Conference (as there is for every congress - sometimes more than once), including negotiating, concessions, a vote etc. This was not smoke and mirrors or shrouded from the public - it is not the system's design that every thought and whisper happens in public, but that votes and procedural action is public. To borrow another parliamentary analogy - this is the equivalent of voting against a confidence motion. It's not reflective of any actual negotiation or democratic participation. The freedom caucus is obviously technically allowed to violate this norm despite being a small minority because the GOP margin is so narrow.

Analyzing the data you linked, the phenomenon you described is just a result of democrats as a whole being more centrist - so that an 80th percentile most extreme-left Dem is about the same distance from center as a 40th percentile-right GOP. Dems have a single rep with a score of over .7, whereas the GOP has half a dozen people at least .8[You can approach this multiple ways, there are 30 democrats at greater than .500 from center, but 109 republicans]. The specific example of speakers reflects this, Pelosi is at .49 from center, and McCarthy is .454.

Obviously very very few people think your school will brainwash your kids into mutilating themselves but you know you can just home-school them right?