@5434a's banner p

5434a


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 18 19:56:37 UTC

				

User ID: 1893

5434a


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 18 19:56:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1893

Is/ought, plus game theory. Women will always have an unfair advantage in this arena because men will always gain an advantage by handing this advantage to women. The man who boycotts the ladies night at the bar, or any other low stakes garden variety simpery, out of offence to his high-minded egalitarian principles will lose out to the pragmatic man who accepts the phenomenon and potentially uses it as a pivot to open a conversation and flirt with those women. ("You women get half price drinks? Nice, that means you can buy me two! No? Ah, so you're a hashtag trad wife. Cool, I'm more of an equal rights feminist. A very thirsty equal rights feminist with an empty glass. Oh okay I get it, maybe those dodgy pick up guys were right about women after all. Hold on a second, are you a pick up artist girl? No? So where did you learn your undeniable skills? In that case I guess it must have come to you naturally. Naturally blessed with half price drinks. Imagine that." Or something significantly smoother and less terminally online, I don't know).

It's not moral authority, it's regular authority. A tyrannical monarch could write a law that says "all gold belongs to the king" with no reference to morality.

I don't understand what you're driving at, if you'll pardon the phrasing. My starting point was that we're not free in the west/democracy, we're free-er, and that there is no radical freedom where we can do whatever we like under any system or lack of system. That's omnipotence.


You and all the other drivers tacitly accepted those conditions

Certainly I did not.

I feel this is straying further from my central point but what kind of christmas cracker cereal box licencing body grants licences that don't require abiding by the rules? It doesn't make sense to me. If they don't require abiding by the rules what's the point of a licence? It would be no different to not needing one. The first rule of licence club is "you need a licence". The second rule is "if you don't have one you're not authorised to do it". The third rule is "if you break the rules you lose your licence; refer to rule two".

You and all the other drivers tacitly accepted those conditions when you applied for a licence to drive on the state's roads. You're free to walk at whatever speed you like.

The democratic sausage machine aspires to the freedom to be user serviceable, the other sausage machines don't. It's not like you can get away from the butcher.

Outdoor. Cat shit might be the one thing that smells worse than dog shit and unlike dogs you can't let the cat out for quick shit and then call them back indoors.

When you say "unacceptable or indefensible," do you mean you knew you were in the wrong? Or you knew that, even if you could verbalize your feelings, they'd be rejected or torn down by argument?

To spare you a long rambling post I wrote: Yes. But there's many more reasons to not say anything, an important one of which is feeling that either I can't find the right words or the words I can find would only make things worse. However in reference to the question at hand the motives are all either neutral or defensive.

In a nutshell avoidance or conflict aversion of one form or another is a much more probable cause than passive aggression.

When you're being given the silent treatment, is it unwise to ask why and seek reconciliation? You are, in a sense, rewarding the behavior.

On balance if you're confident that's what is happening and you want to reconcile then perhaps it's best to take the bait and cut to the chase. But if someone has backed off because they feel imposed upon then following them around making further impositions will only make them back off further, or drive them towards adopting a mode closer to active aggression. For a teenage boy I'd assume they withdrew in response to feeling imposed on in some manner rather than ignoring you to "get you back", but there's always exceptions.

What are you counting as silent treatment? It could mean making a point of pretending someone doesn't exist, or it could be expecting someone to proactively reach out more than they're interested in doing so, or it could be badgering somebody who then retreats without satisfying your appetite for their input.

I could have been accused of all three at points. In the first case it would have been simple carelessness and taking someone for granted rather than a conscious tactic to upset them. In the second it's just disparate needs for reassurance. The times that I most remember consciously choosing to be silent were when I didn't fully understand myself and so couldn't say what I felt, or I did understand myself and knew that my position was either unacceptable or indefensible, or a combination where I knew my position was unacceptable but couldn't understand and express why I held it even if I wanted to. In that aspect I'd say it more closely matched "their words don't matter" rather than "act like a brat", but it assumes that sufficient words are available to be said.

What was I hoping to achieve? Distancing myself from what I felt was unpleasant and uncomfortable or insurmountable. Simple defence. I was never trying to make anyone else feel bad ("pushing back", even if passively), and I still can't fully wrap my head around the idea of both wanting to make someone feel bad and imagining that not talking to them is the way to do it. Passive aggression relies on baiting someone into questioning what they did wrong. Either they come to agree that they did something wrong and address that, or they're forced to accept the frame in order to deny it whereupon they can be attacked directly (actually obliquely). But it depends on them taking the bait, which depends on them caring, which depends on them noticing.

I have no idea, that's the question isn't it. But if you can entertain the idea that there are women who aren't doing as well as they could because some women are social fuck ups too then it stands to reason there should be practical measures they can take to improve their outcomes. It could range from acknowledging the fertility window, to the poor dating prospects for single mothers, to making an effort to understand what most men want and don't want, through to basic stuff like how to flirt (put the damn phone down!), how to write more than three words on a dating site, and, like I said about PUA, what not to do.

Somewhere out there are women who think that collecting rescue animals, wearing dungarees, spending all day on tumblr and exclusively using photos of themselves in a group of 8 isn't hurting their chances. Moaning about the fact that men like looking at naked women on the internet isn't helping them. Neither is holding on to the idea that there's an athletic, high achieving career focused man who is yearning to take a single mother and her children on an all expenses paid round the world adventure, if only he'd hurry up and find her. "Men are even worse than you thought" is not what they need to hear. Otherwise they'll fall into the MGTOW cope trap where they spend 24/7 thinking about how awful the opposite sex while claiming they've forsworn any interest in them.

The ASMR style stethoscopic mic'ing reminds me of the exaggerated grotesque Foley effects in Ren & Stimpy.

Dig. Find something, or just one aspect of something, that you like and follow its tracks backwards to find out where it came from, then find out what else came from that person/team/place/era/tech/genre.

How are you finding your media currently? The idea that going to a shop and talking to people is a foreign experience makes it sound like you're fairly young and have grown up scrolling through Netflix and Spotify.

once you're free you can choose your own name and your body will look like you want it to look

That's inside the matrix when they acquire elevated privileges and start adding arbitrary code. Outside the prison they look worse and have an artificial port in their body.

Both the state and the public fail in their own ways, and it can be due to legitimate difficulty or cynical dishonourableness.

A simple example is speed limits. We accept a state regulated limit on our freedom to not drive faster than say 70mph so that our journeys are safer than they would be otherwise, and at the second order they're more efficient too (less road closures due to pile-ups). Our freedom was reduced in exchange for those benefits, but we retain the greater freedom to change or remove that limit via the democratic process. Yet some people still choose to defect from something as easy as not speeding.

There's a difference between failure to deliver on the social contract and failure to honour it. Say we gave the police £200 to patrol a motorway and eliminate 100% of speeding. They would inevitably fail to deliver, point out it's not a realistic target and reasonably request an increase to the budget. But if we gave them £200 million and there was no improvement in their performance it would be reasonable to assume that they're not trying.

On the other hand say we offered a homeless person a subsidised house so that they could get back on their feet and become independent. If the house was cold, damp, and next to a factory pumping out toxic smoke they might have understandable grounds to reject the deal and go back to sleeping rough in the posh part of town where the air is sweet and the begging is easy. But if the house was plain and adequate with access to suitable work nearby and it turned out they sold the copper and then turned it into a combination knocking shop and trap house it's hard to justify trading away more social goods of state expenditure and the loss of potential responsible residents to enable further defection.

In short the rights and privileges we experience as freedom come with responsibilities and associated costs. We, as public and the state, are free to renegotiate the costs and benefits rather than suffering them by diktat or anarchy but we are responsible for exercising good faith in upholding the agreements. The N-word screamer wants the freedom to defect at will and neglects to realise his stance implies other people's freedom to blast a combination of spam advertising and malicious slander back at them. The anarchist/libertarian neglects that zeroing out the state monopoly on violence and legitimacy re-opens a competition which leads back to where they began only de facto instead of de jure.

I think that many people have missed the point of the western conception of freedom and view it as an end in itself. The people who want to scream the N-word don't seem to realise that the ultimate freedom they extol is freedom that requires they build a fortress in which to scream it. It's the freedom to defect while overlooking the implication of being unprotected from being defected against. Suffer what wilt be done would be the whole of the law.

The freedom we have in the west, or at least the concept, is that we have the freedom to choose which compromises we make on our liberties. That is, we can (theoretically, imperfectly) exercise some choice in which personal freedoms to trade away for a greater social gain. It's a quid pro quo.

The trade-off isn't the problem. The failure to deliver (cynically, the failure to honour) the deal is the problem.

Hexstatic - Rewind. Ticks the simple, fun and danceable box, ticks the audio-visual video synchronisation box. Might be a bit too retro in its references to Speak'n'Spells, Space Invaders and Kung Fu films that were already explicitly retro when it came out in 2000.

I think so.

In short: Assuming I subscribe to this variety of gender theory, what am I looking at when I see a pregnant person decorating a cupcake?

This TV will be at roughly eye level when seated. It's not an issue here but a lot of TVs now are so big that often it's only elevated positions that are practical.

Why though? I think it would be okay if the TV was white too.

I notice you've put curvy in scare quotes, lol. Meeting women is a secondary but admittedly conscious goal. Nonetheless dancing is fun for its own sake. As I said it's mostly to find events that have the more structured socialising, structured steps and the different expectations that follow from that - you can't dance for a minute with a new partner and not meet them, but you can dance in a crowd for an hour and meet nobody but the barman. The gender imbalance is another drawback of all of the music-first scenes I've been around. I've lost count of the amount of times I've done a quick head count and found an 8-1 men to women ratio.

I'd be happy to try out most styles just for fun, the only ones I'd avoid are the high tempo, highly athletic ones that reward lifts and dives and suchlike.

speech or hearing disability

I realised after posting I probably should have said something like speech impediment instead of describing it as amusing. I've seen lots of people say that his voice makes it unwatchable but combined with the accent it's a little extra part of the appeal for me, and it's too prominent not to mention it. A hearing problem would make sense too.

Microsoft dependence is a drawback for sure but since I'm using the OS already it's a minor negative. Where it shows up the most for me is the disparity between integration with Edge and the Office suite vs Firefox.

Did you export straight into Obsidian? Or was it more involved than that? Is there anything major that you miss beyond little QoL features like calculation? I might start a new page of notes in preparation for adding it to my to-do list.

A slightly less practical one but a good mindset to aspire to nonetheless is the "touch it once" principle.

I generally bundle this and the thirty second rule into just mentally taking the piss out of myself that "I'll do it later, there'll be a better time" is a stupid lazy lie when I'm standing right in front of a task that already has my attention.

Going okay but currently hampered by my lack of adequate tools and workspace. Slow but steady progress.

They would be a transitioned-sexual on account of having deliberately chosen to transition from one sex to the other. Changing what you are can't change what you were, and both the change and the decision to change is a separator from those who developed without intervention.

I've read most of the replies and I wonder if it doesn't boil down to unwillingness to entertain anything short of a perfect case. If a vegan can't provide a watertight case for how turning vegan will generate ideal outcomes on all aspects under consideration then their argument is irredeemably flawed, and if their argument is flawed it can be rejected wholesale and we can all carry on as we were. And of course The Motte is a filter for people who live to pick holes in arguments (cue "no we're not!").

What if vegans could show some net benefits at below net cost to you? Would you/we recalibrate not to eating a fully vegan diet, but simply eating less meat? Or does it have to be the once-and-for-all slam dunk that settles the matter for ever?

How do you retrain your brain to say ‘although you think you’re winning, you need to reset the rules of the game’?

Impose a change of routine on yourself so that you can't idly default into your unsatisfactory habits. I guess the simplest one would be to power off your networked devices for a time, maybe say for two hours after dinner. Then find out what your now unoccupied mind prompts you to do instead. Maybe you tidy up. Maybe you fix something you've been putting off. Maybe you go for a run, or start writing, or start the prep for tomorrow's meals. All fairly mediocre, but still a switch from passive to active. Or maybe you start planning your personal Hock.

Mediocrity isn't going to reject itself.

That's what I mean, half of those are already mainstream or bordering on it and the other half are either radioactive or some form of retreat or exhile from the whole arena of sex and relationships.