@ActuallyATleilaxuGhola's banner p

ActuallyATleilaxuGhola

Axolotl Tank Class of '21

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 08 09:59:22 UTC

				

User ID: 1012

ActuallyATleilaxuGhola

Axolotl Tank Class of '21

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 08 09:59:22 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1012

Here are my uncharitable unfiltered thoughts on the matter: something is seriously wrong with you and other people like you, and you're either unaware of it or willfully ignoring it. Maybe your standards are too high, maybe you lack social skills and weird people out, maybe you're fatter than you think, I don't know. But something isn't right.

I'm not really singling out you specifically, but I just don't understand where these posts come from. I'm a barely above average person. I'm 5'7"/170cm (!!!), face is maybe a 7/10 though under age 25 or so I often got called "cute" (never handsome or hot), body is... I dunno, 6/10? I'm not fat and not ripped, just "normal" I guess. I come from rural nowhere America from a middle-middle class family, went to an average college in a rural state, and prior to marriage made a below average salary. I'm not particularly witty or suave, though I am friendly and genuine and perceived as non-threatening. Never was athletic or played sports, but was also never overweight (until my mid 20s). I'm definitely less intelligent than many people on this board and I only did reasonably well in school, definitely wasn't near the top of my class. I majored in an uncool liberal arts subject and currently work in an unsexy part of tech and make a meh salary for a tech worker.

My point is that my stats are thoroughly mediocre except for some minor strengths here and there (and one big weakness). And yet, after turning 18 I dated continuously for 8 years (4 different women) until getting married at 26. I never had trouble finding a girlfriend, there was always someone in my social circle who I thought was cute and vice versa. I'd rate these women as 7/5/6/8, so I want knocking it out of the park looks-wise, but it was better than being alone and thirsty. I'm only in my early 30s, so this isn't advice in the vein of "just ask to speak to the manager and give him a firm handshake." Perhaps your standards are just too high?

tl;dr as a mediocre person I was able to pull it off, so anyone should be able to pull it off barring serious handicaps.

I can't really do anything with that information.

You can understand the conflict in the proper context instead of falling for a false sense of balance ("historical bad blood"). Do American Indians have "historical bad blood" with white settlers? In a disingenuous sense, yes. But it's more correct to say that the Indians are aggrieved at the conquest and loss of their lands than to imply it's some sort of "Hatfield and McCoy" situation where they've just "always been killing each other."

In a way, it would have been better if the Jews hadn't been so ideologically commit to settle the region of Palestine. (But wouldn't that alt-history most likely end with more Jews staying in Europe for the Holocaust? That doesn't seem optimal either.)

It would've been bad for the Jews had more of them been within Hitler's grasp, yes. But why should the Palestinians pay the price? Would you give up half of your country to the Tutsi to save them from the Hutus? Why not?

But in the world we live in, there was and is a significant amount of Jews with high ideological commitment to live in Palestine. They semi-legally "invaded" the territory (as did many Arab immigrants during the relevant years). After much turmoil, the Jew came out on top. It still seems bad to me that Jews are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount

In the world we live in, the Soviets decided to take over Eastern Europe, create a bunch of puppet states, and bus in a bunch of Russians. It still seems bad to me that local languages are spoken and that Russians face discrimination. Knowing that Soviet tanks rolled through the streets in the 1940s doesn't change my opinion much.

You can't just arbitrarily draw a line and ignore all history before that point and expect to understand anything. I'm not on favor of affirmative action or reparations, for example, but I would never deny that to understand black Americans you'd need to know about slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights era, effects of Great Society, crack epidemic, etc. It would be foolish to simply say "blacks and whites have always hated each other, blacks are rioting in the streets and whites aren't, ergo blacks bad." It's more complex than that and context matters.

We understand that it’s a very important part of your life, that you do not wish to have your faith shaken, and that overall it’s just not a conversation worth having with you.

I like your posts but this is pretty weak and it really cuts both ways. An uncharitable mirror-statement: "We understand that you atheists don't want your self-serving delusions shaken because it's important to maintaining your hedonistic lifestyle and you probably couldn't handle it, so we theists just don't bring it up."

The more charitable view is that theists/non-theists just hold to different, very defensible axioms and that unless you want to debate those axioms there's no point in having a discussion. And frankly there is probably an incredibly massive amount of self-serving rationalization going on on both sides because we're all human beings.

What's with the extreme Polish seething relative to other post-Soviet states? The most irrationally hateful anti-Russian posters I see online are Polish. Many Eastern European countries suffered under the Soviets, but AFAIK there wasn't anything uniquely awful about Poland's experience? Perhaps "Russian Oppression" has just become central in their national historical narrative in a way that it has not in other Eastern European countries? Like slavery for Black Americans, the Japanese occupation for Korea, the "Century of Humiliation" for China, etc.

This sound really similar to the "cities are IQ shredders" argument. IMO the only way to fix this is by gov't fiat since the benefits from incentivizing eusocial/high IQ people to reproduce accrue to a society as a whole over a long time period rather than to a specific company or individual, and so they are not selected for in a liberal, capitalistic, relatively hedonistic society.

That's true. Books and films on these topics makes instruments of Leftist moral education. But IMO racism or mass killing of perceived enemies are not the ultimate sins (though they're certainly not good), so these sorts of books are grating to me. I imagine a Leftist would feel the same about, say, The Passion of The Christ.

That's an interesting anecdote, thanks for sharing. I'm not too surprised to hear it since I've come to believe that the overwhelming majority of people are the way you describe. I work in tech in a very blue tribe and progressive company. The engineers here are smart, heck even the salespeople here are pretty smart relative to most salespeople I've met. In my first year here I (perhaps unwisely) tried to discuss ideas with some of my closer colleagues. Each time, I was met with talking points or indifference. I think that the vast majority of people are just uninterested in and/or incapable of contributing to a discussion about complex abstract ideas. Now I mostly talk about TV shows, beer, or people to get along.

If the regeneration of the West ever comes, it will come after the traditionalists’ descendants recreate something like worst aspects of the middle ages.

The "respect for authority" gene can't be mutually exclusive with creativity. If it were, humanity would never have gotten to where it is today. Widespread suspicion and rejection of authority is a very recent and, I suspect, very American phenomenon. The vast majority of people in history just took the authority of their rulers and social betters as a given, and yet somehow they managed to produce beautiful art and novel ideas all the same.

Also, I think this depends heavily on your definition of "regeneration." If it means "a return to liberal secular humanist values, the sexual revolution, and atomized individualism" then yes, I agree. But to me that would be degeneration, not regeneration.

If these supposedly stultified traditionalists built a society based on respect for hierarchy and love of God, county, family, and peace, I would see that as a regeneration of Western society to its former glory. A modern observer might think therewould be less "creative ferment" because there might be no more tumorous postmodern skyscrapers, no more "piss Christ" exhibits, no more international NGOs evangelizing an ever expanding list of "human rights" to coerce societies to ever greater levels of "freedom." But then he might be missing the innovations in classical architecture, the Renaissance in symbolic religious art, or the flourishing of local "intermediate institutions" binding communities and families closer together in a way that is sorely missing in his own time.

First off, I agree. I used to hear conservatives say things like "she shouldn't be having four kids if she can't afford them" or "you shouldn't have children if you're not prepared to raise them." I don't hear it so much anymore. But I think that's a good thing.

What does it even mean to be "prepared" to have kids? Nobody is ever prepared. Ever. "Preparing" for kids, so-called family planning, is just some shit that popped up in WEIRD countries since the pill came along. The jury is still very much out on the entire concept. And given our demographics the verdict does not look promising, at least from a societal health angle.

Anyway, what are the criteria? How old do the parents need to be? How much money do they need to have saved? How big should their house be? How far along in their careers should the be? How emotionally mature should they be? I guess all that depends on the bare minimum "quality of life" that one (personally!) thinks the child should have. But that's just kicking the can down the road -- I can't think of anything more subjective than "quality of life" outside of outlandish situations like the Omelas kid.

So "nuts" to people who want to dictate who is and isn't prepared to have kids.

Now I’ve got an urge to map the exact route by which he moved the goalposts, but I’m trying to cool down a bit before posting.

I'd be interested in reading this as I'm often baffled and fascinated at my boomer relatives' logic.

As a fellow male, I agree. But most girls aren't interested in hearing your nerd flexes, they're trying to figure out whether you have basic social skills and whether or not you're a weirdo/loser.

Dumb question but how does that actually work in practice? Does the SEC or FBI or whoever beam out a list of naughty people to gate agent terminals at airports across the country, and if someone on the naughty list tries to board the computer shows a big red warning icon or something? What's stopping SBF from driving to some rarely used Mexican border checkpoint and driving to the nearest Mexican international airport and then flying to [country without an extradition agreement with the U.S.]?

Have you been paying attention to Eastern Europe? At all?

Did you read my comment? At all? Climb down off the righteous indignation. I asked:

What's with the extreme Polish seething relative to other post-Soviet states?

Key point being "relative to other post-Soviet states." Many Eastern European countries have unresolved border disputes. So what? That doesn't explain at all why I have observed Polish posters writing way more genocidal, warmongering stuff towards Russians compared to other former Eastern bloc nations.

Fair enough.

Not to mention the banality of Rotherham.

If there is any genetic trait that insular religious sects select for in their members, it is going to be WORM type of brain.

Citation sorely needed. This just sounds like some uncharitable "all religions are cults and believers are just brainless automatons" claptrap.

"In your childhood, listen carefully to authority figures and never ever in your whole life question what you have learned."

But their parents will have spent their entire lives actively resisting and disobeying authority figures to adhere to their traditions? That sounds like the opposite of your 1-dimensional strawman.

As a side note, I've engaged with you several times here and you're only ever abrasive and uncharitable. I'm not really sure what your goal is, but it doesn't seem to be to convince those who may disagree with you, so I'll probably reply less going forward. Feel free to have the last word.

This is why you run your own Plex server. If you don't want to buy all the hardware, you can rent a seedbox that runs Plex. My kids only watch pre-2000 cartoons and movies.

I guess Leftist propaganda has done a number on me because when a new book about the Holocaust or Racism or whatever comes out in $currentyear (although admittedly this one predates mass TDS by a few years) I steel myself for the inevitable parallel between Conservatives/Christians/White males/etc and the not-so-subtle implication that people who oppose immigration are literally SS guards or that people who are not in favor of "trans rights" are little Bull Connors. I'm still willing to read stories about the Holocaust that were written a decade or two after the fact, but I treat anything written later with extreme skepticism, because at some point (maybe during the 60s and 70s?) the Holocaust was elevated from "terrible thing that happened" to "the worst and purest example of evil in human history" and assumed near-mythical qualities. The Civil Rights Movement on the other hand seems to have undergone the transformation to myth almost immediately so I am extremely selective and skeptical when consuming anything about that period.

When a book about the Fall of the Roman Empire comes out, I expect it's going to be a dry history, maybe revealing a few new discoveries or advancing some new theories. There are books that try to draw parallels between the British Empire/American Republic to claim that we're repeating history, which by this point is quite a tired and trite comparison, but they're not usually imbued with the same moral outrage.

Honestly as I wrote the post I had the same intuition. Maybe I'm undervaluing how important social skills are, especially whatever you call the highly situational "reading the room" skill. I am pretty good at reading people and intuiting their motivations.

I have a cousin who is in his mid 20s, 6'0", thin, reasonably handsome face, has a CS degree and a good job. He could probably do modeling. But he's kind of weird, lacks confidence, and dresses like a dork (he goes for a hipster look that was edgy 10 or 15 years ago, which is about as uncool as you can get now). He's really sensitive to criticism and shuts down if he feels people aren't taking him seriously or are making fun of him (even if it's good natured).

You hear all this talk online about how only looks matter, but I think we all know at least one ugly dude who was so charismatic, confident, and/or cool that he never had problems getting laid, making friends, or getting into leadership roles. He always seemed to have a girlfriend and was often chatting up other girls on the side. To me, the existence of these people (and to a lesser degree people like me) is a fatal blow to all this lookism stuff.

And the good news is that unlike your looks, you really can work on your social skills. Before age 16 or so I was a shy little wimp who was all but ignored by girls. I had a "fuck it" moment around 16, and started being a lot more assertive and aggressive towards other people in what I thought was a self-destructive way... only the destruction never came. Instead, people just listened to me more and took me more seriously. The sky didn't fall, I didn't get my ass kicked. And girls started to think I was worth their consideration.

Obviously my epiphany isn't something you can replicate in a lab. Perhaps it's a point that everyone has to reach on his own. But my point is that it's at least possible, and without the need for shoe inserts or mewing or whatever.

You're arguing in favor of a broad definition of tomboy, while I'm talking about something rather narrow. From the linked meme in the OP:

  • Thinks makeup is stupid

  • Likes porn

  • Likes video games

  • Rough speech like "I'm gonna kick your ass/suck my dick/fag"

  • Gets mistaken for a boy

  • Puts you in headlocks

Sounds like a boy or young man to me.

Trigger warning: traditional gender roles

But I enjoy providing, protecting, and listening. That's what men by nature want to do. I think men who don't want to do that have something wrong with them, like women who hate children or want to spend their life in an office cubicle instead of marrying . Those men are either abnormal or immature (I believe "manchildren" is the hip term).

I don't want my girlfriend to be my friend, she's not a dude, she's a romantic partner. She fulfills a different need. I have male friends who fill the other role. A tomboy just seems like subpar gf mixed with a subpar buddy.

IME people who complain about their hobbies being "uncool" are actually just bad at talking about them and might just be bad conversationalists in general. I think there's a right way and a wrong way to introduce "low status" hobbies:

"So are you into board games or card games? You are? Nice, which games? Yeah, I like that one too. These days I mainly play MTG with friends, have you ever played? Oh really? We should play sometime, I could show you the ropes."

vs.

"Hobbies? Well, I'm really into Magic The Gathering. I was in a tournament last week. I usually play with control decks, usually blue/black, but I've been experimenting with some new deck types lately. I'm really excited for the March of the Machines. Do you like Magic?"

In the first example, the speaker gradually established that the other person was interested, while in the second example the speaker just sort of spaghetti'd all over the place with no concern for whether the other person was interested. Just this past week I got into a conversation with a normies female coworker about anime over drinks and I ended up talking about some really niche shows. The conversation was light-hearted and bidirectional, and she seemed to come away with an impression of me as "funny and quirky" rather than "creepy and nerdy."

It's all about how you steer the conversation and about whether you can laugh at yourself and handle little shit tests. For example if in the above MTG example, she were to say something like

"Magic? Ugh really? My dorky little brother plays that."

you could respond with

"I dunno, he sounds like a pretty cool guy to me. Maybe he'll let you borrow his deck so we can play. So what sort of games do you like?"

instead of getting flustered or embarrassed.

Is this new? I don't think I've been in a Target since Covid. I don't remember Target or Walmart stocking LGBT themed stuff even in places like the greater Seattle area.

This is a damned good post that deserves a serious response, one that I cannot provide. But my intuition is that the self-employed class ended up dying off before they could form a class consciousness. All that remained were wage workers who, while never having known the open-sky freedom of self-employment, still knew that factory labor servitude was a shit deal, and so they embraced socialism which spoke more directly to them and their station in life.

EDIT: Definitely replied to the wrong post, but I can't find the post I had intended to reply to. RIP. : (

I'm not really sure what your point is other than that "Glorious Technocratic Bugpod Future" is a somewhat uncharitable phrasing, which I will concede. Would you prefer "Glorious Technocratic Soyshack Future" instead? I don't want to eat bugs or fake meat, I don't want to live in a pod or in whatever square footage that globalists deem adequate for plebians like me. We can argue over whether the Planet Health Diet must necessarily include insect protein, or where the precise line between "studio" and "pod" lies, but that doesn't seem very productive.

it is a call to resist a non-existent conspiracy

You literally cited the WEF in response to both points, so I think "non-existent" doesn't hold water. And the WEF is not some isolated crackpot think tank, they have many influential members and connections. Do I think that we're all going to be rounded up in FEMA camps next year where we will be forced to live in shipping containers and eat crickets for breakfast lunch and dinner? No. But do I think tha a subset of global elites wants to drastically downgrade my standard of living and my dietary health and, worse yet, feel themselves morally compelled to and fully justified in doing so? Yes, because they say so themselves.

Re. Feser:

"The Last Superstition" is a polemic against New Atheism that, while technically correct about how laughably ignorant many New Atheist arguments were of philosophy, isn't going to convince the unconvinced simply due to how angry it is.

"Scholastic Metaphysics" looks very good. I'm ashamed to say I've owned a copy for two years and have yet to start it. He is good at making tricky, subtle philosophical concepts accessable even to a dumb ox like yours truly, though.

You could also check out his blog archives for a taste. Many posts are topical and/or polemical so look for ones where he addresses particular concept.