@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

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.

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.

Not to mention the banality of Rotherham.

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.

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.

That was always strange to me. Who are the real Masters if Slave Morality is strong enough to subdue Master Morality? It reminds me of the JQ paradox, that Jews are simultaneously weak, cowardly, dissolute, and pathetic, and also somehow powerful, full of chutzpah, fanatical, and fearsome. Does Nietzsche ever address why Master Morality is not naturally dominant since it's apparently so awesome and life-affirming?

Thanks, done.

when they have tasted success, you teach, adding "why" to "how" and praising their results

Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean that instead of "Please do task X which includes items A, B, C, and D" you say something like "Please do task X so that we can accelerate our progress on task Y?"

Thanks, this is helpful.

Delegation is almost done, I think. I'll be fully out of IC tasks by next week, and from then on I'll only be working on low-priority tech work to keep my skills sharp (my boss encourages this).

I'm taking copious notes during 1:1 because I am indeed bad with kids' names and birthdays. But more importantly I want to be able get into their heads as you describe and motivate them by findng cool career building opportunities and stimulating work for them.

What's your strategy for feedback? I'm thinking of asking for written feedback quarterly in the vein of "What are two things I could be doing differently to better serve you and the team?" but also asking for opinions on individual during our weekly 1:1s.

Direct communication of deadlines and task assignments is something I'm not too worried about since I've never really felt guilty or awkward about it. I've personally always liked terse, direct managers because it keeps the interaction short so that I can go back to what I was doing. I think it also helps to know your people so that you can triage work to people who will enjoy it and anticipate pushback from people who might not. Any potential pitfalls I might be missing due to my inexperience, though?

Care to speak plainly? The rhetorical questions are getting tired.

Oops, good catch, my wording was completely wrong. I meant that if two black men abused and killed a white child, I wouldn't be surprised for them to get away with a relatively light sentence.

Russia has apparently been abducting tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Children. The prospects of getting these kids BACK even if Ukraine wins are slim-to-none.

I'm no Russia apologist but this seems like maximally uncharitable framing, and I'm extremely skeptical of that wiki article since it seems like blue tribe has thrown in completely with Zelensky. Having never heard of that, I assumed that Russians were literally driving around in vans and snagging kids to send them back to the motherland to process into Soylent Green or something since I can't imagine why they would bother rounding up kids in a war zone. But apparently they're just collecting war orphans, kids who were stuck in government institutions, and kids who were orphans before the war broke out, and trying to place them in Russian homes.

I'm not really sure what the alternative is. Send them across a chaotic active military front? Leave them to scrounge for rats to eat in bombed out apartment blocks? Having read the AP news article cited in the wiki (NYT one is paywalled), the biggest complaints are that the kids aren't being sent to the other side of Ukraine (which makes sense since as far as Russia is concerned eastern Ukraine is part of Russia now) and that the kids are being taught Russian which apparently counts as "genocide." From the kids' perspectives, western Ukraine and Russia are probably both very foreign, and wherever they get sent in Russia will almost certainly be farther away from the warzone then wherever they'd end up in Ukraine.

This is as bad as "kids in cages," and it makes it really hard for me to take seriously any claims of Russian war crimes (of which I'm sure there are many real examples) since western media is so eager to exaggerate to push an image of Russians as sadistic child-stealing orcs.

I dunno, man. I'm pretty sure that if Jan 6th was a bit hotter the cops would've started shooting people and would probably have been exonerated for doing so. Look how draconian the legal repercussions have been for Jan 6 participants.

Not so for BLM. I don't blame cops for not shooting BLM rioters, they knew that the full force of the radical left-wing political machines would come down on them and utterly ruin their lives.

I'm always really suspicious of supposed statistical bias like this. People use percentages as a smarter-sounding way to say "almost none," "not enough," "some," "a lot," "too many," and "almost all." I notice that I do this quite a bit and other people seem to grok what I'm trying to convey.

So in your example, when Joe Blow says "Dang man, our office is half female now!" If you were to respond "Do you mean to say that you believe that precisely 37 individuals out of the 74 total who work in our office are female?" Joe wouldn't say "Yes, that is indeed my hypothesis." He'd say something like "Shit man, hell if I know, all I'm saying is that ever since that new HR lady and those two chicks from accounting got hired it feels like I can't crack a single joke without people freaking out on me!" Joe's not making a statistical statement, he's using "half" to mean "too many."

In the second example, I don't think she actually really has any particular strong feelings about MTG. She's just jabbing you a bit to see what you'll do. The correct response is to make a little joke and move on.

Your response IMO comes across as trying a bit too hard to convey "I'm totally not a dweeb!!" You're responding to directly to her little jab and "entering her frame," as they say. Plus you're calling her brother odd and she might think you're a dick for that (she's feels she's allowed to do that but you, a stranger, are not).

They prey on naïve Westerners who are good people, and thus believe that other people are good people too.

What would you do?

Nothing. I wouldn't want to prevent them from learning a very important lesson about their fellow man.

So the question becomes - how do we set up a society in which people can routinely take small risks or deal with small amounts of adversity, and learn to become more agentic in steps as they grow?

By instilling terminal values in parents that incentivize them to expose their own children to doses of adversity at each age and to foster in them a sense of responsibility for their choices and for those circumstances over which they can exercise control. I think that's the only way, unless you want to go full Plato's Republic.

Thank you.

I accept that point and agree with you. Regardless of whether or not it's actual "kidnapping," it is is surely very bad for the future of an independent Ukrainian nation.

My wife is pretty tomboyish, and we have a pretty normal relationship minus the occasionally flipped gender roles.

This is actually how my relationship is, but I wouldn't call my wife a tomboy. Maybe we need more shades of meaning than "wheat field tradwife" and "tomboy."

And since we're pathologizing each other's preferences,

I don't think you're the sort of person I'm talking about in the OP, but thanks I guess.