@AnotherSiteAnotherName's banner p

AnotherSiteAnotherName


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:50:11 UTC

				

User ID: 319

AnotherSiteAnotherName


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:50:11 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 319

Hmm, yes, I can't figure out why people aren't more willing to divulge their secret recipes to you.

I am, no kidding, the 57th great-great granddaughter of the first king of Norway, and it would be a shame to end the royal line.

Bro, you can't go this mask off in trolling. Come on, bro.

I don't see how you can say that masculinity is significantly different in Japan or Korea than the West. Societies where men were still considered leaders, fighters, and those who valued the same masculine attributes/virtues as their counterparts in the West (loyalty, strength/competence, aggression, pursuit of women, stoicism, etc.)

There isn't perfect overlap, (e.g. the aesthetics vary significantly), but I don't see how someone can look at something with 90% similarity and say that it is arbitrary because of that 10%.

If these things were actually arbitrary, you should see massive, significant differences from culture to culture. Women in lots of places should be the sexual/romantic aggressors. Men in lots of places should be considered more sensitive. You shouldn't have to go to the other side of the world, find gender norms that are similar in most ways, and say that because they aren't identical, it must all just be arbitrary.

You say 11% and 12% with the implication that therefore it could be 100%. That doesn't really follow.

There are many things that can vary somewhat from environment, but remain mostly biological. Height would be an obvious example. People can vary in height by 10% based on nutrition while they were growing, but that doesn't mean that it can vary 100% or that it is arbitrary. If you want to argue that gender roles are in a different category, then you need a better argument than that.

I'm surprised that you didn't expect people to watch replays in the most tryhard game in the world. People doing that sort of thing wasn't even an open secret. It was just open.

I suppose men like dating younger women because they realize they’ll treat them better and are better lovers?

Yes? I mean, it obviously isn't the only reason, but there are far, far more 20-somethings who are eligible and without serious emotional baggage than there are 40-somethings. It's the superior dating pool if you want those types of things.

It's not bizarre at all if you remember that ChatGPT has no inner qualia. It does not have any sort of sentience or real thought. It writes what it writes in an attempt to predict what you would like to read.

That is close enough to how people often think while communicating that it is very useful. But that does not mean that it somehow actually has some sort of higher order brain functions to tell it if it should lie or even if it is lying. All that it has are combinations of words that you like hearing and combinations of words that you don't, and it tries to figure them out based on the prompt.

the most popular conservative leaning news aggregator?

I disagree that Drudge is conservative. He is primarily motivated by money/clicks. There is a study that I'm not going to find right now that showed that Drudge is very centrist. He just seems conservative because he comes from an era where there wasn't even Fox News as a counterweight, and he was actually willing to blow the whistle on the Lewinsky scandal when all the other MSM outlets were willing to bury it.

That doesn't follow either. Gender roles aren't "mannerisms." That just goes back to the 10% aesthetic differences, but if the only difference was how you put one leg over the other, gender roles would hardly even be worth mentioning.

Your posts make me wonder if you even think that gender roles are anything besides the aesthetic portion. That would certainly explain why you think they are entirely relative and arbitrary.

And the absolute best hottest sex I've had, the best lovers I've had, have pretty strongly correlated with the societally hottest women I've been with.

"Fit, confident people I'm attracted to really turn me on and make the sex good" is not really an insight, unless you've been spending far too much time on the internet.

Isn't someone sharply and dramatically learning about their deficiencies and delusions a critical part of the hero's journey? That's not to say that a story cycle actually defines a hero. Maybe Zelensky isn't a hero. Maybe we should use a more functional definition of a hero, and he is a hero because that is the role he is acting in for his people. Maybe not. No matter what, I don't think someone's earlier mistakes counts as a disqualification from being a hero.

The fawning tone is undeniable, but on the other hand, users on this site wage the culture war often. It is just usually with a more negative tone/perspective. The truth is that users on this site are far more comfortable with wholly negative criticism because it can be passed off as analysis. Never mind the fact that critical analysis is far child's play next to strong positive claims.

There is a growing miasma of pseudo-intellectual sneering here, perhaps because of its connection to another site. At least this user leaned the other way. At least there was something earnest about his post. It is something this userbase really lacks these days.

You are describing a fairly anodyne observation, that women are more social status conscious and care more about that in their partners, and using Urban Dictionary's almost unrecognizable definition and describing them as whores, which conflates hypergamy with being sexually loose for money.

I don't think many of the people you are describing would primarily think of women as whores. They would describe them as gold diggers. Or maybe they would describe them as whores. But not because of hypergamy. They are very distinct traits, even if they are both leveraging sex appeal for personal benefit.

It’s often paired with claims that females—not women—are the real hypergamists. Thus it becomes “sorry fellas, so long as society is willing to tolerate women acting like whores, your married/responsible/trad ass can’t expect fair treatment.”

Maybe we should look up a word before we write an analysis. Your search bar is right there. Type hypergamy into it.

these criticisms will absolutely never be levelled at neighbourhoods made up of black people or Hispanics

To be fair, these people never actually live in majority-minority places. I almost never see these people in places like the Bronx that are absolutely dominated by minorities. They just know places like Brooklyn or whatever. I might be damning them through faint praise here. I don't know.

Also, to be fair to these minorities, I actually have lived in the Bronx as a white person, and minorities are generally pretty nice to me. It's other minorities that they are biased against.

As a very strong rule, this is not the case for financial news Corps. WSJ and Bloomberg are paywalled and subscriber only because their reporting is considered financially worthwhile for their subscribers. They are very different than most media, which is primarily for entertainment.

I'm describing not following the rules as not following the rules. Men introducing exceptions to divinely ordained rules and then following those rules is very much breaking the rules.

Just because a rule is easy to follow doesn't make it null.

That would be fine if you were still actually following it. But the entire point of eruv is making it so you don't have to follow onerous rules anymore because they are hard.

If you think that the division between public and private is entirely nonsense and a misinterpretation of the law, that's fine. Totally legitimate.

If you think that the traditional view is correct in its interpretation of shabbat, that's fine. Entirely consistent and expected.

But what isn't legitimate is coming up with an interpretation of the law, deciding that is sacrosanct and correct, and then, later on when that process turns out to be onerous, deciding that God really views some string wrapped around a space of, really, any size, as a way to entirely neutralize that interpretation of the law. Divinely ordained deontology that you introduce weird little hacks into is pure nonsense. Are you supposed to take things out into public or not? And if it's really about the spirit of the law, not the letter (not really something I have ever heard from a Talmudic scholar, but let's say for the sake of argument), then the line isn't necessary at all.

I'd also point out that plenty of religions do this sort of thing.

And if you'd said that you prefer your religion's weird nonsense over other religion's nonsense, that would be one thing. Requiring Hail Marys as penitence is entirely nonsensical, sure. But you acted like your religion is different. It's not. You're just used to it.

Yeah, presuming that men would have sex with as many women as possible if possible seems to come from a place of inexperience. I enjoy flirting and am good at it, but texting back and forth with five women at once literally takes all your time. It will consume your entire evening, and you won't have as nearly an in-depth conversation as you could have had one on one. I suspect that only the most dedicated womanizer could keep that pace up long-term.

When men say they like a thin waist, they mean relative to the hips and bust. Women trying to fit into a size 0 dress is something that they do for other women. Not for men. (This is not meant to imply that no men prefer women with a tiny build).

I just looked this up because I find this hard to believe. The mountain-dwelling, hairy, clannish, greedy dwarves check off more Scottish stereotypes than Jewish ones.

I found this link: https://www.timesofisrael.com/are-tolkiens-dwarves-an-allegory-for-the-jews/ saying that Tolkien didn't intend the Jewish-Dwarf analogue

he's not a comedic actor.

Clearly you have not seen Spy. He can deliver deadpan humor very well.

If Biden gives Xi Jinping anything, I will consider him a total failure as a president. The rise in hostile actions from China came entirely during Xi's regime, and they came amid reassurances that they wouldn't happen.

He is crawling back now because China is in a position of weakness, but things will go back to the way they were the moment he feels confident.

yes it is the same problem

No, it is a financially different problem for the exact same reason that hardware is different than software. Software has infinite do-overs at malleable speed. Hardware has to work in reality. Sure, after enough refining, ML will be able to manufacture a complete car. But how many attempts would it have to undergo first? Even ignoring the iterations on the manufacturing hardware itself, how much money would you have to spend on materials and energy in your tens of thousands of attempts to teach the ML how to manufacture a car? And then there is the political cost. What defect rate will people be willing to put up with from entirely autonomous robotic manufacturing? Almost certainly, it will be a lower rate than what we put up with from humans. Especially if it is from a black box like current ML.

Your link agrees with me. They even recommend a book called Gold Diggers and Sugar Daddies: The Red Pill Guide to Hypergamy by Player Mastermind.

Saying that the rules are divine commands and then trying to hack them so that they are effectively rendered null is not believing in the rules.

Hanging a line around an area is purely a hack for convenience, not a principled distinction. Hanging a line around an entire city is a hack of a hack for convenience.

If the law is a divine mandate, you should actually follow it! Creating your own loopholes and then acting like observing the Sabbath is still somehow sacrosanct is pure intellectual nonsense