BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
No bio...
User ID: 3614
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
1mo ago
The current advice is insufficient only in that it is not clear enough to men that they need to stop whining.
Whaaa this untamable wilderness isn't being fair Whaaa this untamable ocean isn't being fair Whaaa this vast untable universe isn't being fair None of the men who have ever done anything of note ever at any point in human history have done so by meeting something that was fair. Your effort and the effort of the women you want to date will not be equal. It will not balance out. If anything, the shortcoming of the advice you have heard is that you would ever expect that.
Man was not owed the wilderness, and men are not owed women.
Good comment, I agree entirely.
Men conquered the women, conquered the wilderness, and they should go about reconquering the women.
One day, this past 150 year interlude can be looked back on as the sexual post-apocalypse, before men as a whole reconquered and subjugated the world again.
Great post.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
1mo ago
Most of why I'm not into it is because my morality, the rest is because of a sense that wanting to restrict women's sexual liberties as a man is loser-coded and the proper masculine thing to do is to let women do whatever they want and attract them anyway, not to try to restrict their sexual decisions.
Dragging only this chunk out to comment on it.
If you firmly believe this, it implies that men as they acted for the first 6000 years or so of civilization had masculinity wrong. I find this to be extremely improbable, and I am betting that you are operating strictly on modern vibes regarding masculinity, which I believe are actually designed to destroy masculinity in both thought and deed.
If I am wrong and you feel you have applied a great deal of thought to the idea, then I accept we have come to different conclusions. But if on reflection you also think that you may just be running on vibes, I urge you to really dig deep into how some male role model of yours in the pre-modern era approached his interactions with women.
Speaking from a different fight sport, your idea of going to other open mats is a good one. I think you’ve said you’ve gone to other gyms before when you travel, and traveling to fight different people and see different styles is awesome. You can get significantly the same benefits by just hitting every other gym in town occasionally, which is convenient.
Alert your partner that you want to roll intensely, if they want to negotiate you down, try to stick to your guns and cone to some agreement, like “Our third roll will be competition caliber.” Then do your best to just crush them (with technique and your natural gifts.) Maybe you win, maybe you lose, but you will eventually get a better feel for rolling in your top gear.
Also, not saying you specifically are doing this, but I see it in fighters sometimes. They get to be friends with people at the gym or the club, and then they develop a bit of a mental block about really just smashing their friend/opponent. It’s okay to crush their dreams (on the mat, with technique+natural gifts.) Just keep being the same you before and after, and they will more likely than not love and appreciate the challenge.
Iron sharpens iron or some such cliche but also true BS.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
1mo ago
Bob Jones is already buck broken. They’re 10% minority now and haven’t restricted interracial relationships for a quarter of a century.
They even let women wear pants these days.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
Can’t speak fully to the others, but Ligotti is very leftist.
Q: Does it irritate you to hear that some people consider you a nihilist?
A: I would call myself a pessimist. At one time I thought it simply inaccurate for anyone to call me a nihilist, since the dictionary definition of nihilist applies to me in very few of its aspects. The term nihilist is more apt in connection with someone like Nietzsche, for whom I have no use at all. Nietzsche also considered himself a type of pessimist, but after he ceased to admire Schopenhauer he modified the term pessimism so that it carried almost none of its original meaning. These days I don’t mind being called a nihilist, because what people usually mean by this word is someone who is anti-life, and that definition fits me just fine, at least in principle. In practical terms, I have all kinds of values that are not in accord with nihilism.For example, I politically self-identify as a socialist. I want everyone to be as comfortable as they can be while they’re waiting to die. Unfortunately, the major part of Western civilization consists of capitalists, whom I regard as unadulterated savages. As long as we have to live in this world, what could be more sensible than to want yourself and others to suffer as little as possible? This will never happen because too many people are unadulterated savages. They’re brutal and inhuman.
For the people, and truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as any body whomsoever. But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government, sirs. That is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
Ashli Babbitt was a very stupid person who got what she was asking for. Putting barricades in place is a signal that one is willing to use violence. It may not be an accurate or reliable signal, but it is a signal. Therefore, Ashli should have been prepared for and expecting violence when she overcame that barricade, just like the first man reaching the top of the wall expects the defenders to use extreme violence to deter him and everyone after him. Her being shot and killed is not police brutality, or a crime. It is one side engaging in violence in the pursuit of its goals.
That being said, movements run with the martyrs they’ve got, even if I could wish for a higher caliber of martyr.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
The topic of this past Sunday’s homily at my parish touched on how Gnosticism is the great heresy from which many smaller heresies sprang.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
In the West, broadly interpreted, you’re probably looking at the gap between pre-civilizational primitive democracies and the Assyrian Empire, more or less. That would seem to be the peak period of God-Emperor creation worldwide, and thus the least likely to retain the concept of elections for power positions.
But voting is just “My warrior band all gets a say, because that keeps us all pointed in the same direction” writ large, so I suspect voting played a role, even if a small one, in the God-Emperor states as well. There’s no point in having a council if you can’t get a sense of the room.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
What is it about modern society that has given rise to this absolutely overblown concern for “suffering?” We live in the most hedonic times imaginable in all of human history, and so the idea that anything less than total hedonic pleasure, or even less than net (50%+1) hedonic pleasure makes life not worth living is utterly bizarre to me. Millennia of people, intellectuals and not, passed through life experiencing plague, famine, short life expectancies, unanesthetized surgeries and dying of untreated cancers without coming to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to stop having kids, kill themselves early, or kill everyone.
This doesn’t even get into the issues surrounding this anti-life thinking and the hedonic treadmill. If my Oreo is good today, should I live? If it is slightly less good tomorrow, should I propose panicide?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
I was at my local organic co-op today, and I discovered that they have, as is typical of hippy-dippy stores, a reusable bag policy. In this case, every reusable bag I use, up to four total bags, gets me a small discount.
Being the sort of person who posts on the Motte, I immediately thought of gaming this system by putting as few items as possible in each bag. Preferably, I would buy four items, put one item in each bag, walk the bags out to my car, deposit the items in a separate container, then go back inside and repeat the cycle as often as necessary to get everything I want and maximize the discount.
This is, of course, both strictly legal under the store’s very poorly written policy, and also going to get me banned in no time.
But it led me to think of the deeper issue. Many, perhaps all, policies and laws are prone to extreme lawyer-brain galactic thinking like this. Imagine that the store couldn’t just ban me, because I am a member of the store and they can’t just get rid of me, and they must also put in place a policy that is fair to every member of the store. So they start trying to specify the volume of bag that must be filled, the types and sizes of bags that are allowed, minimum item counts in each bag. Soon, cashiers are bogged down in the minutiae of various arcane bag to discount ratios, rather than just scanning items and making pleasant small talk. Everyone is worse off, and the only plausible escape is to eliminate the discount itself, thus taking away a benefit of being a store member and reducing the overall value of that status, causing long-term harm to the store’s “health,” as it were.
Fortunately for my local Hippy Mart, they can still keep a FAFO policy in place for the chronically politically diseased such as myself. Anyways, I was just thinking about this and the contrast with the American legal system, which would be obviously incapable of maintaining such a simple and poorly written policy for longer than a nanosecond or two.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
A: What evidence is there that any/some/all of the dead died because there was no overnight forecaster? I checked the stats for 2023, a good Biden year, and there were 87 dead from tornadoes that year, including 23 from a single storm. 27 doesn’t seem wildly out of line with those numbers.
B: Was the NWS mandated to cut permanent overnight forecasters, or did they choose to cut that position to save other preferred bureaucratic spending priorities, or did they just go straight to malicious compliance and make the worst possible cuts?
C: Did the former overnight forecaster just take a buyout, possibly? You can’t force people to stick around on the job, and I wouldn’t be surprised if NWS offices have gone without permanent forecasters for a while in the past.
D: How many NWS offices surround the Jackson office’s area of responsibility? While tornadoes are notoriously localized and unpredictable, if the permanent forecaster has been gone for longer than a week or so, it seems like any serious agency would have taken steps to get as much forecasting ability as possible from other supporting offices.
E: At a minimum, the following:
As the MAGA-rampage against science continues unabated, how many more will pay for the ignorance of this administration?
With an above-normal hurricane season starting in two week, how far will Americans let these threats to public safety go?
Does not strike me as the sort of phrasing used by someone who is simply expressing scientific concerns without fear or favor.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
It reads like ChatGPT, very much so.
You will catch trolls, idiots, and other bots. If that’s your target, you’re spot-on.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
Okay, I can’t speak to liberal university college students, not having gone to college, but that wasn’t the original assertion.
I can tell you anecdotally, n=1, that while “Normal Christians” in flyover country won’t know the jargon, they are definitely aware that people are out there, both on the coasts and in flyover country, trying a new spin on justifying sexual sin.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
You keep making these assertions, and I am willing to tentatively grant that Aella specifically maybe isn’t on the radar of “Normal Christians,” but hearing about polyamory is unavoidable, even out here in deep flyover country.
Do “Normal Christians” have more than a surface-level awareness of the concept and a desire to grant debating the concept any more time than “That’s just fornication with extra steps?” Probably not, but I would anecdotally state that they do know it is a thing.
This is going to be, quite-possibly, a below-illiterate tech question, so please bear with me and save all openly expressed disdain for the end.
I run a small business that makes about $20K a year, as a side hustle. I started soon after AI hit the mainstream and have found the $20 a month tier of ChatGPT to be invaluable for streamlining administrivia type tasks such as boilerplate emails, plus helpful for very early brainstorming and having a minimally effective sales pitch in 15 minutes. I still do some amount of cleaning up for these processes, less for the boilerplate things, more for the creative things. I have trained a couple of GPT’s to be focused on the specific tasks I need them for, and will continue to do so as/if I expand.
My question is, am I missing out on some capability by only using the basic bitch version of GPT? Could I be getting more bang for my buck, better sales emails, better crafted first pass sales pitches, more automation, etc, by changing products? Should I use a different LLM company, or pay for API access, or buy a good GPU and train my own sandslave, or what? Or am I fine where I’m at?
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
Some of the prose in On the Marble Cliffs was mind-blowing.
Maybe I’m an illiterate savage or whatever, but I think especially of the lines towards the beginning, describing the snakes in the garden, and it’s just perfect visual imagery.
He really is a wildly underrated writer, almost certainly because he wasn’t the right sort for mid and late 20th century literary circles, and I’m glad he’s seeing a Renaissance.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
Which is unfortunate and significantly part of modernist Catholicism’s problem with total incoherency.
Catholics can all agree that the specific rules of the Old Testament law have been superseded, while understanding that God instituted just laws and punishments for the Israelites. So it becomes very awkward to say that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” when the everlasting God both was and is implementing death penalties.
I don’t buy sedevacantism or the idea that Francis and other modern popes have been heretics (although Francis probably skated closest to the line), but I do generally treat them like John XII or Alexander VI. Sometimes there are good Popes, sometimes you get a string of bad Popes and in the fullness of time, the damage they cause to the Church will be restored.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
At least people are finally catching on to the ultimate “Always has been.”
When I am Weaker Than You, I ask You for Freedom because that is according to Your Principles; when I am Stronger than You, I take away Your Freedom because that is according to My Principles.
From the outside, the purpose of the modern legal profession (but especially of legal “thinkers”) appears to be ignoring simple, boring, innocuous truths.
To use the example of the Fifth Amendment, America operated for 177 years without Miranda rights, and this was not considered a Fifth Amendment violation. This implies, to me, a simple, boring truth that our Fifth Amendment jurisprudence is unnecessarily overcomplicated.
Your Fourth Amendment concerns are probably suffering from being somewhere in the same ballpark. Forced on you by overcomplicated jurisprudence.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
Best I can do you is to say that I don’t live in Silicon Valley.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
2mo ago
Speaking just to the specific question of how one understand’s Christian love, I tend to take Brand’s stance on it.
What the world calls by that name “Love”,
I know not and I reck not of.
God’s love I recognise alone,
Which melts not at the piteous plaint,
Which is not moved by dying groan,
And its caress is chastisement.
What answer’d through the olive-trees
God, when the Son in anguish lay,
Praying, “O take this cup away!”
Did He then take it? Nay, child, nay:
He made him drink it to the lees.
Never did word so sorely prove
The smirch of lies, as this word Love:
With devilish craft, where will is frail,
Men lay Love over, as a veil,
And cunningly conceal thereby
That all their life is coquetry.
Whose path’s the steep and perilous slope,
Let him but love,—and he may shirk it;
If he prefer Sin’s easy circuit,
Let him but love,—he still may hope;
If God he seeks, but fears the fray,
Let him but love,—’tis straight his prey;
If with wide-open eyes he err,
Let him but love,—there’s safety there!
God’s love is infinitely more than our human conception of love, and it is bundled up together with his righteousness and wrath and holiness. The same God who says “Love one another as I have loved thee,” is perfectly, rightly capable of wiping out peoples and places. Failure to grasp this is how you wind up with “Love wins” and “Hate has no home here” churches that would never tell anyone they are living in specific sin. But it is clear from Scripture that whatever else God is, he is not what is conceived of in the modern understanding of “God is love.”
I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Amos 5:21-22
I make the argument that when Christianity, taken as a whole, was most adherent to God’s commands and intentions, is also the time it was riding high in the world in terms of temporal power. It was the time when it had made itself strong enough to resist outside conquest and to, from that base of operations, eventually evangelize the world, however imperfectly. At that time it was confident in itself, assertive, and had not yet fully fallen under the sway of the “The only thing that matters is love” heresy.
Similarly, the interpretation of agape gives the pre-arranged conclusion away from the beginning. Agape isn’t just for comrades in the cause, it is meant, in varying degrees, for everyone.
In theory, I should have agape for Slavoj Zizek, just like I should for a fellow parishioner. It has nothing to do with comrades in the Communist or cause-oriented sense and I would argue demonstrates Zizek’s extremely weak understanding of or an intentional misrepresentation of the concept in order to bolster an otherwise weak argument.
There is also an additional element, not generally mentioned because it really is too horrible for the average American, based or not, to want to speak out loud.
That total loss and pyrrhic victory were achieved in an environment where the soldiers involved could be confident that their homes and families were safely defended an ocean away.
Everyone will wake up into a whole different world the night that some American guerrillas hike into the mountains above a base and start dropping mortar rounds into base housing.
No American, government or otherwise, is prepared for that kind of war.
Edit: To avoid potential accusations of fedposting, Almighty God forbid this kind of war come to my beloved country.
This is not political commentary it's lashing out. He's still framing the nazis as villains.
A fair take, and entirely plausible given that it’s Kanye we’re talking about.
But, I think there is an alternative possible interpretation. Identifying with the villain doesn’t necessarily, in our modern age, indicate that the speaker thinks they are wrong or even the evil guy. It is entirely possible that Kanye both understands Hitler as the pre-assigned villain of the modern religion, and not only identifies with him but in some fashion views him as having done good things, or been on the right path, or something like that.
It’s sort of like how Joshua is viewed as a Biblical hero by Christians and Jews, but did quite a lot of total genocide in Canaan, of the sort that makes him very much a proto-Hitler if assessed by the dominant morality of our age. Villain to some, but an indicator to others that the dominant morality is actually wrong about quite a lot of things.
Kanye could be viewing Hitler in something like the same sort of framing.
Edit: I just realized Taylor released a song a while back about being the villain. I think there is an incipient cultural trend of “Maybe I’m the bad guy, but I’m right and I’m going to embrace it” occurring. Which is the first step on the road to the villain eventually being reinterpreted as the hero.
This is the kind of comment that isn’t really a Quality Contribution, but it is a great contribution to brightening someone’s day, and also I just really respect the commitment to the bit.
You made me laugh out loud in the barbershop, so congratulations, man.
More options
Context Copy link