@Butlerian's banner p

Butlerian

Not robot-ist just don't like 'em

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 11 15:37:12 UTC

				

User ID: 1558

Butlerian

Not robot-ist just don't like 'em

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 11 15:37:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1558

Didn't do me any good during the Cold War either. The reason we work a 40 hour week instead of an 80 hour one is because Soviet tanks scared Western capitalists into making concessions to labor. If those bases hadn't been in Germany the Western capitalists would have been more scared and we'd be working a 20 hour week now instead.

If you would have grown 5%, but due to X you only grow 4%, then 1% of growth has been destroyed.

This doesn't apply to insta/tiktok/etc models.

Doesn't it?

I mean, obviously the median woman with an Instagram account doesn't need to post Instagram bikini pics to to able to afford bread. But human beings have other requirements, like high-value mates. How do you think (or how does she think) she's going to get one of those without some kind of self-promotion?

When or if reaction comes, it will have to feel as natural as say, supporting Ukraine.

...which is to say, not natural at all and entirely the product of MSM narrative-craft and bot astroturfing?

I love this comment as a glittering example of "Comes so close to noticing but then the crimestop kicks in"

To wit: don't you think it a little... suspicious... that the """reports from IRL""" that your news media pipes you from Ukraine, map so neatly into the tropes you've been fed for decades from your entertainment?

Does that not strike you as a little, err, improbable to be an organic occurrance?

(So no-one accuses me of not speaking plainly: I am forwarding this as circumstantial evidence that Western reporting from the Ukraine War is very, very contaminated by Western attempts to narrative craft it into the pre-prepared slot in the Western psyche of "Just like my Indiana Jones movies".)

the near-total absence of, not only anti-war sentiment, but of any consideration of foreign policy at all, from 2023 leftism.

A trillion dollars sent to Ukraine isn't foreign policy to you?

Why do you give a shit?

Because my not encountering anyone interesting in the thousand or so people I've met in my 30 or so years of living at the turn of the 21st century, does not mean that humanity couldn't produce anyone interesting in the 10^90 transhuman people who could exist across the next trillion years of seizing the cosmic endowment.

Welcoming the paperclipper because people are boring in 2023 is analogous to suiciding yourself because you're a kissless virgin at 16. There is still plenty of time for the situation to improve, provided you stay alive.

Infertile women were always a thing.

I don't think they were, but it's irrelevant to the point. Even if I grant your hypothesis, they weren't a thing that could leave an impression in evolutionary psychology, because no infertile person ever can.

Also, Biblical Times substantially post-dates the ancestral environment.

This is noncentral to my argument. The precise internal dynamics of the non-monogamous society(s) are irrelevant; the hypothesis calls only for them to have (a) better mean happiness than Monogamy Land, and (b) worse ability to commit ethnocide than Monogamy Land.

Society would be much better off if incels had those needs met in terms of productivity via enfranchisement, less culture warring and societal friction and that's before you get to basic human kindness and decency in helping and accepting the unloved.

I think this is far from a sure thing.

To meet the needs of an incel, a woman must throw herself on the sword and date a man who she doesn't want to (because if she did want to date him, he wouldn't be an incel). You can't meet the needs of incels without making women unhappy, and vice-versa. Western society currently prefers to side with making women happy on that dilemma; compelled arranged marriage in rural India society prefers to side with making incels happy on that dilemma. If we could do a ceteris paribus controlling for wealth, would Indian compelled marriage really lead to "society being better off" than Western female profligacy?

I think yes, because I suspect that men produce more net social benefit when happy than women do, but I recognise that there is a trade-off being made here and it's not a slam-dunk in favour of men.

ten thousand generations of savages

That's a little bit... antagonistic. These are the people who built Classical Greece, the Pyramids, the University of Sankore. And even hunter-gatherers had enough civilization to care for their wounded and infirm, as the archaeological evidence of bone healing suggests. "Savages" is kinda harsh.

I strongly suspect that even back in caveman days, couples with genuine affection for each other were looked on with much more respect than couples where the man was literally having to knock his wife over the head and drag her by the hair to get laid.

I strongly suspect that in caveman days "couples" didn't exist, because you lived fast and died young. Seems kind of a waste of time, and deleterious to the tribe's survival chances, to become particularly emotionally attached to a partner who has a ~40% chance of dying in childbirth every 9 months. If the sabre-tooth tigers don't get her in the interim (a big if).

But then I would ask you the same question put to Vox Day: what did you mean? If your wife says "Not tonight, I have a headache," are you claiming that you should literally have the right to say "Tough shit, on your back," backed up by force if necessary?

Well, if you insist on this line of inquiry...

Rape fantasies are the #1 female fantasy, remember. And it turns out that accomodating to your partner's bedroom fantasies - shock! - improves your sex life, who'd'a thunk it?

So, observe my biting down hard on this bullet: yes, I do mean "Tough shit, on your back, by force if necessary", and I can tell you from the practical application of this principal in my own life that it is salutary to a relationship. I don't know whether it's a general principle of female psychology or just a peculiarly of my own girlfriends, but a few seconds of complaining is followed by years of her being smugly happy that her partner finds her attractive enough to be compelled to run roughshod over her consent. Acting like a troglodyte caveman is, it turns out, more attractive to the opposite sex than acting like a Title IX lawyer at a risk-averse university campus.

If your mother had never had an abortion, how do you know you weren't just an accident she was pressured to keep?

I wouldn't care if I was an accident she was pressured to keep, because social shaming women out of making bad decisions is perfectly legit. This is an example of "patriarchy working as intended towards good outcomes".

Conversely I would be quite mad to find out my mother murdered my older sibling.

This sounds rather like an Isolated Demand for Leniency. Any government who really dislikes their previous government can declare the preceding regime illegitimate/illegal and then do whatever the hell they want with people who became resident in the intervening times? I think not. If the Trumpists came out with rock-solid evidence that the election really WAS stolen, tomorrow, and subsequently Trump'24 (or '23) nullifies all citizenships granted since Jan 2020, do you think the Blue Tribe is just going to sit there nodding "This is legit because it's what the Baltics did" as X million mostly-Mexican-"Americans" get repatriated to Guadalajara?

Because I think they'd raise merry hell.

"Disparate impact = discrimination" and all that.

Besides, where exactly is the evidence that the Baltic referenda in '45 on joining the USSR were rigged? If that's their basis for yelling "illegal government" then I think they need better evidence.

Is the scale impractical? Is the expense impractical?

I'm pretty certain it's this? I get the sense that mass incarceration + deprogramming + filtering out fifth columnists would be about a million times more expensive than just shooting everyone. And also wouldn't work. Western governments at least try to filter their immigrants for "not psycho killers" but lo and behold, you still get machete beheadings and trucks of peace every other month on the streets of London & Paris.

Say what you want about just making political undesirables dig their own trench and then shooting them en masse in the back of the head a'la Katyn, but that is at least affordable.

He was in the equivalent of a supermax prison.

...in a country with a smaller economy than Italy's (notorious for losing mafia bosses from supermax). Russia can't afford to secure its jails from determined infiltrators.

Israel shouldn't lose points for preventing more Israelis from being killed and this making this comparison look bad.

How do you feel about the sentencing for murder being different from the sentencing for conspiracy?

You're omitting a rather large confounding variable here, namely that the people who aren't deterred by cigarette packaging are addicts who have had their neurological pathways chemically remapped in order to be compelled to purchase the product. Not so with "Breaded soy for frying".

Just as plenty of Americans who illegally aided the IRA during the troubles were loyal to the US.

This is oxymoronic. If you violate the policies and laws of the government, you are by definition disloyal.

I ask you not to move the goalposts. Nobody was discussing such other requirements here.

Well I certainly was, and given that I wrote the post to which you are responding, I can assure you that the goalposts remain exactly where I first placed them. My point about working in the wagie cubes was intended to refer to the broad class of "activities engaged in grudgingly" rather than the specific class of "activities engaged in out of purely economic necessity". Revealed preferences need not always refer to the revealed preferences of one's employment.

But with that out of the way:

It feels strange for me to be whiteknighting career e-thots, but I still think your reasoning is flawed. Let's say Job A contains upside 1 and downside 2, while Job B contains upside 3 and upside 4. And let's say the magnitudes of the upsides and downsides run 1 > 2 >> 3 > 4. Job 1 has big upsides and big downsides compared to either in Job B, but in both cases the upside exceeds the downside so you do actually want the job (more than unemployment). That you stick with Job A despite REALLY hating downside 2 is testament to the advantage of upside 1, not that you actually, secretly, masochistically enjoy downside 2.

To but some colour to these scenarios: Job A is Instathot, upside 1 is simpbux, downside 2 is "constant thirstposting in her comments", Job B is office worker, upside 3 is mediocre salary bux, and downside 4 is the anomie of regular office work.

In this rubric we see that it is logically possible that Instathots do not in fact appreciate the drool and asparagus emojis they get in their DMs, but they're willing to put up with it to live the high life. Whether they have any moral right to complain about it is another question - they have signed the Faustian Pact and bought themselves tropical holidays with it, it seems therefore petty to whine that the devil will inevitably take his due. But do they like having to hold up their side of the contract? Well, no-one I know has ever enjoyed holding up their side of a contract, so I can believe that they do, in fact, not, and are just in it for the (lots of) money.

I liked the second book because of how ridiculously misogynistic it is.

The third book goes so soft sci-fi it breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Also, there's a distinction between bullshit jobs that are de-facto jobs programs, and those that arise as a necessary consequence of poor regulation and incentives.

Do please elaborate how you make this distinction.

How many Brazilians do you think are posting on /r/portland?

On the face of it: this is good evidence against my thesis.

More subtly: "Portland is home to one of the largest immigrant and refugee populations in Oregon", hmmmm, what a twist.

That was Big Yud at his most sympathetic?

I dunno, I just can't put myself in that mindset. I think it's probably because I don't really like anyone currently alive very much, so I don't feel "thousands of deaths of sentient people every minute" as a thousand tiny knives stabbing at my soul. People are a renewable resource! Sure, some will die, but, no big loss: basically identical ones will take their place.

...until they don't, because mankind wholesale gets paperclipped. At THAT, I feel Yud's doomer schizo panic.

Again, I wish I could find the paper, but I remember it making the point that the variance is huge for that cohort, so that'll be why: it's an average of 20% but you lucked out on the high end of the very wide distribution.

What slippery slope exists between abortion and interracial marriage?

If your model of pro-lifers is "conservatives who want to turn the clock back to the social mores of 1950", the answer becomes obvious. It's a slope of "concessions to that agenda".

First they go for the least popular and legally flimsiest 2020s social more (abortion). When they succeed at that one, it's easier to knock down the next domino, both because the conservatives are energised by the proof that liberal progress can be reversed, and because their opponents have to concede "OK when the conservatives won last time the country didn't immediately get consumed by hellfire". Slip!