@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

Thank you for this. Primary accounts are great.

You say that you have an expectation of psychically dividing your life into “Before Missiles” and “After Missiles”; how do you think your life is going to be different after?

(I ask mostly from the perspective of one of Scott’s old posts, which, to paraphrase, had a thesis of ‘People Who Claim To Have Achieved Enlightenment / Had A Life-Changing Experience Are Actually Indistinguishable From How They Acted Beforehand’)

And Constitutions are the means of achieving that

So Britain, famously lacking a constitution, is… what? A Mad Max anarchy?

I’ve been thinking about this as a puzzle all day and the best explanation I can come to that fits all the evidence is that the older women are mad at men being attracted to female youth because it breaks their suspension of disbelief that “I could get him if I wanted to”.

In the previous 30yo shlub billionaire x 30yo model example, I agree that this wouldn’t prompt as much rage as 30yo shlub billionaire x 18yo shlub woman - because when a man’s attracted to a 30 year old model, the 40 year old spinster can still tell herself “If I really crash-coursed my hot yoga class I could still look roughly like that and get that kinda guy”. But if they suspect the guy is choosing his woman specifically because he is attracted to the flower of youth, it breaks her suspension of disbelief that she yet still has time to turn her life around, and indeed tells her that actually that ship sailed 22 years ago. Bezos’ wife makes them mad for a similar but slightly different reason. My understanding it that Lauren Sánchez Bezos spends a lot of time harping on about how her routine to still look good at 56 is a brutal full-time job and most women couldn’t do it, which is sufficiently believable to again knock the spinsters out of the fantasy that they could get a guy like that if they merely doubled down on the hot yoga.

Jealous unmarried spinsters don’t get worked up about 30 year old women dating billionaires, or dating 50 year old men, or dating 70 year old men - because 30 year old women are inside jealous unmarried spinster’s own self-reference class, and they like seeing that women (perceived as) similar to them can still get married. But no amount of self-deception can convince the spinster that she’s in the same reference class as an 18 year old, so now she feels competition rather than solidarity.

TL;DR - women don’t like it when men are attracted to attributes that they (believe they) can’t have, held by other women outside their own self-reference class. Youth is the most obvious one, but this also serves to explain the hate for passport bros who like different colours.

I’m not even sure what evidence could exist for this, given that 2a is very much an answer which could only be proven by mind-reading. Jealous spinsters aren’t going to write it down that this is their real motivation, and that’s if they even realise that it’s their real motivation - this is the sort of evo-psych thing that they might be reflexively denouncing on instinct without bothering to self-reflect their real motives, a’la Hanson’s “elephant in the brain”.

Asking for the receipts here may genuinely be too high a bar for the 2a-ers to clear even if they’re 100% right. It’s the sort of explanation that doesn’t really leave evidence in its wake.

But it doesn't strengthen the relationship, i.e. she treats as dispassionate sport and maybe learns something. It just creates bad vibes and results in a breakup.

My ex once burst into tears in the middle of a restaurant because, after several days of sending me Instagram reels about female emotional labour (and me managing to discuss them as dispassionate sport), I sent her one reel back about how male weaponised incompetence (“babe, where do we keep the paper towels”) gets wives incandescent with rage but female weaponised incompetence (“what’s this light on the car dashboard mean”) is treated with amused paternalism by husbands. “Why would you defend being a useless husband who doesn’t know where the paper towels are?!?!” she wailed, over the wagyu beef I paid for.

…which is my long-winded way of saying, I also recognise the dynamic that you identified. I wonder why women are so bad at decoupling? If I had to hazard a guess, it’s because they’re evolved to operate at such an Nth-level epicycle of social intrigue in their status-jockeying against other women that it is very difficult to get them to believe that any conversation you’re having with them is not actually about them, in some way.

Of course the shorthand term we have for that is ‘narcissism’. YMMV.

They realize she has a perception problem, but instead of just... ignoring it, as one of the most powerful corporations in the world, they insisted on trying to appeal to it.

Well, exactly, and (to put on my armchair psychologist hat) this makes Sharma seem so much worse. There’s been a bunch of talk on the less salubrious corners of the Internet about the concept of “izzat”, an Indian cultural practice whereby faking credentials is seen as just as good as having the credentials because the real merit, to the Indian psyche, is in Dedication To The Facade, not in the distinction between facade and the reality. For an izzat-brained Indian, setting up a fake account is the smart, meritorious move, because it proves your hustle, your dedication to fake it until you make it, your savvy use of shortcuts, which is better than putting in the leg work like a chump and actually having achievements.

Ignoring a bunch of basement-dwelling no-life babies until they go away is not possible to a person who got where they are due to izzat, because she knows that spiritually, she is also a basement-dwelling no-life baby. Which might explain why she got her little brother to fake her account, idk.

It is not logically impossible that @Poug is completely right and “But you’re not using the best model” is the actually correct answer to every complaint about LLMs.

And how many social credit points do you think you should lose for criticising the gove- uhh, I mean “subversive activities”?

Because this is the universal failure mode of any attempt at conduct-prorated welfare: it would inevitably descend into political patronage.

is not the central example of "Guys who like fucking unconscious women."

You are basing this statement on what evidence?

Close, but you’re way off. I think I’d describe it more as “Will you please just shut up and stop getting in the way of my enjoyment”. Sex with a conscious partner is like trying to watch a movie with someone who’s always interrupting: “Ooh can we rewind I liked that bit”, “Volume up please!”, “Want some popcorn?”; and I’m like do you mind I’m trying to concentrate. Being obliged to consider someone else’s watching preferences takes me right out of the zone.

Now, in fairness, sometimes you really are more interested in the watch party bantz than the watching itself. But not often.

but you know that fetishes by definition are outside the norm, right?

Well that’s begging the question isn’t it? We are trying to puzzle out who are really the minority, those who see the unconscious woman as a gross RealDoll vs those who still see her as person.

would you actually do it to a woman who hadn't consented?

No, sure, but your previous post wasn’t complaining about the absence of consent, it was complaining about the absence of consciousness.

I did indeed mean that it was great for me and she didn’t remember it. However, she’s a self-proclaimed sub, and so while she didn’t remember the act, the abstract knowledge of it has an enduring appeal.

Although I think that if Weinstein or Epstein had been non-Jewish, the amount of mainstream attention would have been roughly the same. It's basically the fact that they are coded as elites, particularly white elites IMO.

I think the Jewishness means the Hard-Right pounds the drum harder, but if they were non-Jewish then the NGO-Left would pound the drum harder, so in the end it kinda balances out, yeah.

墨子 discusses punishments for rape during the Warring States period, and various annals including 春秋左傳 and 詩經 describe rape in a decidedly disapproving manner.

Yeah but they disapprove because it soils the man’s qi, in a ‘this practice is not consistent with obviating temporal desire and attaining the Dao’ sort of way. That a woman is involved at all, let alone an unwilling one, is of no consequence - they’d complain just as much about a long goon session.

The two parts of your statement do not logically synch up. If you don’t consider it an improvement, then you don’t see the appeal, because, by your own logic, it is not appealing (compared to the default).

To me, having sex with an unconscious woman would have pretty much zero appeal no matter how hot she is

I am a man who happens to have this fetish, and indeed I am a man who related this fetish to my gf, she thought it was hot, and we contrived some bs about our apartment being too close to a busy highway in order to get a doctor to prescribe heavy-duty sleeping pills that we could indulge this fetish. And it was great.

It’s the “doing another guy’s wife” and “doing a fugly old grandma” that confuses me about the appeal. Not the unconsciousness, which, indeed, is a distinct improvement over the vanilla sex act.

This.

I notice that legacy media occasionally tries to push the story but there’s basically no social media take-up by anyone reading the news, because it gets (rightly) understood as categorised in a box of “Shit French people do”, not “Shit men do”.

My automatic answer to this is that debating with Twitterati is a fool’s errand; they are not there to honestly engage, they are there to farm upboats by calling you cringe, the only winning move is not to play. Better master debaters than I have tried to figure out how to “get around them just calling you ick” and none have succeeded. That’s why the place where we are currently exists: there is no solution to the problem other than going away to a different discussion forum.

However, in an effort to at least gesture in the direction of something, I think you can only fight fire with fire by (a) wresting control of the banhammer from their allies to your allies (thanks Elon), and (b) having more allies who’ll call them cringe than they have allies who’ll call you cringe.

For the record im not arguing that being against gay marriage would be "ok".

It’s okay, you can say that here.

But here is what i dont get - why are some issues less "up for debate"?

It’s literally just a rhetorical shaming technique to put their debate opponents on the defensive from the start. “If you hold this position you’re an icky person” is a schoolyard-tier tactic but on many normies it just works.

That people on the online right see this as "professional logistics" is deeply blackpilling for me

Exaggerating the competence / strength of your enemy benefits everyone. It makes your victory more heroic if you win and your defeat more forgivable if you lose, and your enemy won’t get mad at being portrayed as more badass than they actually were either.

This should blackpill you no more that Herodotus blackpills you for claiming that Xerxes’ army numbered a million men, and they drank the rivers dry and their marches caused earthquakes.

I agree with you that being an IRL Reddit anti-ICE protestor constitutes “shitting up the commons thinking life is a video game”, but I am simultaneously self-aware enough to realise that I only think this because it’s an objective I disagree with. If these were right-wing Reddit LARPers going out to help ICE round up foreigners then I’d consider it a heartening efflorescence of organic civic virtue.

As Dilos said of the Arcadians: brave amateurs, they do their part

prominent former Shanghai capitalists who defected to the communists, the former Emperor

I remember reading years ago that Puyi’s survival seemed strange to Western observers at the time but the Chinese justification was something along the lines of “It is not surprising that capitalists and monarchists act like capitalists and monarchists, it’s just in their nature. No point executing them for being true to their class any more than you would execute a dog for licking its balls”.

With this logic of class-essentialism it is unsurprising that the grand-bourgeoise and literal royalty get ‘let off’ with re-education, while misbehaving peasants get the rope. The upper class were ‘inevitably’ acting in accordance with their class interests. But proletarian class traitors should have known better.

But importantly these aren't illegals which is what the whole discourse.

Well… no it isn’t. Illegal immigrants are only slightly worse than legal immigrants (their real crime being their undeserving capture of the fruits of my patrimony that my ancestors toiled to build for me), and I think that this is at least a large minority opinion amongst the pro-Wall set.

The problem is the Great Replacement; whether it is being perpetrated legally or illegally is just ACKSHUALLY-nitpicking.

are why immigration is mostly a non issue in Australia.

Didn’t you guys import like 20% of your population from China in the last 30 years and both your transport infrastructure and housing market are collapsing under the strain?

Is it not that immigration is objectively worse in terms of population-replacement in Australia, it’s just not a political issue because… Australians don’t have the self-preservation instincts that Americans do?

Something like 2/3 of operating costs of public transit in the USA is labor costs. If you can replace most of those with AVs, you can…

…shift the beneficiaries of those labour costs from blue collar bus drivers to white collar robotics engineers and AI devs. Which will probably increase the labour costs overall but that’s good because now I might be the one getting paid.