@Ethan's banner p

Ethan

Quality assurance

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 March 18 17:38:59 UTC

				

User ID: 2275

Ethan

Quality assurance

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 March 18 17:38:59 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2275

What are some great first date ideas? What worked for you guys? Previously I've taken girls to the museum and I think that's fine -- you can always talk about the art if conversation stalls, and it segues very well into getting coffee or iced-cream afterward. Part of me is worried that it's too boring or conventional though -- maybe something with some light activity involved?

On that note, I've recently moved to the UK so punting doesn't seem like such a bad idea for a date -- Lord knows I've seen plenty of couples doing it near my neck of the woods.

I'm not familiar with this guy but I think the obvious solution is to never, under any circumstances, apologize for sins against the Left. I'm reminded of the scene from Darkest Hour where Churchill, referring to peace talks with Hitler, yells "you cannot reason with a tiger when your head is stuck in its mouth!" The Left -- that is, the mass of men and women who are in control of nearly every relevant channel of Western power and influence -- aren't interested in conversation. They're interested in grinding their enemies under heel. They are the tiger, and even the most well-meaning attempts of conservatives to roll over and play the deferential gentleman get them eaten. But oh, how very gracefully those posh conservatives bowed their heads and accepted martyrdom! It won't achieve anything. The Christians with whom I stand should model themselves after the crusaders. More Richard the Lionheart and less Thomas a Kempis.

Rightists do change their beliefs like any honest person. They should be candid about that. But these changes should be framed as intellectual corrections or, at worst, correcting youthful intemperance. Never, ever, should they use Leftist semiotics (saying, "I commit to doing better," or "I apologize for my past hurtful words" is self-immolation). In other words, if you're being accused of right-wing dogwhistling then you're doing it right. Either way the Left hates the Right. They should make themselves worth the hatred.

If all that seems too rigid, then know I think these rules necessary guardrails against the conservative inclination to seek compromise. That leads to the "speed-limit conservatism" of the National Review crowd. Those people exemplify the chief problem with conservatism. The problem isn't a lack of clear policy goals or manifestos or books about the glories of Western civilization. Books are dead when their words don't fill the chests of men. The problem is that conservatives are old and bloodless. Bronze Age Pervert's book isn't a sane or articulate political project. It voices a spirit which moves and animates everything else. The actual content of the book is all performative insanity -- nobody would seriously consider comparing Mitt Romney to Alcibiades unless they're joshing around. BAP is a full-on thought-criminal who attracts just the people he needs to attract: serious young men with spines who are looking to armor themselves for the eventual crackdown their overlords will visit upon them. These men don't need another thought-piece about changing the Leftist orthodoxy from within. They need to find communities of other, understanding men with whom to build themselves against the world.

If it seems like I'm not addressing your main question, then know that's partly because I'm not familiar with Hanania (though it looks like I should be!). The best option you present appears to be #3: ignore what's going on. Not because he's ashamed or looking for approval, but because it isn't worth his time to explain himself. His silence is the answer. Eventually he might be forced to address the issue. Then he should just be honest about why he's changed his views, using parameters similar to what I outlined above. Avoiding an apologetic tone is crucial. The very young men the dissident right appeals to will sniff that stuff out as weakness, and deservedly so.

I've lived an entirely straightlaced life and have zero interest even in marijuana. I'm not interested in drugs per se. What I am interested in is the apparently mind-opening power of psychedelics. Aldous Huxley's essay "The Doors to Perception" has once again made me curious. For those of you who have experimented with mescaline or whatever else, have these experiences changed you deeply and permanently? Would even taking small amounts grant you clarity or creativity without some terrible drawbacks?

I think of Carl Jung's advice, to "beware of unearned wisdom," and I think that expresses a healthy conservatism about these things. But then again, millions of people have used caffeine and nicotine both recreationally or for work. People now use marijuana for medicine. So why not use psychedelics for whatever positive effects they bring? I also think of people having bad trips or frying their brains. My mother grew up in the 70s and recalls a few people who made themselves permanently insane through some wacky experiments or other. I think ultimately it's better to leave well enough alone, but I'd like to hear different views.

Has anybody here ever substantially changed their personality? I don't mean a simple increase in confidence or developing a taste for beer. I mean a fundamental shift in polarity -- going from an introvert to an extrovert, a risk-averse nerd to an overconfident jock, etc.. Do you think there's any limit on the changes people can make in themselves, barring traumatic events or assistance from drugs?

It's a good thing that 70% of these members are women. My initial advice may then seem counterintuitive: focus on befriending the men first. At least don't neglect them. Befriend them enough to hang out with them separately. Go to a club. Hike. Do a sport. Preferably something physical. Showing your social prowess, especially with the well-established males in the group, soothes the initial suspicion that you're just there to meet women. It demonstrates that you're not a lonely weirdo and can hold your own in masculine company. This is itself attractive. If nothing else, you'll meet new nonromantic friends. Even if you don't get any women, you've won in the end.

Coed settings have their own dynamic. If the women are even vaguely attractive, this will be reflected in countless small nuances of gesture in behavior all around (despite the lies of our elites who suggest that coed environments, particularly at work, may be purged of sexual tension and behavior. To all with eyes to see and ears to hear this is plainly false.) When people start dating in any well-established group there's a lot of risk. Alliances formed and broken, grudges held, entire wings of the group split. For this there is no remedy, except to acknowledge the reality.

Confidence is good -- you think your insights will be better than everyone else's? Maybe. I'll tell you from growing up through any number of Bible studies, devotionals and book discussions that people may be impressed with your verbal prowess at first. But everybody wants that praise. So give it to them. If you're superior, then act like you have nothing to prove. Don't be too liberal or sycophantic with your compliments because people see through that. But when somebody's finished speaking, it's often a high compliment to pause a little, nodding and letting the words sink in, and then to ask a thoughtful follow-up question. This, combined with occasional small compliments, may keep a discussion going with minimal input. And when you give your thoughts, refer to what others have said and build on that.

Most people are bad conversationalists. While you're speaking they're busy crafting an awesome insight in their heads. This leads to people simply announcing their thoughts in turn. Everybody then feels curb-stomped because their insights were left on the vine. Here's a trick -- write down notes on what you'd like to say before the meeting. That way you don't have to keep it all in your head. Free up enough bandwidth to listen. They may have good thoughts you didn't have, your superiority notwithstanding.

As for how to use this advice -- read it, read it again, jot notes. Then put it aside when you sit down at your first meeting. Loosen up. Have fun. You love good books and good talk. You're awesome and women love you.

his claim to believe in God is one of those useful lies

What makes you say this? Plenty of Hindus actually believe in God, as do plenty of American conservatives.

Really? So what can I know about the food I eat?

On a similar note, does anybody know of any comprehensive books on the real "origins of woke?" Is it really just the Frankfurt school writ large?

Though I agree that generally women look best when leaning into traditionally feminine styles, I think short hair looks pretty dang good on some girls I know.

Not even a gay couple walking in the background? Strange.

I'd be interested. Will there be one topic per month on which members write their pieces? Or do members get full discretion on what to write about every time?

Is he obese? Gaining some weight is common with age.

On first watch it didn't quite land with me. But now I think it's really good. The Cameo joke was great, and it's better when you realize that James (the one bullying Charlie) was the one who sent it.

Just started Frank: The Making of a Legend by James Kaplan, about Frank Sinatra. It's the first biography of a celebrity I've read with any attention. I think I hold some deep feeling that musicians' lives aren't as worthwhile to learn about as geniuses in science or philosophy or politics. But Frank Sinatra was a kind of genius, and his life is pretty interesting so far. Also, Kaplan is a good writer and sometimes I read the prose aloud to feel it on my tongue. I think it sharpens me in some way to feel how good writing conforms to the breath.

I'm also reading Lonesome Dove, by Larry McMurtry. Good Western so far -- it kind of seems like Red Dead Redemption 2 is to video games what Lonesome Dove is to novels: longform, epic Westerns which are modern but don't treat the genre's tropes with contempt. Really, come to think of it, the Western seems to be the one genre which is allowed to have some dignity against the eviscerations of postmodernism. Occasionally you'll get a flat-out anti-western like No Country for Old Men. But then you'll get really good modern takes on the genre which incorporate the spirit of the best while modernizing the trappings of the story, like Breaking Bad or that Wolverine movie Logan.

I finished The Road, by Cormac McCarthy. It was good, but I suspect it shouldn't have been my first McCarthy novel. Yes, it may well exemplify his sparse prose the best. But I feel like even though Blood Meridian is a lot longer it seems to have more in the way of action. Maybe when my docket is free I'll try it out.

Goggins is probably the single best human exemplar of human malleability. He's like a fascinating edge case of what happens when somebody just ... has infinite willpower.

Breaking Bad is our modern civilizational epic. Better Call Saul is a prequel which is just as good.

I always thought if there were a novelization of Breaking Bad the full title would be "Breaking Bad: or, the Modern Ozymandias" due to its obvious literary associations.

The implicit associations of the "homo" are intentional. It doesn't just conjure ideas of cultural homogenization, but of specifically Left-coded cultural homogenization. It's sort of like the (now very dated) slander "fake and gay." And the word "globohomo" smacks of 4channer slang. Its prickly, yet unstated, associations should be embraced.

Why not just solve the related problems? Do practice exercises until you perform well consistently.

That's the price for entry in reading Dostoyevsky. It requires a suspension of disbelief when characters go on impossibly long monologues while other characters listen with impossible patience.

If you say you can't function in the morning without coffee people will act understanding, if not sympathetic. Say the same thing about booze and people will start giving you pamphlets.

You mentioned the relative severity of alcohol, but I think it's good and natural to treat addictions with greater or lesser severity based on their risks. I mean, how much concern would you want people to have if you tell them that you're crabby and irritable without coffee?

I think a more apt comparison might be made to nicotine, cigarettes specifically. Of course cigarettes, too, are more dangerous than coffee. But nicotine withdrawal won't literally kill you like alcohol withdrawal can. And if someone says "don't talk to me until I have my cigarette," everybody sees that this is a problem. But there won't be any pamphlets handed out. It's pretty clear that our responses to addiction run on a gradient. As they should.

Some bridges you just have to cross when you get to them. Planning out your whole life, or even a medium to long-term project, will make you paralyzed.

You too!

Just now rereading this for like the fourth time. It's fantastic, and Lewis himself called it his best book.

Batman: Arkham City is identical to RDR2 in this regard after Batman is poisoned. The only side mission which organically makes sense for Batman to prioritize is the Mad Hatter one, because it's predicated on Hatter tricking Bruce with a fake cure. But then it doesn't make sense if you wait till after the main storyline is done to complete the mission, because Bruce is already cured.

I think the point of the Motte is that such opinions can be expressed within reason. If you think something needs to be addressed then why not do it yourself?