@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

I'm rereading Christopher Columbus, Mariner by Samuel Eliot Morison. Morison is a mariner himself, and sailed the routes Columbus took on his four voyages to the Americas. Morison's experiences in seamanship give him insight where book-learning is likely to fail, such as in this anecdote, from just before the actual sighting of America:

At 10 P.M. ... Columbus and a seaman, almost simultaneously, thought they saw a light, "like a little wax candle rising and falling." Others saw it too, but most did not; and after a few minutes it disappeared. Volumes have been written to explain what this light was or might have been. To a seaman it requires no explanation. It was an illusion, created by overtense watchfulness. When uncertain of your exact position, and straining to make a night landfall, you are apt to see imaginary lights and flashes and to hear nonexistent bells and breakers.

Morison's characterization of Columbus, aided no doubt by their shared experience on the open water, is generally favorable. Columbus was guided by strong religious sentiment, ambition, and greed -- motivations shared in varying proportions by nearly every European explorer during the period of discovery following the Reconquista. Morison plainly discuss the sufferings inflicted on the American Indians. But unlike many modern retellings of this story he doesn't allow this to dampen the feelings of admiration toward Columbus' courage, nor to obscure the obvious fact of how immense and profitable Columbus' discovery was.

You say you're not going to "suck it up and lie." But then why do you say one paragraph before "I'm not misgendering [my friend]" because "he's never formally asked me to change names or pronouns?" Would you capitulate to that request, if he were to make it? Wouldn't accepting such a request also be lying?

This lack of consistency from mainstream conservatism indicates a deeper philosophical problem with it. This cuts to the core of their neutered responses to easy divorce, gay "marriage," looser abortion stances, etc.. At bottom, neoconservatives have very liberal positions. This internal friction is caused by their implicit acceptance of the Enlightenment project's axiomatic positions, such as Mill's no-harm principle. Neoconservatives would generally not deny that all agents should be free, with minimal constraints on their behavior as long as all parties consent. They believe that absolute neutrality in the public sphere is an unmitigated good, and that "freedom" should be maximized -- to mean that we shouldn't enforce moral standards, even Christian ones, except by social means.

So when private businesses refuse service to customers not wearing a mask, the conservative can't object on any solid grounds. Unless they're willing to apply a similar standard to Christian bakeries refusing to service homosexual couples. Both are private companies and they can do what they want, under the liberal, egalitarian view. The best neoconservatives can hope for is a grassroots social change which effectively renders Christian morals the dominant position anyway, rendering the problem of enforcing this morality a non-issue.

I've heard it described as a flea circus. If you want to be convinced, you will be. But look at GPT's output under the cold light of day and it's very clearly a kind of mush. There's no human texture to it, nothing idiosyncratic.

https://twitter.com/TheWorthyHouse/status/1599041437081161728

This tweet. Charles Haywood writes at a blog called theworthyhouse.com which is excellent for longform dissident content. He doesn't give attribution for the flea circus comparison, so I guess it's his idea. And he criticizes stuff like this often on his Twitter, including self-driving cars and the idea that robots will take our jobs. And I agree that a lot of our fears and hopes about these things are unfounded.

I'm a nerdy guy looking to develop my action-taking side. Bookishness is nice and all, but the reserved temperament doesn't jive with my dreams to become an action-hero.

What actions did y'all take to become more risk-taking and less prone to analysis paralysis? Maybe something a bit more specific than "just take small risks and scale upward!" I'd venture a guess that certain hobbies and activities -- certain sports, handiwork, skilled trades -- develop the qualities of manly self-assurance more than others. Has anybody undertaken a similar path to self-improvement?

From a stylistic view alone, it'd be a lot better to just use your own words. The robot-talk is like the visual equivalent of eating raisin bran.

You might be fine with a cheap coffee maker, a coffee bean grinder and whole coffee beans. Grind them beans fresh just before use, to desired consistency. (Generally, if you were using something like a french press to brew the coffee, the ideal coarseness of the beans would approximate kosher salt. I prefer going a little finer if I'm using a regular percolator. Experiment a little.)

The way I've described is an easy way to upgrade the average coffee routine.

Sure, but I'm quite fine with reading and developing myself in that direction. I really do regard a liking for books as a strength. Many great men like Theodore Roosevelt have developed mind and body in tandem. The habit I'd like to "shame" is risk-averseness, so I don't think I substantially disagree with this response.

"Bookishness" is, I think, pathological exactly when reading becomes a habitual escape from the world. Think people who read self-help books but never apply any of the tips. It's easy to defer action in favor of more research; cowardice is easily disguised as prudence.

I think the wariness of pop-masculinity is warranted and cultural attempts to reclaim masculinity are often reactive. There are political reasons for that. The Left hates pretty much all traditional masculinity and so mocks it with reductive caricatures of anger, excess and bravado. The Right often responds, intentionally or not, by embracing this caricature of masculinity. Boomer-tier memes of guns n' trucks abound. That these things are considered "masculine" with no reference to craftsmanship, robust physical culture, or the higher virtues like honor and courage leaves the impression that men are chasing shadows of a once-unified ideal. I'm not naive enough to think that this was ever a settled image -- there were many of masculine archetypes through Western history. But these archetypes share traits. A few of them are a willingness to take physical risks, an emphasis on physical development, and an honor culture.

So of course testosterone matters in cultivating the physical and psychic qualities of manliness. It's no secret that testosterone levels in men have been declining and that our culture encourages this emasculation. That passive entertainments like video games and sportsball are indicators of modern male identity is a tell that our culture is degraded. They're abstractions of war and sport. The solution, best I can tell, is to meet the realities again. Lifting heavy objects is probably the most direct way to do that. I prefer bodyweight exercises to start with. It's possible to do many improving workouts with one's body in a small space. Plus, it helps to avoid the problem you identify with lifting too much with improper form. I think it's important to get a good foundation of balance and flexibility before lifting heavy stuff for those who aren't used to using their bodies for labor.

Swing dance seems like good fun. I'll look into it.

I'm a big fan of Jules Verne-style scientific adventure novels. The whole 19th-century spirit of adventure is great fun to read. Are there any modern books, fiction or nonfiction, which have the same vibe?

I think much of the callousness toward "normie" behavior stems from a healthy desire to avoid some of the and common vices people indulge. But beyond that, what's more "normie" than exclaiming how un-normal you are? How many movies have you seen where the lesson is that conformity isn't suspect at best?Contrarianism is the fashion. Everybody's special.

I think, along a similar vein to your post, that maturing means moving past the silly idea that what's common is bad and that diversity in itself is some positive good. If anything, the opposite is probably true.

But I can see why a lot of people, especially those to whom social interaction is difficult, want to throw their hands up and declare the effort sour grapes. I think deep down there's a thrill in being an outcast, even if your exile is self-imposed. It's easier than cultivating relationships which lead to in-groups. Us introverts and socially awkward people have special incentive to take that path.

The implicit view our media-makers seem to take is that taboo-breaking is intrinsically good. Turning Red, whatever it did, was sold as a boundary-pushing film with scatological subject matter discussed frankly. But is that itself venerable? Why are we celebrating that as an unmitigated good?

Our culture, our art, tends toward this destructive impulse. Watch the language: we break taboos, smash sacred cows, subvert expectations, break stereotypes, and so on. Correspondingly, what is traditional, conservative, or restrictive to nearly any capacity is represented as backwards and fearful, rather than as healthy and signalling a robust community.

What movies have been made in our lifetimes wherein a character's negative snap-judgments on an outsider have proven correct? When has art made within the last fifty years even come close to endorsing a societal taboo as good and wholesome? When has "boundary-pushing" for its own sake ever been represented as the deeply lazy and pathological trait it often is in reality? Barely ever.

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I do remember that.

Also, the Lego Movie. Its message is that sometimes "conformity" is good! Being a teamplayer means following some rules and sometimes curbing your impulse to be your own peculiar creature.

What about De Sade may anybody find fascinating? He's not a good writer and his books are calcavades of whatever indecent actions he can think of. You'd have a similar product if you'd asked a rambunctious teenager to write "the naughtiest story ever."

See how far you could get with GPT 4.

What mens outfits pair well with a fedora? I have an overcoat which goes pretty well with my (newly purchased) one. But I'm a little self-consciousness about wearing them with the negative cultural associations and all.

"Nothing illegal about being a deranged meth-head?" To my understanding the associated activity is in fact illegal. Is acting like a druggy not enough to infer the use of illegal drugs?

I'm interested in taking up a hobby which involves creation or building things. I like to write, and learning how to code seems cool, but I'd like to build. I thought about taking up chemistry, but I live in military dorms and I'm pretty sure that'd be a huge headache. There's no place to really store a bunch of crazy chemicals.

Building machines or robots seems cool. But I just don't know where a newbie with basically zero mechanical inclination is to begin. What hobbies have filled that craftsman's itch for Mottizens? I'd love to hear about your cool pursuits.

That's the damned trouble! It's nice to have free housing and all, but the quarters are small and the rules can be restrictive. Probably I'll just start with software like you said. I have a computer and everything. If I want to do something more physical, I might just take up drawing.

Sounds like the barrier for entry is low. Also, I've never followed through with learning to code and building machines might give me the incentive I need to do so. Plus I am looking for something small-scale and relatively mess-free, so microcontrollers sound great.

Other than church, I enjoy solitary walks in nature. I've recently moved to England, so I've started exploring the historical churches, bookshops and museums. There are few things I've enjoyed more than these ambles. But I'm now realizing how nice they would be to share with someone. I've wanted to date before but not quite like this. I'd venture a guess that most holidays are made more pleasurable by having partner beside you. There's a season for perfect solitude, but having a spouse would preserve the pleasures of solitude while adding the joys of friendship. I've decided it's a good thing to want.

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.

It's not hard to see why. By being at least likeable and socialized enough to hold your own among a group of men you've hit the minimum baseline of normality. This alone screens you favorably against all kinds of worst-case assumptions about you.

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.