@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

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.

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 think there's an earnestness to good adventure movies which no amount of navel-gazey arthouse stuff can match. Sure, people tell themselves that the latter kinds of movies are more realistic or incisive about the human condition. But that's a cheat, really. Top Gun shows its artifice on its sleeve, and asks of us that we believe in heroes. And of course heroes exist. How could we have been so blind, with our vain and subtle navel-gazing? Top Gun clarifies the obvious truths about living, and does it in a way which delights people. That probably takes a lot more skill than putting a clever idea to screen poorly. I will gladly side with the plebians here.

If I had to guess, those Democrats hadn't given any significant thought to the issue beforehand. So when it became a culture war topic, their first exposure to it was through the lens of the party-approved messaging. Thus, Democrats can credibly say that as long as they've been considering it, they've been in favor of giving "trans kids" hormone treatments.

The reason they hadn't considered it beforehand, of course, is that it's so completely insane that it would never enter an average person's mind except in the most cartoonish dystopian cartoons.

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 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?

That sounds like quite a story. Have you shared the whole thing it anywhere before?

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.

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?

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.

My pet theory falls in line with option 2. I'm expecting some writeup on Substack or Reddit wherein he "exposes" a den of rightwingers.

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.

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.

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?

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.

R.L. Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. For some time I've been thinking of writing an effort-post on Stevenson's nonfiction, specifically his essays, as they're very good. I'm a fan of Pulvis et Umbra, though Crabbed Age and Youth for a while was my favorite.

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.

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.

Where are you meeting these women?

Church.

Ender's Game remains excellent even years after discovering it as a teenager. You'll also like Ender's Shadow, best read as a companion to the original.

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 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.

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

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?

Chicks rather enjoy being sex objects

I think so, too. I think women often want excuses to show off their clothes or bodies. They're very coy about admitting these things even though it's obvious to all.