FtttG
User ID: 1175
FtttG
1yr ago
Robin Hanson is apparently misogynistic
Hanson once wrote that a woman cheating on a man is as bad as (or worse than) a man raping a woman provided he does it in a "gentle, silent" way. No idea if he still endorses that opinion but it's a majorly sus thing to say.
FtttG
5mo ago
If you still believe that the 2020 election was stolen and the 2024 wasn't, I would like to see some evidence in support of the former claim. I have yet to see any persuasive evidence thereof.
FtttG
1yr ago
Also, if you enjoyed the post, please consider subscribing to my Substack: https://firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com/
FtttG
2mo ago
Yeah but degree of difficulty between 'find a hot guy for low commitment casual sex' versus 'find a hot girl for low commitment casual sex' is a Dark Soulsian difference in difficulty curve.
Skill issue.
FtttG
2yr ago
To the tune of "I Love Rock and Roll" by Joan Jett:
I love Uncle Ted
Put another bomb in the mailbox baby
I'm sorry, but "there would be hard evidence to support my claim, but They have suppressed it" is what you say when you have nothing. It is the first port of call for every paranoid conspiracy theorist who arrived at their conclusion first, went looking for evidence to support it and came up short. To which I say: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I also don't know what you mean by "genuine". I genuinely don't believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. I genuinely haven't seen any evidence that I found remotely persuasive.
FtttG
1yr ago
This term is, in fact, controversial - at least in the discourse space you and I are participating in. It is, in fact, an extremely tendentious framing, and I do in fact reject it. (The mere fact that the “age of consent” differs so dramatically between different jurisdictions worldwide illustrates that people do in fact disagree substantially about the validity of the framing.)
In Bahrain, a man who violently rapes a woman can escape all legal culpability if he agrees to marry her. The fact that Bahrainis "disagree substantially about the validity of the framing" (namely, that rape is a heinous and despicable crime, and not just because it may be harder for the victim to find a husband) does not give me cause to update my views on rape or reject the conventional western framing.
FtttG
19d ago
Has Gaza been ethnically cleansed, or is this ethnic cleansing ongoing? If so, that's news to me.
Conor got accused in the past in Miami too
Doesn't the fact that McGregor has been accused of sexual misconduct by so many different women, completely independently, in different countries or even continents move the needle for you at all? Isn't this exactly why people are so confident that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, despite (to the best of my knowledge) never having been found guilty even in a civil proceeding?
hypocrisy is not a bad thing
You've lost me there buddy. If at any point you find yourself thinking "my enemies are so vicious that I must preemptively become more vicious than them before they destroy me outright", I think it's worth taking a step back and asking yourself if that's an accurate appraisal of the state of affairs, or if you're just coming up with some half-baked ham-handed rationalisation to do something you know is bad but want to do anyway. Note that your reasoning is word for word the same as that employed by woke people to justify deplatforming, cancelling or beating up conservatives.
Moldbug has echoed similar sentiments and I stand by them
I have never understood the appeal of Moldbug or why he's considered such an intellectual giant. So many of his allegedly profound insights just seem like trite (or even tautological) truisms dressed up with needlessly circomlocutory or obfuscatory language. I think Scott hit the nail on the head with Moldbug's whole approach in 2013:
Reactionaries have to walk a fine line. They can’t just say “people consider liberal policies, decide they would be helpful, and form grassroots movements pushing for the policies they support”, because that would make leftist policies sound like reasonable ideas pursued by decent people for normal human motives.
But they can’t just say “There’s a giant conspiracy where the heads of all the major Ivy League universities meet at midnight under the full moon”, because that would sound ridiculous and tinfoilish.
So they invent this strange creature, the distributed conspiracy. It’s not just people being convinced of something and then supporting it, it’s them conspiring to do so. Not the sort of conspiring where they talk to one another about it or coordinate. But still a conspiracy!
The expanse of mass-mail in voting is considered fraud by historical Democratic principals. Trump wins in a landslide without that.
And if the expanse of mass mail-in voting had caused him to win in a landslide, you'd be saying the election was illegitimate and stolen from Biden, yes?
At this point it is beyond proven that the FBI interfered with social media with regards to the Hunter Biden laptop. They knew it was real the entire time. The CIA helped cover that up.
I agree, and this was an outrage, and I said so repeatedly at the time and since. But this doesn't prove that the election was fraudulent - as pointed out by @2rafa, if media propaganda manipulating people to vote a particular way makes an election illegitimate, then every election since the invention of democracy was illegitimate. We'll never know the counterfactual where the Hunter Biden laptop story is allowed to freely circulate on social media - it might have swung the election, it might not. There are obvious parallels with Russiagate truthers constantly asserting that Trump only won because of sketchy Facebook ads from Russian accounts!!! targeting swing voters, something something Cambridge Analytica.
how ungainly it is to arrive at your destination sweaty
Ever heard of a shower? Most offices have them. Get up, put on your exercise gear, put your office clothes in your backpack, cycle into work, take a shower and put on your work clothes. You'll likely have cut a huge amount of time out of your commute, and the morning cycle is far more invigorating and refreshing than spending 30-60 minutes in a car or on public transport (and if you live in a warm climate, being stuck in a cramped bus or train during the morning rush hour will probably result in you getting hot and sweaty anyway).
Bikes are the perfect vehicle. A decent bike costs a few hundred bucks, max, and will last you for years. If cycling in a city, traffic won't impede your progress the way it would in a car or bus (or even a motorbike). Even an only moderately fit person can cover immense distances without exhausting themselves (I'm by no means an avid distance cyclist, but am confident I could cycle 100km tomorrow without any training and without exerting myself to any great degree). Calories are your fuel, so you aren't dependent on petrol/gas infrastructure. If so inclined, you can attach panniers or a trailer to your bike to allow you to bring possessions with you that are too big for a backpack. Certain kinds of bike can ride on effectively any terrain, so you aren't dependent on roads. Virtually all repairs and maintenance can be done by anyone after one day's training, unlike modern cars which are so complex that only specialists can repair them (at great expense to the owner). There's no additional cost in GHG emissions. Bicycles take up far less space than motor vehicles: there are bicycle parking centres in Amsterdam which can comfortably fit thousands of bicycles into a space which would accommodate a few hundred cars at most. They're vastly cheaper than cars (in addition to the smaller initial outlay noted above: almost all of the maintenance and upkeep can be done yourself with only one or two specialised tools, you don't need to buy petrol/gas, you don't need insurance). And best of all, the mere act of using one improves the health of the user along multiple metrics (heart rate, blood pressure, muscle mass, life expectancy etc.).
Your comment has inspired more contempt in me than any I've read on this site in months.
FtttG
28d ago
Where is the outrage over all the Palestinians who get sodomized or tortured in Israeli prisons?
I've seen this claim made dozens of times in the past few months, and never with a source.
One of the rules of the site is "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be." Hard to imagine a more partisan and inflammatory claim than "the Democrats rigged the 2020 election in order to install their preferred candidate". It's very aggravating when this rule has been egregiously violated (i.e. an extremely partisan and inflammatory claim was presented without any evidence in support of it), I try to be charitable by specifically requesting that various posters provide evidence in support of said claim, and the best they can cough up is "well there would be evidence in support of this partisan and inflammatory claim if the Dems/deep state/Big Tech/WHO/Bilderberg Group/Illuminati/whoever hadn't suppressed it". This is not evidence in support of an inflammatory claim. This is an IOU for said evidence. This is a glorified "source: dude trust me". And when I respond with more than a little exasperated frustration at multiple posters egregiously violating the rules of this space, you accuse me of being "cancerous" and failing to argue in good faith.
Put yourself in my shoes: imagine if someone made an extremely partisan and inflammatory claim with which you disagreed without presenting a lick of evidence to back it up, you asked them to do so, and their response was "I don't have evidence for it because it's been suppressed". Would you respond with "huh, how unfortunate, that must be really frustrating, this thing must go all the way to the top"? Or would you roll your eyes and say "come on dude, get real, I need more than just your word to go on"? I strongly suspect the latter, as I did.
FtttG
5mo ago
Is your argument that all of these vulnerabilities were addressed in between 2020 and 2024, which is why Trump got in in 2024 and not 2020?
This seems like a weird heuristic which no one ever applies in any other context. If a company is accused of fraud once, well, that happens; twice, well, accidents happen. But I strongly suspect that you would avoid doing business with a successful company currently facing five or more independent concurrent investigations/lawsuits for fraud. Sooner or later you have to start wondering if there's fire in addition to smoke.
It's also plainly untrue that every sufficiently famous person will eventually face an unfounded accusation of sexual misconduct. There are celebrities who've been in the public eye for decades without once being accused of misbehaving.
FtttG
8mo ago
You could also parse it as "a joke". Directly above me there's a guy saying Kamala only got where she is by sucking dick, and I'm sexist? Please.
Do better.
This isn't Reddit. Get lost.
R/HermanCainAward? Good content.
Revolting.
Was/were? That joke would honestly kill if it were told at a drag show.
A testament to how remedial drag humour is.
FtttG
1yr ago
I'm not saying "Hanson said this, therefore he should be cancelled". I'm saying that it's reasonable to characterise that specific belief as misogynistic.
FtttG
2yr ago
Fascinating that wokeness inspires such multi-partisan revulsion that it can create "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"-style coalitions like this.
FtttG
3mo ago
Scott: "The phrase 'the purpose of a system is what it does' is dumb, you can't just judge the purpose of a system based on one or more of its outputs."
Everyone: "Obviously people are misusing this phrase, you have to look at the original context of what the person who coined it meant."
Scott: ahem
Nice way to pass the buck there, blaming this on "society" rather than "feminist media".
More options
Context Copy link