@Fruck's banner p

Fruck

Lacks all conviction

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

Fruck is just this guy, you know?

Verified Email

				

User ID: 889

Fruck

Lacks all conviction

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

					

Fruck is just this guy, you know?


					

User ID: 889

Verified Email

Hey Wellness Wednesday, I've completely lost faith in the motte this week. See I've used "I think I fucked up my niece/nephew by playing a single song/tv show/movie" as a premise about a dozen times over the course of my life, and the only time it was taken seriously was with a group of college freshmen. Everyone else immediately understood that it was a premise, because you would have to be totally disconnected from reality to think a single piece of media reshaped someone's entire worldview. 100% disconnected, Being There disconnected.

But the thing is, I know the motte isn't full of freshmen, it's full of gen xers and millenials. And yet posting here was the second time my ridiculous premise was taken seriously. I used to make jokes 10 times as convoluted on /r/cwr and everyone got them, and when I'd do one on the motte I'd get accused of going for cheap laughs!

So it brought to mind a lot of other things I have noticed over the past few months, which can be summed up like this - I no longer believe I am stupider than the average motter. But, and this is the important part - I still know I'm a fucking idiot. Half of the cwr threads might as well be written by markov bots these days, there are still quite a few insightful comments every week, but so much of the rest is just rote bullshit. Just everyone talking down to each other, using passive aggressive laziness to evade the modhats - but not even making it entertaining, it's just talking points vs talking points.

I want to feel stupid again. I want to have to bring my a-game again. I don't know how to make that happen.

My take is that the kiss itself, not really that bad, but also something that does reflect on power dynamics, both men/women but also boss/employee. It deserved a real apology which was not given, instead the apology was not only extremely insincere, but also a result of behind the scenes pressure to sweep it under the rug and downplay. Rubiales doubling down was awful and it is kind of dystopian to see so much applause. He's the one playing a victimhood narrative, not Hermoso. Which is crazy! She didn't even talk about victimhood AT ALL until AFTER Rubiales basically lied about the kiss. I might add that Rubiales' version of events is in my opinion not supported by the video of the kiss, where they don't seem to have much of a conversation at all.

Yeah, sorry chum but I don't see anything in your post that changes this from the he said she said nonsense I thought it was in the first place. She says he lied about asking for a kiss. Why is she more credible than him? Because you empathise with her more. Anyone who feels the opposite will find Rubiales more credible. But we didn't record that exchange so we'll never know. What we did record has Rubiales mouth blocked by Hermoso's head while they hugged, which would also be a good way to say a few things in a roaring stadium.

Also

Commentary: Note how he focuses on how he's almost forced to apologize, how he created a distraction, and how he minimizes everything that happened. He doesn't even say what he did, he just says "what happened, happened". No big deal, no big deal. It's all about the consequences of his actions and nothing about how it could have made her feel or if he truly made a mistake. No, it's an apology that he "has to" make. This is, IMO, extra clear in the original Spanish and with intact voice inflections, etc. and I've tried to render the overall "vibe" of his comments accurately, though Spain-Spanish isn't my forte.

This is how every public facing representative apologises. Minimise everything that happened. Nobody was hurt by it, it was just a mistake. And yet, he does own up to his mistakes. He calls them his mistakes, he says he is embarrassed for distracting from the team's victory. Should he have busted out a whip and struck his sin away? Obviously Rubiales desperately needs some pr person by his side to slap the side of his head every time he opens his mouth, but once again it feels like we are razing the countryside over a minor interpersonal conflict, which is what nearly every msm cancel culture crusade turns out to be.

Instead, Hermoso is only a reluctant participant in the whole debate who might have though it also wasn't a big deal and wanted to move on herself, until pressure and slander essentially forced her hand.

Say what. So you think she didn't think it was a big deal except he said she said yes and that made it a big deal, because she was ok with the non consensual kiss but not ok with him claiming it was consensual, so after days of silence she released a statement denouncing the nonconsensual kiss?

Also why did this need a new thread?

Thanks for this, it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

For fucks sake you have catch 22 flair, how do you not understand the concept of farce?

Saving the term insurrection for the capitol shenanigans is in essence agreeing it was an insurrection. I do not and I have no respect for the idea, so I call anything Trump 2020 related an insurrection with the exact same amount of respect for the term as I would use referring to the capitol shenanigans, which is to say none.

That reminds me of when my old school friend and her hubby were getting caught up in the Trump doomerism back in 2017. But there's a simple solution I told them - Make America Great Again. Then there's nothing to worry about! Naturally they were very grateful.

Lol good save.

He’s a perfect example of someone who needs to be removed from the gene pool, improving the genetic stock of humanity immediately.

Would we immediately improve the genetic stock of humanity by killing all the spastics, speds, psychos, schizos and spergs? I think we would destroy it. It is said that the line between genius and lunatic is very thin, because while mental illnesses have many negative effects, they also have positives - most importantly they provide diversity of thought, the only diversity that matters. As a result the intelligent have often been viewed with suspicion throughout history, new paradigms of thought often look like madness to the unenlightened.

Of course this doesn't mean we should coddle the mentally ill or excuse them when they harm others. But doctors are currently hard at work developing treatments for heritable disorders, and with advances in genetic engineering the possibility of ameliorating their negative effects grows nearer and nearer. It might even be the case that society resolves these issues in our lifetimes, meaning no one will have to suffer the adverse effects of conditions like schizophrenia, psychopathy, adhd and autism. Then the mentally ill will be both your genetic and social superiors, instead of just the second.

Because that's another thing you are missing - you might be genetically superior to a schizophrenic hobo, but you aren't his social superior. And you will always be a white nationalist thespian manlet cowering in fear from society's dregs, seething that society doesn't do more for your safety because you can't - you have said as much yourself. So it is possible - probable even given current trends - you will be accosted again. And people don't cower before a social inferior, that's an oxymoron. You wish you lived in a society where people you consider genetically inferior were your social inferiors, but you don't. You live in this society, where you get dominated by hobos.

Go on tinder, make a date to go see it and say you can't find your wallet. Then if you don't feel right saying to yourself "if she wasn't willing to spend $13 on me she isn't the one" and going about your day, act like you had an epiphany as you leave the cinema and remember you hid your wallet under the driver's seat in your car, go get it and pay for drinks by way of apology.

Personally though, I just wouldn't care. I believe I am strong enough to resist any propaganda they push, and not just because if I wasn't I wouldn't be here chatting with you witches. Beyond that though, I can not express how stupid I think it is to actively construct an echo chamber around yourself. Get knowledge from everywhere, from everything and from everyone. Who gives a fuck who said something or why - once you have consumed it you can put it to use for yourself. Only Nixon could go to China doesn't just apply to politics, everyone's brains work differently, and there are all kinds of connections between different ideas and concepts - every piece of art on the planet is built from the thoughts and ideas of its creator, and without his admiration for antifa this guy wouldn't have made your favourite movie. If you have to go conflict theory about it, take what you value and discard the rest.

The thing is though, we pretend we are so much smarter than our ancestors for being enlightened rational atheists, but there have always been atheists. God even gives them shit about it in the bible - The fool has said in his heart that there is no God. Atheists have existed forever, and the benefits of atheism have existed forever, all the enlightenment did was make them sound cooler than the benefits of faith. Hedonism and narcissism (two attributes commonly present in depictions of Satan btw) which sound much better to the atomised westerner/rootless cosmopolitan/globohomo bugman than a strong and safe community, the same way they sound better to every teenager. Of course religions will predict they will consume a society if unchecked, it's what the religious always say is the problem with atheism.

Or does it just seem that way to me because the religious I know have been parroting the prophecies of the ancients?

I was sincere about wanting movie recommendations. The joke was in the premise. That's the set up. Furthermore the pretending to be retarded meme is about someone doing something stupid in earnest then claiming it was a joke to escape ridicule. It is not doing something you think is too outlandish to take seriously and then having to disappointedly explain that you were joking. How much further do you need this broken down?

After all, Neely was merely ranting, and while it's a common feature of schizophrenics, isn't inherently dangerous.

Is it? Have you been polling schizophrenics for their proclivity to rant? I suppose we should assume 90% of the top level posters here are schizophrenics yeah?

He couldn't fathom why every problem seemed to be someone else's responsibility (I tried to explain that job roles are heavily specialized to minimize the number of skilled labourers), why airport workers were so laid-back (it's no one's dream to load luggage, and they're not getting paid particularly well), and why in general the airport seemed entirely unused to this strange white substance falling from the sky (they know snow exists, it's just cheaper to not prepare for it).

Is your dad stupid? If not I don't think he had trouble fathoming that nobody dreamed they'd grow up to move luggage around or job specificity, I would bet he couldn't fathom why people put up with it. You know, assuming he wasn't just venting his frustration at spending a quarter of a day sitting around doing nothing with absolutely no chance of recompense.

He probably knows that these systems are heavily specialised to both minimise the number of skilled labourers and so nobody can be held responsible and everyone can pass the buck, increasing the effort required to complain and thus limiting the number of complaints received. He probably thinks it wasn't his dream to lay bricks or bag groceries or serve burgers either when he was younger, but he did it properly anyway because it was his fucking job.

He probably thinks it being cheaper not to prepare for snow is a mind blowingly idiotic excuse for all the employees in a major transportation hub to pretend they've never seen snow and they don't know how to react to it. He probably suspects that their wide eyed bewilderment at this mysterious frozen substance is part of the same problem as the lack of accountability and laziness - we always get the minimum amount of customer service we are on average willing to tolerate, and people with no self respect will tolerate anything.

He might even think that anyone who considers those justifications legitimate is part of the problem, giving the airport workers a pass because they hope others give them a pass for doing a bad job.

The thing is, depression is often a result of thinking too much. The more you think about reality, the more depressed you get, because reality is extremely depressing, we are a convolution of dust floating forever through an uncaring and unending universe of chaotic stupidity, hurting others and being hurt simply by existing. Or maybe it's a result of thinking more than usual, but not quite enough to be happy about your situation. Either way, it's generally not stupid people who get depressed, exceptions like me set aside, and so while I definitely think everyone should be allowed to choose how they live (or don't) their lives, I think promoting that idea is the absolute dumbest thing we could do about it. Attempts at suicide maybe don't need to be punished, but they should certainly not be state sanctioned - not for the person who attempted it, but for everyone else yearning for an end to the misery circus.

I can get thoughtless good faith responses from reddit or Facebook or a million billion other places.

Your actions here, simply put, come across like you were setting out to pick on people from the beginning.

Really? Which ones? The action where I mentioned being a fan of two of the posters who misunderstood? The action where I said I don't think people are actually less intelligent, but behaving less intelligently? The action where I said the problem is people are retreating from their humanity out of fear and complacency? Or is it just the action in the op where I impugned people's intelligence?

I genuinely can't see it. I expected people to be upset with me, but I didn't expect this level of upset, with cjets mantra of mod vengeance and so on - it genuinely looks to me like narcissistic injury (as in identity injuring, not implying narcissism). The conflict I was expecting was for people to bring up examples of times I have been guilty of using semantics and passive aggression to avoid actually engaging, because they absolutely exist. Is any critical comment a gotcha now? Can we not just say "yeah that was dumb, we need to get our act together" Not to mention if I brought it up without an example it would have been immediately dismissed as a strawman.

Am I wrong about the average age here? The joke was that I was afraid this kid would watch a movie and suddenly flip his entire worldview, a premise that was mocked mercilessly when I was growing up, because "everyone knows" that nobody is influenced by just one thing, everything is a confluence of the innumerable stories everyone hears all day every day. That doesn't mean media doesn't have an influence on people, of course it does! But nobody becomes a nihilist after watching fight club one time, just like nobody becomes a libertarian after reading atlas shrugged and nobody becomes a mass shooter after playing doom - there are a thousand other stops along the way there, and if it looks like an immediate turn that is because prior stories predisposed the person to absorb that influence.

I chose the words "a single piece of media reshaped someone's entire worldview." very carefully, to avoid this exact tangent.

And in that context, affiliation with mainstream Republicans is much stronger evidence that the guy is serious - the overlap between "mainstream Republican" and "posts 14/88 memes ironically" is basically zero. People who post 14/88 memes ironically are either nihilistic trolls or lefties, and following mainstream Republicans on social media is good Bayesian evidence that someone is neither of those things.

That's a hell of a lot of sweeping generalisations based on the use of four digits, twice. Yeah no one on the planet has ever been an edgy idiot saying stupid shit because it causes a reaction. No, we're rationalists, we're smart, we're Bayesian so we can calculate that 1488 + nihilist/leftist = irony and 1488 + any affiliation with mainstream republicans = hide and protect the Jews.

The funny thing is, the rule of goats says I have to pretend I don't understand trolling either and treat you like an IFLS short busser.

Lol what? Did you have a stroke? You seemed to have mostly pieced it together before you made that oopsie about reading posts, and now it has become unintelligible? You were so eager to break it down and laugh at it before, but now you can't find anything of any value in my post?

Talk about synchronicity, I swear this same thing happened to me before in another recent thread, the person I was talking to understood what I was saying enough to reply until I clearly explained the issue I had with their argument and then I suddenly became inscrutable. Maybe I'm transcending reality and concepts break down in my presence? If I recall correctly, we were discussing something called hard determinism, I can't remember who my interlocutor was though.

This is a good post, but just as an aside - any female between 17 and 30 you should call a woman, and any female over 30 you should call a girl. As you say, youth is a more important thing for women than men, a lot of the time any way you bring it up will feel like a judgement, because they are so used to seeing women being judged by society along the age axis.

So for ladies under 30, calling them young makes them suspect you are patronising them, or implying incompetence, because the media tells them this is how it is used. Over 30 though, it goes the other way - the media tells them that 30 is too old, that no man will want them and that being called a woman isn't a sign of respect, it's a way to differentiate between the fuckable and not. So if you want to add more happiness to the world, call ladies under 30 women, and ladies over 30 girl. And call all men matey.

Is that what I do, relentlessly mock people? I am asking genuinely. Also you have never thanked me for an argument.

Do you remember the 2016 election? Were you politically active for it? My gut says no, since you mention the mid terms like they tell us anything, but I also get the impression you were just trying to be patronising so I thought I'd ask. How do you think the fact that democrats need more voters and republicans need less voters plays into the situation?

Don't worry, I wasn't so great at the motte when I first started either. But through hard work and perseverance you'll get there.

Generally speaking people steal money because they don't have any of it. You may as well just put them in prison straight away and save the court the paperwork and time.

Yes, it is a semantic quibble.

I'm sorry if this is inappropriate, but do you not think that might be an outgrowth of the fucked up things that happened to you in prior relationships with women? The way I viewed the hypothetical - a proposition from a beautiful stranger that becomes the highlight of your life - we are talking about the kind of hot that short circuits critical thinking. Not knowing someone is usually not enough of a concern to cut through that.

(Edit: fuck I'm an idiot, there's also the possibility you didn't read the hypothetical that way, I'm sorry.)

It looks like I'm the outlier around here though, based on the other replies in this thread. Personally I think it's demographics based - we'd get a different response if the motte skewed younger, more progressive or richer/poorer.

Although I also get the impression a lot of people are visualising having sex in a stall with a broken door, scraps of discoloured toilet paper draped haphazardly over everything, the bowl full to the brim with murky brown water and unsettling bubbles and a roll of toilet paper that has been soaked in piss and then dried out. But really you would go for the washbasins - they're cleaner, there's a mirror, and they're usually at a really good height logistically.

One might as well ask why most US conservatives who support small government, social conservatism, and armed resistance to an oppressive state here in the US also support sending a bunch of my tax money to Israel's military-intelligence complex to help it fight against a rag-tag band of socially conservative resistance fighters who are using their guns to fight government oppression.

That's a good question too, why not ask it as well? And why on earth are you trying to lowest common denominator this? Holding people to the standard of average political discourse, defending emotional reasoning because it's really easy and requires no thought, boiling everything down to preferences and then giving up. "Hey, even on the motte people have shitty arguments sometimes, so may as well give in to your basest impulses and go who, whom like everyone else".

If you find yourself lowering your standards to rationalise your ideological bedfellows behaviour, doesn't that imply they aren't really your bedfellows on this issue? You don't have to become conservative instead, just hold yourself to the standards I know you prefer deep down (because your post is full of reluctant resignation.) It's the only way to raise the bar again.