PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Firstly I will say I don't have a camel in this race because I don't care much what two strangers do to each other. I don't think Israel is Good but its tough to convince me they're Bad:
It seems to boil down to: (1) they're bad allies to the US; (2) they treat their enemies as enemies. Now I will grant you (1), since you're probably right and I don't care either way. But I'd like to push back on (2).
So Israel is Bad for valuing one citizen over a hundred Arabs. Does Gaza value the life of a Jew equally to one of its citizens? Does Iran? I haven't researched what Gazans and Iranians think of Jews, or read anything their governments say about various attacks and grievances. I have however seen some Gazan propaganda television teaching their kids to hate Jews, so I know where I'd put my money.
Finally, I agree with you that Iran and Palestine are entitled to take their revenge on Israel. It seems Israel already thinks their enemies want that anyways. So, I also don't begrudge Israel turning their neighbors into glass. Actually I'm quite impressed with their restraint.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
5d ago
the topic of what you're being a nerd about at the time, or the thing that you're trying to do at that moment, is the 'woman' in this context. Women who do this have either explicitly chosen, or have an innate affinity for, not being the 'girl' in this social context
Could you clarify? Is this saying, "women and girls are the primary attention-attractor in most situations. In nerd spaces, the special interest is the center of attention instead. A female nerd [Tomboy?] abdicates her role as the center of attention [girl]. Tomboys are more common in childhood because little boys still like their action-figures and do not yet like girls."
This is an existential threat for us in a way the average man can't understand (they're missing a piece).
To clarify: us is... [nerds]? Nerds (who want to artistically examine everything) are threatened by the defense (offense?) mechanisms deployed against them. Is there something specific about "average men" that makes them incapable of understanding? Or can we replace it with "non-nerds" and retain the same meaning, if this is just about group lived experience?
(As an aside, I feel like I've seen (you post?) Women, Inc. in lots of other posts. Is there an explanation? I assume there is no Men, Inc. and that Women, Inc. is getting at how female cooperation (as opposed to male competition) means women prospire as a coordinated group. There's also official female-centric organizations with no male-centric counterparts. Or maybe it's a cheeky way to say "We live in a gynocracy.")
average man, or Women, Inc. representative
Ah, unambiguous meaning: A woman is an NPC of the Corporation, unlike a man, who has individual identity.
I also think that those are the people for whom (as you put it) dimorphism exists in the first place. From that viewpoint, that is why it is possible to "be turned [LGBTQP]"
Just so I catch your meaning: We can say only average people are sexually dimorphic. Nerds, but also queers [gender nonconformits] are not dimorphic. To be turned queer is to stop conforming. That's true and not a hot take: just believe them when they tell you what they are.
Finally, in regards to the footnote: Who are "these people" [who claim P is inextricably linked]? Someone who uses the phrase "turned queer?" I think of queer as a Movement/Tribe and that means people convert, or have the pre-existing differences. Is your phrasing emphasizing that queer conversion is forced upon a passive vessel? Take your pick of the meme-ified version of your argument, I suppose. Tomboy hypnosis, medium-rare, for your relevant enjoyment. Still, I don't think the ability to manufacture tribe members says very much. Even an /r/atheist can be manufactured, like with domineering-enough Christian parents.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
10d ago
I broadly agree. For a certain subset of owners, they've literally labeled themselves as virtue signalers.
I have now seen Tesla's with bumper stickers that read "I bought this before Elon was a Nazi" or something to that effect.
They are showing themselves to be virtue signalers, but that doesn't mean they bought an EV to signal how much they cared about the environment. It just means they claim they wouldn't buy a Tesla in 2025, which is just being sensitive to social stigma; perhaps it also means engaging in political boycotts.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
17d ago
Are Boomers in particular an obstacle? Can you give some examples of Boomer reins of power halting solutions from being implemented?
It's true that Boomers might deny the problem. They are the quintessential caricature to say "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" but everyone -- not just Boomers -- shares that sentiment.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
17d ago
This is just a consequence of the contrarian discussion norms here, which is getting dogpiled by disagreement. Rarely do people waste space voicing empty agreement. For example, I agree with the tone and content of all your posts, but I'm only replying here to disagree with you!
I'll add: my first thought after reading your top-level post was that you were essentially engaging in consensus-building. That is to say, you were not looking to discuss the topic. You are mostly looking to persuade/change the vibe of the Motte. (Persuasion is not really against the rules, but most top-level posters here do not exude such visceral offense at the ratio of posters who share their beliefs; most people poast for the fun of it.)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
17d ago
There could be two different alternatives:
- A man fails at online dating for the same reason he fails at a club, which is he doesn't meet women's standards. He is equally (un)successful in both arenas.
- A man fails at online dating but fares a little better at a club. One reason for this might be men do not take as many flattering photos of themselves as women do.
(2) seems to be the case in my experience. This is not to say the fundamental dynamics are different, or that 2's become 8's in person. But all men should get off dating apps, or hire multiple professionals to revamp their profile.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
17d ago
"Is the problem the market or is the problem my expectations?" may not have a real answer.
"What is realistic for you based on the market" is an economic question and "is the market the problem" is a moral question, no?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
17d ago
The grandparent comment is skeptical that AI will ruin the online media landscape, comparing AI to brown third-worlders (Indians and Indonesians), who have been writing slop for years:
The idea that the internet will soon be swamped in AI generated nonsense isn't convincing either, since Indians and Indonesians were always cheap and could reliably hash out SEO slop for pennies on the dollar.
Whether AI is better than (the more expensive) white writers is relevant to if AI writing will lead to a paradigm shift or if its just kind of the same old at a slightly different scale.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
25d ago
Am I wrong to think generally speaking it is the right that makes appeal to nature argument? (or fallacy, if you want that fork of the Russel Conjugation)
Given that we are animals and so have self-preservation instinct, it doesn't surprise me that "of course life is good" is what all right wingers think; and that "actually life is bad" only ever could be a left-wing take (but not all left-wingers).
Saying he "reposted" a swastika seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch. Matt replied to a guy's tweet. (The guy could have been a troll, whatever).
Arguments over if Matt noticed the swastika; and if not, should he apologize; are all assuming that the swastika imagery has some sacred evilness that means Matt needs to drop whatever he's doing and point it out and condemn it. He doesn't. You know those silly Facebook engagement bait posts that say, "children of the Devil will scroll past this" and its a picture of Jesus or whatever?
This whole swastika discourse is just the libtard version of that. Matt scrolled past a picture of Jesus and people are hounding him over it. I guess you're right that he is flaunting the norms. I wish he'd make a Shiloh-tier video about this instead of just putting out the one tweet.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
I notice a parallel between the Christian's love for God and his faith in God. Your post is about the tension between loving an object for its properties, versus loving an object inherently (the latter I still maintain is quite meaningless). In faith, there is tension between believing a proposition because of evidence, versus believing a proposition inherently.
It's an old idea around these parts that Christians do not believe their religion. The Christian's behavior here is not really confusing. Professions of faith are tribal signals of group loyalty, not beliefs. But it would be wrong to ruminate on "the contradiction of belief" and ask about "is belief based on evidence" or "do people believe inherently?"
Likewise, "loving things for their properties" is just a different kind of thing than "tribal signals of loyalty." You're damned right I am loyal to my wife, what of it?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
I think his wording was intentional. His desire to believe true things outweighs his desire to believe Christianity is true. And being unable to imagine a world where its true doesn't follow from what he said, just that on balance he thinks this isn't that world.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
I don't think people are giving money to her because she called someone nigger. I certainly don't get money when I do that. I think people are giving her money because she was put into the crosshairs of the Low Orbit Cancellation Cannon.
That is to say, the child isn't the antagonist, that would be Omar. I almost included a sentence here condemning what she did, but I realized that it would be off-topic.
Yes, mine is in fact a one-dimensional analysis that eschews any kind of nuance in favor of a simple protagonist-antagonist narrative. I am just following their lead!
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1mo ago
Ignoring the meat and substance of your post, I think you're right that we compare ourselves to our (grand)parents. Hedonistic treadmills seem to prove to me that all the things we care about like money, leisure, social status, are relative. And self-preservation instincts mean we'll put up with anything. We take our set-point from how (we think) the older generations lived.
"Livable wage" redditors who feel entitled to a certain amount of money and lifestyle are not thinking economically. "Everyone deserves a livable wage" is a moral statement, not an economic one. Their moral intuition is based what the older generations had. You could even call it envy (a pejorative for wanting fairness).
As a mid-20s single white male (what you'd expect from a Mottepoaster and early Scott reader), most of my worldview is driven by the realities of dating. The reason why I feel entitled to marrying a skinny woman is not because it is feasible for me from a (sexual) market perspective. It is a moral opinion first and foremost. I am comparing myself to the generations past. My grandparents could visit the beach without a torrent of obese women assaulting their eyes. I have no such luxury.
It is commonly said that the housing market is insane. Now I think money is boring and I don't know anything about the housing market. But the entire premise is a weird perversion of the is-ought distinction. It doesn't really matter if expensive houses are caused by illegal immigration, zoning laws, lizardmen in skinsuits, whatever. People are angry because they are comparing themselves to the older generations, not because they are thinking in economical or technical terms.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
Someone on the anti-trans side -- who wants trans women to play in mens leagues -- is still thinking in terms of status when it comes to competitions. For them, it's stolen valor for a trans woman to play with real women.
I admit I have trouble understanding the pro-trans mind on this issue. If I had to guess, they are biting a bullet, and sacrificing womens sports on the altar of the greater good of tolerance. The womens sports issue is just one piece of a mass-deception designed to convince society that a transwomen share the same characteristics as ciswomen. This is the only way to effect the desired change, which is to make society treat transwomen as-if they are ciswomen.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
As I expected, your groupchat was treating it as a factual matter, which is a real shame. Even worse, the one person suggesting to autistically use proxies is either deluded about transwomen, or is just too cowardly to point out the obvious.
If your goal was to prove a point to them then maybe the use of a political example was unwise.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
I was not giving opinion on if "athletic" should be graded on a curve.
Brodski's weakness is low-status but an athletic woman's weakness is high-status.
In case this sentence wasn't clear, I can annotate it:
Brodski's objective!weakness is low-status but an subjective!athletic woman's objective!weakness is high-status.
There, I used "athletic" in the curve-grading sense, the same as you seemed to use it.
This kind of discussion confuses me sometimes, because a lot of men who aren't running 3hr marathons and can't climb 5.13b and can't sink a three pointer on an open basketball court love to shitpost about how stupid the idea of an athletic woman is.
Yes, you are dunking on average men because female athletes outperform them. The sting of your dunk is precisely because the idea of an objective!athletic woman is silly. It wouldn't take much for the average man to outperform her. The disrespect we show female athletes is precisely because a man at that level is also not praised or respected for it. The respect and praise is allocated based on status (and society's intuitions for who should be given it), not based on who can do what.
The existence of weight classes proves that the featherweight's objective!weakness is high-status.
That there is no league for short basketball players seems to prove that short king's objective!weakness is low-status. I suppose one could try to argue that short players are not outmatched in basketball to the same degree that light players are outmatched in fighting. Probably the team-based aspect of basketball makes it harder to analyze individual players. In some sense it is the team that is the player in basketball, and there is no such thing as a short team.
I do not think it is a coincidence that short stature in men is one of the classic incel status resentments. Furthermore, I've heard it (but have not looked into it) that the male height-income gap replicates better than the gender income gap. In other words, a man's height is a classic status marker.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
Do they get to demand a first-class flight with their choice of hot meal, too?
To be less flippant: probably few believe God gives them that right. Whether the state gives them that right is a question of law. Everyone will have their different opinion, for example I disagree with the cases you list:
I don't see any sovereign right for a country to dictate where an individual goes next
Since you don't speak of God or law, I'm unclear on what you mean. You seem to just be giving opinion on how nice the state should be to deportees. You give your opinion on reasonable guidelines that compromise between the state's burden and the deportee's comfort. It would indeed be kind for the state to ask where the deportee wants to go. Take away the talk of "rights" and this is just a debate over how the state should act. Are "rights" just rhetorical techniques for debating how states should act?
if I invite someone into my house and then rescind the invitation (as I'm absolutely entitled to do), it's required that I give them a chance to leave in an orderly fashion before forcing them out.
I disagree. If someone gets violent in my house then I do not ask them to leave. Probably though, it would be nicer of me to ask before physically removing. If my guest didn't start any violence, then I probably wouldn't either, but I do that out of kindness or maybe some kind of custom. Whether the actual deportations match this hypothetical (are only criminals being deported? I don't think so) is irrelevant -- you and me clearly disagree on how to run our house, and we would probably run a country differently, too.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
I think it is safe to say this person had a blindspot preventing him from seeing the truth. Rationalists are often criticized for being arrogant over normie blue-tribe beliefs.
So Brodski held this belief deep in his Soul (metaphorically) which prevented him from seeing reality. What if, on this same topic, I'm limited the same way? My beliefs about sex-differences might be correct, or more correct at least, but maybe entirely by accident? What if the deeply felt hatred for women in my Soul is the reason I believe in sex-differences?
I am not giving the skeptical claim that nobody can see reality. I just mean, how can I tell reality is the thing that is influencing my beliefs, personally?
Of course on different topics I am just as blind to reality in embarrassing ways. Obviously I can't know what those topics are.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
What if the word "fair" is actually normative? It seems everyone in the groupchat attempted to defend it under (b) but if someone said it belonged to the separate magisterium of (a), wouldn't you need another example?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
Your point about marathons supports a belief I have about womens' sport leagues. I am not sure how many others share it.
Competitions are mainly about status and the purpose of sex-segregated sports is not to keep the league fair per se. It is really because society intuitively understands that regardless of the differences between men and women, female athletes should not be penalized in status. The same is true for disabled athletes, which is why we have the special olympics and other sporting events like that.
That we don't have a competitive league for unathletic men like Brodski reveals that league segregation is not really about fair play. Arguments about "not putting in the same amount of effort" are essentially my point -- Brodski's weakness is low-status but an athletic woman's weakness is high-status. It is even difficult to say it in English. We still call them "athletic women" because all the words we will use for this concept (like "weak" and "athletic") are status-laden and graded-on-a-curve.
Because the way we talk about athletes (of all sexes) uses fuzzy terms instead of objective ranks, someone like Brodski can hear about women qualifying for marathons and being strong and he will continue to be blind to physical reality.
Contrast in Chess, where the definition of Grandmaster is actually the same for men and women. However, there is a different title called Woman Grandmaster which has fewer requirements. Presumably, being a woman is also a requirement to hold the title, but I am not sure. Maybe a man who can't quite make GM can call himself a WGM. It would be an unconventional for sure. But, nobody can deny that the purpose of the WGM title is the same as any other title, which is to assign status.
Is being deported a punishment?
Those who feel yes:
- want due-process to be followed
- want everyone treated equally
Those who feel no:
- the state has fundamental authority
Perhaps:
- Deportation is not a punishment
- Due process does not apply since it is not a punishment
- The state has ultimate authority to deport anyone, including its own citizens
- "Citizen" is the status of being a friend to the state. Why would the state deport its own citizen?
- A Democratic (the party) administration could just deport Trump supporters, if not for ...
- The state may choose to bind itself by giving citizens the right to not be deported
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about law, so this line of thought must be wrong. This post is just theoretical musing.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2mo ago
I agree with some other replies, most likely the fans think white boys are a concerning problem. They probably have a blind spot preventing them from seeing it any other way. Other fans likely hate low-status (white) men and the show is like a minstrel show - legitimately entertaining as a sneer.
But, the writers could have more principled worries and know this is the only way to express it. By comparison, The Handmaid's Tale is actually inspired by Muslim theocracy, not Christian theocracy. The two stories are not completely comparable since THT I think is more of a cautionary "it could happen to us" and AFAICT this show is not meant to be a hypothetical -- it seems to be a show about current social issues.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4mo ago
Oh, this doesn't make Scott a Conflict Theorist (Know the difference between #1 and #2). This just means the Conflict Theorist's description of reality is correct - Power is power.
The "You also value my property more than your life" meme but its Israel aiming a missile reading "You also value my citizens more than your own"
More options
Context Copy link