PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
It seems a bit sad to believe his own wife loves him only in the way he believes in God (which is to say, not at all)
This reminds me of a comparison I made recently between faith and love, apparently not well-received by the audience.
The comparison is: "I don't believe in God like the way I believe in gravity. Likewise, I don't love my wife the same way I loved her when we were dating." That sounds terrible, and it's more romantic to label the tribal-fork "love" and the properties-fork something like "infatuation."
For me, the pleasure of the sex seems dependent on if I can bench press her or not. This reality means I haven't enjoyed having sex in years. It has nothing to do with not having any sex; or with not having new partners.
I will volunteer and raise my hand and say the reality is porn is just better than my sex. This also doesn't seem like my fault.
Edit since people are taking me very literally: sex does not include bench presses, instead it is a funny euphemism to mean, "i enjoy it if she is not obese." It has the added benefit of ironically warding off accusations that I should go to the gym more. If these women were as active as I am (and I've gone through cardio and weightlifting phases) then I would be able to bench press them.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
limited by real social interactions
Come now, when you rig the game like this then of course porn is better than sex. I don't think that's under debate
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Destructive how? Presumably methamphetamine destroys the body, or is gross, so I should not do it. I suppose if someone is in a social circle with enough social pressure then it might be worth the tradeoff to partake though (see also alcohol).
Being selfish and NEET on the other hand doesn't seem as obviously destructive. Maybe the kids would think so if they replaced the anti-drugs PSAs with anti-Fortnite ones.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Let's assume videogames and porn do not satisfy the reportable (conscious) mind as well as sex does, such that everyone agrees sex is much, much better. Could it still be that they satisfy the mechanistic actuating drive (chemicals and what not) just as well, so that it is still right to say porn and videogames obviate the need for sex?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Why of course, I have correctly picked apart where Science, Inc. departs from the truth, it's simply [list of my political assumptions]. My neighbor has his list. In neither case are we weighing the evidence, although I suppose we're not exactly social signaling. Rather, we use Science, Inc.'s local cultural authority as a soldier in arguments about beliefs.
I'm curious if people "disbelieving science" will really result in people changing their beliefs. Maybe they will re-evaluate everything they think they know (at some point, people become flat-earthers, right?). On the other hand, people may just argue over what is science. Maybe the belief that science created antibiotics, rocket ships, and computers isn't so much of a fact as it is a soldier in an argument.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
I did not read the entire discussion in detail and only skimmed it. I guess the other poster at some point admitted his "evidence-based-belief" in materialism is in fact just social consensus vibes? If so then that is a helpful example of "science-belief" as social consensus.
In light of your testimony that your axioms changed, the entire discussion seems even more relevant now, so thank you. I've noticed, and so have others -- in fact IIRC your interlocutor for that discussion pointed this out rudely -- that the Motte has more religious posters than Scott's blog or the original CW Roundup threads ever had. I skimmed your recent post history to double check my gut. This also helps explain why you think Materialism is controversial. My central examples of controversial Science would be recent, like the importance of BLM protesting to health; or would be controversial-according-to-me, like that race is just a social construct or whatever.
Is Noticing Science, Inc.'s political capture the reason why you you're Christian then?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
And as you grow older and realize that Science actually has a lot of flaws and lies quite a bit, you lose confidence/faith in their answers.
I think I understand now, thanks for saying it with more words.
This reminds me of the back and forth between Robin Hanson and Scott on the effectiveness of medicine. I tried tracing the conversation but it involves links to so many papers and blog posts that I couldn't find the exact quote in a timely manner. But Hanson said (or Scott had speculated) that the real reason people go to doctors isn't because medicine is effective, but because doctors are the local culturally-respected authorities about health.
I think that's right because ancient peoples and uncontacted tribes today obviously go to their local culturally-respected authorities, too. And if our local culturally-respected authorities do happen to be effective (let's assume), that fact doesn't necessarily correlate with the true reason we go to them.
(I wrote this before I saw the other reply to me, so I feel good that I am understanding the discussion)
There is a kind of liberal sneer that groups QAnon, a rejection of the liberal political order, and science-denial as a Trumpian mind-virus. If science-believing really is just social signaling, would you say that cluster really is correlated, and we will be seeing more of that? (Ignoring the value-judgement of the sneering)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Yes, some people assume materialism from a position of faith. Other people make no such assumption. I was more interested in why someone would change their axioms based on seeing the politically-compromised Science-as-Institution, since that was the literal reading I took from the OP. Maybe the OP was not trying to draw a causal arrow and was just doing the Journalist thing putting words together in a vaguely grammatically correct way.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
materialism is definitely losing steam (especially amongst the right) as we see more and more cracks form in the edifice of Expert Scientific Opinion(tm).
Huh? I've never seen anyone (on the right or elsewhere) go from "the institutions are politically compromised" to "there is nonphysical stuff."
As for discussion about symbolic beliefs: The famous quote "all models are wrong; some are useful" is actually redundant. It just needs to be "some models are useful." Useful means wrong, because if a model was right, you wouldn't give up and call it merely useful.
Anyways, symbolic beliefs are false. The Christians here are actually Christian, so why would they engage with symbolic (false) beliefs?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
3d ago
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"
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
3d 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
7d 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
13d 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
19d 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
19d 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
19d 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
20d 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
20d 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
27d 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!
Without a principled reason to assume materialism (the Sequences attempts to get that worldview across), we all have a simple and obvious knock-down argument against materialism: consciousness.
It is not to say that the Christian worldview is robust against evidence, just that materialism, like blank-slatism or any other axiom that Science, Inc. passes down to the laymen, is ultimately a matter of faith and not purely on the basis of evidence.
More options
Context Copy link