PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
That comment is about accelerationism, i.e. pushing for a different future. The idea is that pro-feminist solutions to fertility collapse are necessarily oppressive to men. Done correctly with the right technology though, the rebellion can be probably be prevented.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
We are talking past each other. What are you even talking about? Your "oh dear sorry to hear that" is just an emotive distraction. Using 'status' to refer to 'children as status trophies' is completely alien to the conversation. It might as well be off-topic. In your hypothetical world, you think men are so low status that no woman would ever want to have sex with one, and the mens' sperm would just be siphoned for IVF?
Status and quality here refer to 'husbands as status trophies' and with scarcer men of course their status would go up. This specific thread is about whether it is even necessary for the male minority to have 'desirable genes.' I argue that merely making men scarce would be enough to offset the hypergamous instinct.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
I might be using "hypergamous norms" differently than usual. I don't mean in the sense that women are actually being promiscuous, only that they try to date out of their league. Also I didn't mention incel rebellions anywhere in this reply chain. Did you respond to the wrong comment?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
I don't mean this as an attack on you: "Breeding lucky people" sounds like the kind of phrase LessWrong.com would call "a confusion"
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Actually, incels are the real high-status and valorous winners because only they have the moral fortitude to survive being losers.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
My comments about 'smurfing' are in the context of a female gaze, wherein girls choose according to the result of the ranked queue -- male competition.
"Chad is smurfing" is just a way to phrase the realization that hypergamous norms are positional. That is, any solution that attempts to do away with the suffering of loser men (through abortion, embryo selection, or just plain mass murder) is self-defeating. Chad is not impressive objectively (because "impressive objectively" is a contradiction). Chad is just smurfing the ranked queue.
That our moral intuitions are different about these two things shows us that my clever comments are just: cope.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Yes, I think that is another way to see it. "high-skill players are not entitled to high win rates" is a competitive attitude. Since mating is not competitive in this sense, Chad is in fact entitled to a harem.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
The benefits of his idea have nothing to do with gene quality. It has only to do with positional status. The idea is just to make men rare so women are more desperate. You don't need to ensure the men are "high quality" -- what could that even mean? As long as the policy isn't making men worse each generation in a noticeable way, it should be fine.
That's interesting. Do you have any examples? Also, if those men react with hostility, isn't that just simple male competitiveness? What I was talking about was more "society and social norms as a whole" e.g. including other high-status men who think that behavior is unfair.
Furthermore: historically, the purpose of monogamy was to marginalize hypergamous norms. In strong monogamous societies, "smurfing" is not possible, because the society is trying hard to equalize mens' status.
Rather, I mean: it should seem that society that acknowledges and strengthens hypergamous norms (e.g. by legalizing harems, codifying a virgin male underclass, etc.) is self-defeating: wouldn't they realize Chad is just smurfing? That it's all just positional?
So it would seem something primal about status is immune to this fairness instinct. Alternatively, hypergamous societies like this tend to never happen because people actually do feel it is unfair. I do not know.
E: Skill-based matchmaking is interesting because its an admission that high-skilled players are not entitled to high win rates in gameplay. I suppose that is fundamental difference.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
We are kind of talking past each other. It is true that the rich do not desire to interact with the poor. But it is also true that a person prefers to be rich than to be poor. When you think about it, that's a little crazy! You'd think a persons preference would be something like "I want a washing machine" but actually, people prefer to be rich than to be poor.
I think it means we do desire to know ourselves to be Kings. We just don't want to be the only King -- how lonely!
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
A fun shower thought I had:
In competitive videogames, "smurfing" is a pejorative for a more-skilled player fooling skill-based matchmaking systems to play (and win) against a less-skilled player. This is seen as a kind of stolen valor: you only look impressive because of unfair comparisons!
I think its interesting that we do not respond emotionally similarly to hypergamous norms: Chad is basically smurfing the ranked queue, no?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
What? If men become scarce, then women will become desperate for men. That would increase mens' power, not decrease it.
The actual problem with the proposal is that this kind of society wouldn't actually be a feminist utopia. For one, women's hypergamous instinct is based on positional status, so making all the men tall or handsome doesn't do anything. There's nothing inherently short or ugly about Western men today. If they don't see the low-status men around, then the rest of men won't actually look high status! There's nothing to compare them to!
Indeed, even if the men are all the same (zero variance whatsoever), it seems unlikely this would make women happy. The purpose of hypergamy is to have a higher status partner than all your friends. If all the men are the same it might as well be a society without any men at all!
So the only thing that would happen is women will become desperate because men have more options. So the women will feel even worse than they do now! In addition to getting pumped and dumped, they will be getting dumped by actual losers! This will not feel like a feminist utopia at all!
It would seem women desire a male slave class.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Why should we actually give them the low-status male slave class?
Who is "we" here? If you're posting this then you can just not give women what they want.
The rest of society will just give them what they want though.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Easy, its a lottery.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
Obviously it is an argument in favor of Nazi style death camps, minus the whole "killing 6 million Jews" bit. Your argument relies on conflating these things.
With regards to the OP, I have (only a little tongue-in-cheekly) argued in favor of various feminist "solutions" to low-fertility: gender ratio control like this poster suggests, and also taxation-based polygyny (see recent paper making the rounds on Rightwing Twitter). When I promote these, the purpose is to show that the solutions require horrendous measures.
You might call this "accelerationism but for the future incel uprising"
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
The problem with this is that males become a kind of elite celebrity class, where the average male will have higher social status than the average female. Women would probably get jealous at this state of affairs. Many women would think, "why couldn't I have been born a man?" It wouldn't look like a feminist utopia.
I legitimately think that female envy (which is what drove Western Feminism) requires something of a low-status male slave class to rule over. Similarly, humans only think themselves rich when they have poorer neighbors to compare themselves with.
From this perspective, the humane solution to female emancipation is something like male p-zombies. Of course, that would require a Big Lie, so is it really humane?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2d ago
Yes. The boomer attitude about personal prejudice is that it is a cognitive barrier to rational thinking (it will make your hiring less meritocratic and your company make less money). It is a-moral because boomers were not brought up in PMC culture, just around for early Civil Rights.
Casually Racist Young Man (as opposed to young man with boomer tendencies) is probably similar to Satanists. As a reaction to Christianity, they are still a slave to its moral frame, just inverting it. This is essentially Curtis Yarvin's primary objection to some of the online right, I think. So the young man is racist because he is rebelling against mom, basically.
Another way this is stated is that a lot (though maybe not all) of online right types are Blue Tribe apostates -- not Red Tribers. If we start to see casually racist Red Tribers, it would be weird. It would probably indicate that Red Tribe is really losing cultural ground to the Blue. I don't mean in the "is lower status than Blue Tribe" way. I mean Blue becoming so hegemonic that Red Tribers start to identify themselves with it at a level enough to be apostates and become enslaved to its moral frame.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2d ago
If you go far back enough, anti-racism was a controversial position and so was a poor proxy for how socialized someone is. At some point, when Civil Rights and proto-wokeness started to become the official civil religion (that is, taught in schools etc), it became a pretty good proxy for good socialization. Afterwards, only dysfunctional people act racist. I couldn't give you the exact year.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2d ago
I've never read Dune but this makes me think I might like it. Is it like reading a textbook? Do you like reading textbooks?
Both of the fiction books I've ever binge-read were hard scifi. I only read them because I had heard second-hand what the themes were, and they sounded interesting. Both of them had "that one chapter" where the author dropped the thin veneer of story to dictate the book's theme like a textbook. This is not a criticism exactly, but just something odd I noticed.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2d ago
If apples are constantly falling up even though we're always told they fall down, it would seem to be a systemic, periodic problem and not just a silly premise.
So it sounds like: the initial Isekai premise is just the first instance of the inevitable general tendency to Make Shit Up (commonly called 'bad writing'?)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2d ago
Thanks for your response, although I'll admit it didn't help me very much. For one, I didn't list "trash" as a reason, and the closest analog was "not enjoyable." I don't understand art criticism, so if art critics (or other taste gatekeepers) give vague criticism, I just phrase it descriptively as "they did not enjoy it." Should I just note that as your position?
"Not justifying major plot points" is interesting. Is a premise the same as a major plot point? In lots of fantasy there are magic systems that do not have any justification. I'm assuming that this is not a case where there are repetitive, periodic deus ex machina or a systemic problem with bad writing? If the premise is this unrealistic thing, like who cares? Is It's A Wonderful Life trash? Is the issue that Isekai tries to steal valor by having a dumb premise and doesn't even bother to do something interesting (="enjoyable") with it?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2d ago
I hear Isekai and its tropes trashed constantly. Why is that? Compared to other genres (kung-fu fighting shonen, school slice of life), is it more predictable, more numerous, not as enjoyable, or something else?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
2d ago
I was always a "smart kid" growing up but I hated reading. Of course I discovered blogs 10 years ago and I enjoy reading Discourse about news and current events (and i don't do it to learn about the issues or the events).
I realized a couple years ago that I just don't like fiction and narratives that much. There are dozens of us maybe!
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
9d ago
Whites, Hispanics, and Asians are not single-issue voters. "Jews/Israel" really means Ethnocentric-Israel-Single-Issue-Voters. Up until recently, their single issue hasn't been an issue -- being impartial to either party.
I doubt the 50/50 ratio comes from "male mortality being higher than female mortality." It comes from the fact that the most successful males are just so damn successful that from an expected value calculation, gambling on being a male (from behind the veil of ignorance) is worth it.
More options
Context Copy link