@SkookumTree's banner p

SkookumTree


				

				

				
3 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 21 01:36:22 UTC

				

User ID: 2117

SkookumTree


				
				
				

				
3 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 21 01:36:22 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2117

OK, assume he'll spring for surrogacy; he's rich, after all. Does that change anything?

I have a new proposal.

I think there should be an additional way to get into an elite college. You can still get in because you're an Olympic swimmer, or won an international math competition for high schoolers four years in a row, or because you're the daughter of a sitting U.S. President. But for mere mortals willing to put everything on the line...

I was thinking about an idea for Ivy League admissions reform: the ruling class and those that wind up hanging around them don't have to take much personal risk to get there. In ages past, until a few months into WWI, aristocrats were expected to take personal risk by going to war; many of the sons of aristocrats pulled strings to get sent to the trenches. War is more dangerous now than it was in 1900, and warmongering isn't exactly a good or necessary thing for the United States.

Therefore, I propose Admission of the Hock. Those with SATs over 1300 or ACTs over 27 who are in the top 15 percent of their high school class are eligible for the Hock. In early March, participants are parachuted onto a frozen lake in a boreal forest in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They're allowed anything they can carry on their back except for firearms, maps, and communication devices. No rescue beacons, either. If they survive by making it back to civilization under their own power, they receive admission to an Ivy League school.

If you want something - if you truly, honestly believe in something - that means being willing to risk your life for it and to suffer for it. There's very little of that nowadays in America outside of the combat arms. The likes of Harvard and Yale and by extension the American aristocracy would thus be leavened by large numbers of people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to ascend the class ladder. These people would know suffering and want as they had not in their sheltered childhoods. They would understand the whims of Mother Nature; they would know viscerally for the rest of their lives that the universe will not bend to their will.

We could have special diversity-based scholarships to Hock-prep schools and Hock-prep classes for the determined but poor individuals that we want to have a better chance at the Hock. After all, that Supreme Court decision only applied to college admissions; the Matthew Henson Hock Prep Program can offer scholarships how it likes.

TL;DR If you can do the work at Fancy Elite College and graduate, but you're not a rockstar, you can get dumped into the Alaskan wilderness in winter. Make it out alive and you're in. If you add diversity, maybe there's going to be some organization focused on preparing you for the rigors and trials of the Hock. Or you could simply take your chances; good luck.

The survivors will be very fit, very determined people.

Couple the two: scum tier outside, serviceable to brilliant inside.

I've seen that - once - with a girl who'd been burned in a house fire. She was a nice enough person but thought (at least in high school) that guys would only want one thing, and then only with a paper bag over her head. Very bitter, very cynical, very blunt.

"incels/nice guys are actually rapists"

No, they're guilty of something else that might be morally bad or fucked up if you squint hard enough. We as a culture don't have the balls to just straight-up tell awkward nerds that they're gross for wanting sex or relationships; maybe there's something valuable there, too.

I'll add some nuance. Women find such men revolting if they make sexual advances i.e. basically expect to be treated as sexual beings.

I'll add another layer of that - which is that very unattractive people are just considered, rightly or wrongly, to be straight up transgressive for wanting sex and relationships. That this unattractive MF'er had the gall to point that already gross, already-transgressive desire at YOU is just an extra scoop of shit on top of the steaming hot shit sundae.

Radicalizing the Romanceless

people are not thinking of marriage and family life in their 20s (and maybe even 30s) because that's redolent of their parents and they don't want to think of themselves as being in that slot of the stage of life yet.

I was thinking about this in college and after; I remember vividly working in a hardware store after graduating college and looking at washing machines, fantasizing about twenty years from now looking at washing machines with a blunt, abrasive, caring, fit wife. Then, I still thought that sort of thing was realistic.

Simpson's paradox.

I think it's Berkson's paradox in college: the unathletic without academic skill don't go to top schools!

At any distance longer than a mile, AP kids predominated.

I saw this at my high school. An AP statistics student looked at the (self reported) GPAs and mile times of our track team. Let's also say that my high school was pretty...homogenous. Distance runners seem like more conscientious, reserved, methodical people than sprinters.

Yeah, the SAT has ceiling effects. I don't really think it's being used as a talent search by the top universities to uncover the next Ramanujans. Otherwise, perfect scores on the SAT would be FAR rarer than they are now...more like one every couple years than a thousand a year or so.

It could arguably select for conscientiousness more strongly than test scores and GPA; mile time seems to simply be [hard work + genetics]. It might be that Tanner Johnson's genetic potential for the mile, given the willpower of a Navy SEAL, the best training, etc. at age 17 is 4:46 and no matter how hard he trains during his adult life he will not crack 4:22. His fraternal twin brother might not be quite as fortunate and has a cap at 5:32 because very mild congenital knee problems keep him from training like an animal.

I'm not that sure about IQ as such; you can't be dumb but you also don't need to be John von Neumann to be an Olympic miler.

Maybe he could hack it at Payless Shoes because he's an hourly worker that just has to know a bunch about shoes and show up on time in clean clothes. But selling something like insurance or used cars? There are a fair number of engineers that wouldn't be able to do that.

Perhaps this too is a feature, not a bug: only the resilient and determined - and the attractive - do well.

I think he deserves it, to be honest. Let's also say that he ought to avoid volunteering around children while a student at that school like the plague.

"Cool" (high status) people are usually exceptionally well-mannered and tolerant, they don't have much to prove, let alone waste time shitting on the personal attributes of a random online. The stereotype that high-status people are mean and catty is one of the stupidest copes/fantasies ever.

Yeah. They can sometimes be ruthless, in the Nietzschean sense, but don't usually go around squashing puny peasants like bugs for the same reason we don't sit around squashing ants from an anthill because we can.

IMHO it's just a special case of desexualization; otherwise-neurotypical Wheelchair Wally gets the same kind of shit even if he's in a wheelchair because a drunk driver T-boned the family car when his mom was picking him up from second grade.

I wonder if this innate impulse is actually adaptive for spergs. If you don't understand the social landscape of romance and dating, then indeed your best bet is to opt out and hide. If you try to play without understanding the rules, you end up ostracized or worse.

Hmm. I mean. The sperg that never finds a partner contributes more to his family's genetics (by helping his siblings) than he would if he got killed by a rival or something, but less than if he had a family himself. However, I think it's genuinely a good thing if our hero gets ostracized. Or even beaten, maimed, or killed: it was not in vain and those that did him wrong may run afoul of the law.

You can still accept a sexually liberal or libertine culture while arguing that some (mentally sound) people are morally wrong for being interested in sex or relationships at all, or for being interested in certain ways.

If he's a social retard, he'd get a primer on dating including a warning about second chances.

You would be very kind. Ordinarily these lessons are taught by peers. He needs you to tell him that as an awkward man he is fundamentally disgusting and transgressive for wanting a relationship - or at least that he is seen this way and that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this.

only that it’s incredibly frustrating that a significant portion of mainstream culture has erected these standards for the dating marketplace where one false step not only does, but should result in social and moral annihilation.

This guy getting barbecued the way he was was a feature, not a bug: the system working as intended. Asking someone out is staking a chunk of your social capital; being so brazen is staking a bigger chunk. This can best be described as FAFO: our hero did not know that he was expected to be celibate for life and dedicate his life to something prosocial and noble, and as such made at least two critical errors. If he was going to fight that...expectation - as arguably he should - the first step starts with recognizing that it's there and that the minefield is a feature, not a bug.

I am sorry if I came across as antagonistic.

I genuinely, sincerely believe that it is better to have a partner that might be considered abusive than to never have a partner at all. It's better for a 30-year-old man to have been working shitty, dangerous jobs for $5/hour cash under the table than to have never had a job. This doesn't change if he's killed or maimed on the job. The only real thing that changes it is basically it being highly illegal...nobody's going to think badly of our basement-dwelling hero if his weed guy invites him to run drugs for the cartel and he says that they never had that conversation. It's better - no shit - for a guy to get stabbed in the goddamn lung with a samurai sword than never have a partner. At least this way, the guy's having a relationship. Arguably, it's better that he get stabbed than his better-looking, more socially-graceful (come on. Samurai sword? Neckbeard might've gotten got with his own damn weapon), taller peers. Also, she's going to wind up in the system and as such face consequences for her actions. No different than if our neckbeard hero was working a dangerous as fuck job that paid dogshit and wiped its ass with OSHA regs and got shanked in the lung by a flying chunk of metal or something.

I hope that this clears some things up, and again - I don't mean to come off as antagonistic.

Thanks. That makes sense. It's probably better to have a terrible relationship with a girl that puts you in the fucking hospital with stab wounds than none at all. It's only now that I have realized this. You gain valuable wisdom if you survive and if you don't...who cares? At least she's probably going to pay for it.

Fair enough. It seems like... just like some guys are destined to be college educated guys waiting outside home Depot with Mexicans looking for day labor or at best working as temps, maybe homeless while doing so...some guys are supposed to be living with and supporting fucked up women.

Hmm. Around that time I simply concluded that what the disability theorists called desexualization didn't just apply to visibly disabled or deformed people but also to very low-status or unattractive ones as well, and that the RtR crap was just one more kind of desexualization: how dare you even want sex or relationships: know your place. Now. This applies to unattractive women just as well, it just manifests differently.

I happen to believe in this theory:

Garbage IN, garbage OUT.

Consider the type of person who will willingly endure a relationship with someone they are disgusted by in order to lift their family of origin out of poverty. An admirable sacrifice, to be sure - but wouldn't you feel some resentment? BurdensomeCount: I'm assuming you're a straight dude. Imagine if your whole family got, say, AIDS or cancer or something. But there was some rich gay dude who would save 'em if you married the guy. He's ugly as hell and kind of smells bad, to boot. Would you take one for the team/your family? What kind of resentment would you have for him? How would you ultimately feel about the sacrifice - and it is a sacrifice - that you are making?