For my MD-holding short friends that are still residents and not attending physicians: sure. Fish in a barrel...a very large barrel the size of an Olympic swimming pool, with a BB gun to shoot at them with. Water's murky, too.
Because I'd basically be a mark for a gold digger at that point; I don't necessarily know if I can improve on that by going on the Hock, but 'survived being chucked into the Alaskan wilderness in winter' definitely seems to on the surface fulfill the 'become remarkable' criterion. I'd like to make it very clear that this does not guarantee success any more than lining up at the starting line of a local 5K means you're going to win. It's a generally necessary but by no means sufficient condition.
So too, there would still be the 'hypocrisy' element; I believe that my subpar physical appearance and autism make me more or less disgusting for potential partners and I'd still be autistic and bald as a doctor. So I'd be asking my partner to do something I wasn't willing or able to do myself: endure pointless suffering. Making some autistic ugly-ish doctor happy through enduring pointless suffering day after day (from being with someone you consider gross) isn't a sacrifice that I'm currently worthy of. "Having a shit ton of determination and being willing to endure Hell on Earth for no goddamn reason" seems to be a building block of being worthy of that kind of sacrifice, if anyone truly is.
I don't know. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, and from what I've heard of redneck territory, starting a fistfight if you aren't on reasonably friendly terms with the rest of the room gets you shot. I don't entirely agree with you: "getting punched in a parking lot brawl" is a hell of a lot less likely to kill or maim you than "getting shot by a guy". The results of the former are a crapshoot; most fistfights end without anyone being killed or maimed.
It's not terribly uncommon here in America; I know...let's see, three medical students or residents that have lots of trouble getting dates or have never had girlfriends. At my (decent, US) medical school, it's very interesting indeed how the short guys in my class and the short interns are focused on their careers while the average and tall ones have girlfriends.
Now, I don't think there is anything all that bad about this state of affairs. It may be that society needs a niche of celibate dudes for life paths that don't mesh well with marriage and children, and 'choose said guys by lot based on height' doesn't seem that bad. Consider things like the draft lottery. Also, the short guys that do get married or get into relationships with women that aren't morbidly obese or literally batshit crazy are a testament to the strength of the human spirit, etc...I've seen it done. Once. The man in question is going to be a literal brain surgeon and is the most charismatic person in our class; we think he could have a good career in politics. Your 5'4" family medicine resident or even a pint-size Navy SEAL ain't up to snuff. Such is life - there is nothing terribly wrong with the fact that short men must be remarkable, accept lifelong celibacy, or decide where they want the ambulances.
I mean...if I'm terminally ill and of sound mind, I'm probably going for euthanasia, either by the DIY method or the cleaner, government-approved one, assuming that medical aid in dying becomes more common and easily accessible in 50 or 60 years. It's either a last walk in the woods with my method of choice - and I'll be a physician, so I'll know damn well what it takes to kill a human being - or a prescription for a lethal dose of poison from another doctor. It's a personal decision, but for me: fuck that shit, let's get it over with in one go and spare me and the people around me the suffering. I could potentially be talked into "comfort care only" by family members that I was close enough to and who I cared about enough...but it better be comfort care only. I don't want to suffer at all, and if they need to pump so much morphine into me that it stops me from breathing so much the better.
The Hock will freeze off most or all of the hypocrisy that I've talked about. For the disgust: there's the "Damn, this motherfucker is unattractive as all hell; he's gross for openly wanting a relationship and grosser yet for seeking one" component, and then there's the "Fuck, the asshole's a hypocrite too" aspect of the disgust; the former is quite a bit larger than the latter. So the Hock will only make me slightly less disgusting, maybe moderately less disgusting, if I survive it. Cypren from the AstralCodexTen discord believes that the Hock, like any other life or death situation, will probably give me perspective or else break me, and if it breaks me I'm just royally fucked and a future human popsicle for wolves or something.
He also believes that this is dumb as all hell and strongly disapproves.
I'll also say that - as someone that's seen more than most people do of the inside of hospitals - that 'ugliness' doesn't scratch the surface of the suffering generated by unattractiveness; health problems, physical and mental, are most of the reason why people are unattractive. Certainly ones between 18 and 40.
"Yes I provide for her, yes I listen to her, yes I'm emotionally nurturing, yes I satisfy her in bed, yes she finds me funny, yes I get along well with her friends and family, yes I would never insult her - but none of that matters because I'm just ever so hideous, and how could a woman ever love a man who
looks likeis as unattractive as THIS?!!"
Fixed that for you; a lack of gracefulness due to autism isn't physically unattractive, but is pretty deformity-adjacent. Two seconds of video footage, or a single still photo of an autistic person interacting, is enough for people to judge them as awkward.
I'm assuming neither of you would cop to being the kind of men who would beat their girlfriends, or insult and belittle them, or cheat on them, or gamble all their money away.
I'm willing to entertain the at-best-counterintuitive position that a relationship with an awkward autist trying reasonably hard to be kind can be worse than a relationship with your typical, garden variety shithead that gambles money away, has a booze problem, or is physically abusive. Playing devil's advocate here, the autist is sincerely trying their damndest to be a decent person...but his attempts (and it's usually a he) suck donkey balls. Also his awkwardness contributes to their social isolation. And it's pretty difficult for her to get assistance in leaving the relationship: after all, he's a genuinely kind, caring man...so what if he's a little awkward?
You don't need to hike to Alaska for two months to fix this problem
The plan is to finish the Hock in two or three weeks; if I'm not out of the wilderness after seven weeks are up, I'm probably just a human popsicle for wolves or bears or something.
willingly suffering in a way which benefits no one is meaningless.
I understand. The meaninglessness of the Hock is a feature, not a bug: I'd be asking my girlfriend to make a huge and fundamentally meaningless sacrifice by being with me, given my subpar-but-not-Quasimodo physical appearance and autism.
I didn't mention very much the 'suffer so that your girlfriend benefits' thing; I had taken this as more or less given that I'd do my best and make unusually large sacrifices in order to keep my girlfriend happy. The Hock may be - but hopefully isn't - a prologue for the kind of determination, conscientiousness, and self-sacrifice I'll need to display in order to maintain a relationship with someone that isn't morbidly obese, has a job, isn't a hard drug user or danger to herself or others, and can manage her own affairs.
Further: I don't know how much I'll talk about the Hock after I complete it, assuming that I survive. I think that the Hock is going to alter my character and personality. I've read accounts of martial artists being able to recognize other martial artists from how they carried themselves, and combat veterans have talked about being able to recognize other people that have been in life-or-death struggles against other people. I know that if I told people about the Hock - even if I called it a "solo backpacking trip" people would either think I was a liar or crazy. That too - the stupidity of the Hock - is a feature, not a bug. Because it's pretty dumb to be in a relationship with some dude that disgusts you just 'cause he's into you.
I don't recall him ever saying that he's disgusting for wanting a relationship, only that he's hypocritical for wanting a relationship while being disgusting (because ugly, awkward, etc.).
From the horse's mouth: I think that it is very likely that my partner is going to be disgusted by me. If I'm not willing to endure a similar level of misery as my partner, I'm a hypocrite: I'm asking someone to do something I'm unwilling or unable to do myself. In this case, I personally find this form of hypocrisy at least mildly disgusting - like a 400lb doctor eating a shitload of McDonald's and telling their patients to lose weight and eat healthier, Big Gulp in hand.
I'll add on an addendum to this, which is that many have criticized the Hock by calling it pointless and therefore stupid. The pointlessness of the Hock is a feature, not a bug; there isn't exactly a whole hell of a lot of point or meaning in a woman (or anyone) suffering in a relationship with someone they find disgusting. As such, a meaningful and even nobler, certainly a more valuable struggle/sacrifice (such as service in Doctors Without Borders, or the Ukrainian armed forces as an MD minus his residency) isn't as good at freezing off the hypocrisy. For that to be true, you'd need to believe that a relationship with your disgusting ass would be meaningful or that it would benefit some kind of greater good; I do not believe this.
Furthermore:
All that said, I'd still prefer he doesn't do his suicidal stunt in the state I live in, because it doesn't matter how much he repeats "don't look for me," if he goes missing, the state will send out people to find him (or his corpse)
Yeah. It would kind of suck to have guys braving 50 below and flying choppers and shit around in some godforsaken mountain range in the middle of absolutely nowhere to look for the frozen-solid carcass of some poor benighted fool who thought that an extended wilderness sojourn would solve his problems. Of course, Alaska probably serves as a magnet for such fools and the Alaskan wilderness has got to have a fair number of dead fools in it already.
Yeah. You do have things more akin to a consensual fistfight duel than one asshole attacking another guy who might just have been a bit less of an asshole that day. In that case I think a much more minor sentence is appropriate...two guys deciding to take it outside and one of them dying from what's basically a shitty bare knuckle boxing match might mean a year or two in prison basically as punishment for fucking up a duel that wasn't supposed to kill anyone.
Life imprisonment is a bit excessive here, and 8 to 10 years sounds like what you'd expect for manslaughter.
There's also some probably-subclinical things that might make someone's handwriting mediocre or average instead of excellent. Hypermobility is one of them, and trans people are disproportionately hypermobile. Same for autism and the sensory bullshit and weirdness that goes with that. Including, say, mild dyspraxia or clumsiness.
TL;DR trans, a bit more likely to be loose-jointed and a bit clumsy.
He was only 5'7".
I think both sides overrate morality as a factor in sexual success.
Maybe Mr. Rogers was an asshole. However, he also sucked at being an asshole. Before the murders, he had managed to engage in some low-level assholery, spraying orange juice at passing couples and trying to throw someone off a balcony before being beaten and thrown off himself. He was unable to recruit allies and was a less effective asshole than your local drunken brawler.
People are going to run amok; when they do so they're going to pick up whatever's floating around in their society. Centuries ago, it might've been motivated and couched in religious or supernatural terms; in other times and places, it might be due to real or imagined grievances against other individuals or groups.
Our toothpick-built distance runner was deadlifting a good deal more than his body weight and was doing pretty well for someone who doesn't lift much if at all. If he was trying and failing with 185 for a single rep that would be different.
Also, he most definitely would have been able to rack pull 225, given that his deadlift form was shitty and he nonetheless got 2 good reps at 225. Starting as a stick-thin non-lifting dude built like a gazelle.
Thanks - I made it myself, with a little bit of assistance from @SomeoneElse on Discord (who respects the Hock, but thinks it's stupid and doesn't recommend it). He suggested changing the position of some of the text.
It's Skookum the Hock guy himself - I don't find it distasteful. It's rather amusing to me, to be honest. The market has the Hock guy at 7 to 4 against...
Iām not sure a closeted gay biological parent in a sham straight marriage is preferable long-term to a stable gay marriage either.
In a modern, Western society...especially with gayness being heritable...I agree with you, here. You had a lot more support for the gay, closeted man or woman and a lot more pressure to be closeted fifty years ago, let alone a hundred years ago.
Yeah. There's probably at least a few people here on the Motte who would sleep with a close friend that they were sexually disgusted by...if it was that close friend's dying wish. I'd do it, as long as they knew that I was grossed out and didn't really want to do it, but would do it in the same spirit as working as a septic tank pumper's assistant for a day. A nasty job, but for a good, dying friend who knows what they're getting? Worse things to do.
While I didn't see the kind of shit that you saw, I saw a different flavor of shit for a month as an Eaglelandian medical student. Terminally ill children, and kids in crisis from sickle cell anemia. Working conditions were good to excellent: 9 to 5, sometimes a four-hour weekend shift. Emotionally: I write about this a lot, but can't do it justice. It was ordinary dumbfucks in hell: most parents, even good ones, just fuck 'dealing with terminally ill child' up mildly to moderately bad. Only maybe five or ten percent of the parents weren't - as the doctors and nurses judged them - weren't some flavor or other of bush league dipshit or dumbass.
I will say that I did not have a traumatic or emotionally difficult or even unpleasant experience! If forced to rate it: 4/10, mildly unpleasant but I don't regret having done it, nor would I mind doing it again.
With war - although I've never been - I think that the thing at play is constant personal, physical danger, seeing your friends killed, and maybe a bit of moral injury from making mistakes in war that cost people their lives. In the cancer ward, there were a lot of eyes on things and relatively few (maybe 1x/week/attending at most) opportunities to make minor fuckups and kill patients.
I would support a rule that for people permanently incapable of lawful consent (which would include Aella's case but also people ruled generally incompetent), actual consent plus the approval of a legal guardian (or family court or whatever) can substitute for legal consent.
I think that could work OK-ish for terminally ill kids; in a hospital for something like this you have a teenager who is more or less of sound mind, not intellectually disabled, and terminally ill. So maybe they're not at full adult capacity for consent but maybe like 75% and usually 75% isn't truly up to snuff...but if they're terminally ill, and their parents agree, and they've had a couple psychologists and maybe a pastor or something talk to them about it, it's good enough. On the other hand, someone who is profoundly intellectually disabled isn't terminally ill and might only be at 10% on a good day, and the +30% isn't enough to boost it over the edge.
Yeah, fair enough - or at least, it's a hell of a lot less wrong. I think that there should be a lot of deliberation and consultation with psychologists and/or religious leaders or something before this...but if a terminally ill 14-year-old wants to go BASE jumping and he and his parents agree on comfort care only if it goes wrong, I'd let him have at it.
The case for "yes", in my opinion - as someone who's been in the healthcare field for a few years - is in my mind strengthened by their terminal illness. Part of the reason why children are restricted from making certain decisions is in order to increase the chance that they will grow up into healthy adults. We wouldn't allow ordinary, healthy 13-year-olds to hire adult prostitutes partly because we believe this to be harmful to the 18-year-old, the 25-year-old, the 40-year-old that they will almost certainly become.
With terminal illness, this isn't a consideration any longer. As such, a dying child's autonomy vs. security interests are tilted much more heavily in the direction of "autonomy". As such: I'm slightly in favor, in this case, but it is a nasty question to deal with and there is probably no good solution here.
Would you let this terminally ill child get drunk instead?
yes
Get high on LSD?
yes
Dive to see the wreck of Titanic in a flimsy submersible?
perhaps, if they and their parents were well aware of the risks and understood
Euthanize themselves?
yes, if it was determined that they wanted euthanasia, weren't depressed, etc; probably would want the parents to agree but if the child is repeatedly and unwaveringly insistent that they don't want to live with this terminal illness anymore, I wouldn't necessarily want to require this. I don't really have much certainty here but am leaning towards "let terminally ill teenagers choose euthanasia, even without parental consent". My rationale is that as much as that kind of thing sucks, it also sucks to have a 13-year-old who's adamant about preferring death to spending a couple of weeks or months struggling to breathe, doped up on morphine, with altered mental status...forced to endure this, and then die afterwards. Of course, I'll concede that there are reasonable counterarguments here.
As you might be able to tell, I'm very much in favor of death-with-dignity and assisted suicide for the terminally ill. If I see the end coming, I'm going to die like a doctor.

Me too, but the whole fucking thing is gross as shit. Cancer, terminal illness, dying wishes: fundamentally obscene. It is not for nothing that Wilfred Owen's poem Dulce et Decorum Est included references to cancer as being obscene. He was right, as Scott Alexander observed a decade ago.
More options
Context Copy link