Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
"Behind our efforts, let there be found our efforts."
User ID: 83
That's...this is bait, right?
- The government is usually the biggest rent-seeking entity on the block, growing its body of sinecures with every year and funding it through value extracted from the productive classes at gunpoint.
- The government usually solves problems by implementing solutions that either don't work, or are hilariously cost-inefficient to the point where they could have done better by just distributing the money spent directly to the nominal beneficiaries. Which of course the government doesn't do, because the actually intended beneficiary is (some other part of) the government.
- Government is corrupt and wasteful; the private sector gets the blame.
I mean, epistemic gap, the rightist and the leftist see two different movies on one screen, yadda yadda. I'm perfectly willing to admit that private sector actors are also self-interested and will bend and exploit the rules as far as they can, but come on. The government is so much bigger, more powerful and further-reaching, it has every opportunity to prove how well it can solve problems. Pointing fingers at filthy corporats and kulaks, as if they were responsible for every government failure ever, regardless of which country and/or system we're talking about...
I wouldn't know, but we do sometimes call them Schmuddelfilm.
"Unreal isn't woke", they said!
Did you follow Redot further, btw?
Something I ran into today: https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/epic-cplusplus-coding-standard-for-unreal-engine#inclusivewordchoice
Good thing I can now code Boomer Wish Fulfillment, Minority Slayer 2000 and Dubiously-Consensual Intercourse Simulator in a fully inclusive style. Thanks to whoever wrote that coding standard!
Tangentially related, but have you or anyone else heard the term "misyar marriage"?
Yeah, with it supposedly being a smokescreen for prostitution.
People who post on the Motte are probably positively selected for enjoying conflict.
Do we really? It seems that most posting on the motte is either neutral or communal bashing of the outgroup or cooperative exploration of some topic, with very few exchanges being actually adversarial.
schmutz
German nouns must be capitalized. They do not exist in un-capitalized form.
That's tautological, surely? I'm asking why is it female gendered.
At some point, no, it just reinforces itself.
If you want the historical root cause: Because women have always been predisposed towards care work on acount of remaining at home with the young, sick and elderly while men went out and abroad.
I agree on inter-society competition favoring cultures that can actually reproduce, with a small caveat that if your low-fertility society can siphon off kids from high-fertility societies fast enough AND assimilate them properly, then it can persist even without breeding the next generation on its own. But that's a theoretical construct that the west at best imagines itself to be like.
But I'd also like to point out that
- A nitpick: Sex is no longer equal to fertility nowadays, given contraceptives exist, although I suppose a thorough-enough nullification of bodily autonomy can remedy this.
- More substantially: Women traditionally aren't just a possibly-fertile hole, they also need to provide semi-skilled labor around the house, and need to have decent social skills and personality to boot. A society in which women are available for sex and possibly child-bearing but fail at all the tasks and interactions that follow is one with marriages so miserable that men will voluntarily refuse to marry.
Reducing marriage to the provision of sex alone may not be entirely off the mark, but it ignores a large part of what makes it important.
A way around this is to
go to a different range.
I've come to a similar conclusion regarding many statements along the lines of "you can't fight fate/genetics/the system/[phenomenon]". Much like "randomness" among young people, i.e., the belief that they will enjoy positive outcomes independently of their actions or lack thereof, many people, and especially older people, will excuse their refusal to change their habits by appealing to some greater force that supposedly nullifies any potential efforts on their part. "You can't know that behavior X will have outcome Y!", they say. "You could make an effort to X and then Y might still foil your plans!". And sure, sometimes that's object-level correct. It seems advisable to be able to gauge somewhat to what an extent and at what cost you can influence your outcomes. But many people employ this seemingly analytical language in a completely binary fashion terminating in non-arguments that are thinly-veiled excuses to indulge in bad behavior.
Examples:
- "I'm too old to quit smoking, we all die in the end anyways, and besides many smokers reach a ripe old age."
- "Yeah, I could eat less to be less fat, but CICO is an oversimplification. Also, muh metabolism."
- "I have to let my child do whatever it likes, children turn out well enough regardless of what parents do."
- "I'll go exercise tomorrow, but right now I need to binge netflix. (x365)"
- "Just don't write unit tests, those take too long and we've never had trouble without them in the past."
- "I'm not going to speak to a stranger, they might be a predator!"
- "I won't talk to my boss about my salary, those misogynists won't pay me more anyways."
All of those statements ignore any realistic expected value in favor of just keeping on trucking as usual, by pointing at some supposed mechanism that confounds any attempts to impose one's will upon the world.
I went to a HEMA tournament a few weeks ago. It was peak hayfever season, I was keeping myself somewhat functional with an ample supply of antihistamines and complementary coffee, I had barely slept, but there I went to compete, I cannot do otherwise. I ended up in a pool that contained the following types of fencers:
- One very quick guy who ended up winning the whole tournament,
- An accomplished veteran of countless tournaments,
- A relative newcomer in good shape,
- A fairly unmotivated but physically fit guy whom I had fought twice before, one win and one loss,
- Myself, completely out of practice and in the worst physical shape of my life, and
- A girl
1 and 2 made short work of me. I got a few sloppy hits in, but otherwise got justly dismantled.
3 turned out to be left handed, and I completely failed to adapt to that in time (I ended up having to realize that I grossly overfitted my entire fencing style to defend against strong blows from my opponent's right). We fought again in the eliminations, I tried to recall my best anti-lefty techniques but failed to pull them off, then just switched to maximum aggression and threw a wide variety of different attacks at him which got me a lot further, but but my opponent used his superior mobility to get safe hits in and retreat.
4 did exactly what he did in every fight so far, going in hard and fast to push me out of the ring - I saw it coming and tried to use his momentum to swing him out instead, but fumbled it. From then on I used what worked against him in the past, kept him at a distance and hit his exposed extremities. No pretty fighting, but it worked, I won that one.
6 had previously gotten absolutely pounded by 4, who won the match by repeatedly going in close and grappling her with little resistance. I fought 6 last in the pool, and was by then thoroughly exhausted. I first scored by doing what 4 had done to her, went in close, grabbed her right arm with my left and just gave her a one-handed bonk on the helmet. I could have probably repeated that a few more times, too, but instead I wanted to do better and tried to outfence her at medium distance, which just turned into silly sword-waving on both gassed-out sides. She ended up winning that one by pushing herself and paying actual attention in the end, while I was just phoning it in out of fatigue.
First time I lost against a woman in a swordfight!
Also, 4 took an honest-to-God nap right next to the ring. I was very impressed.
Female- and especially wiccan-coded. If the first doesn't kill its appeal, then the second is certain to by making the cringe LARP nature of it too obvious.
And are you certain that young men will be turned off by that message?
FWIW, my comment wasn't intended to comment on the actual issue. I just wanted to point out that the DND topic was the least salient point raised by @AlexanderTurok, and that his remark on the othe other points still being relevant on the Motte had merit otherwise. A meta-comment, if you will. I don't know what discourse looks like inside the "Republican Coalition".
Now to comment on the issue itself.
Porn, vidya and DnD are all forms of escapism, and in my view escapism is clearly associated with the "weak men" phase of cyclical history and with the "wireheading ourselves to death" end of linear history. Maybe small doses of escapism can be used for good, but I reckon that most people will be compelled to describe as adequate whichever dose they currently allow for their addiction, going from "playing vidya for an hour a day helps me relax" to "of course I spend all my waking hours playing games, don't you know I'm disabled and thus can't be expected to do anything else, and also playing games is good for you here I cherry-picked a study for you, and also I'm an up-and-coming semi-professional gaming content creator (4 subscribers, one patreon patron who is his mom)". The justifications will scale to the addiction. Porn addicts will blame the feminists or structural androphobia or will just fling themselves off a figurative cliff of self-pity. So at least DnD is a social activity, right? No. If all that a social activity accomplishes is encysting you and a bunch of like-minded degenerates in a bubble of hedonism, then DnD is no better than being a striped-stockinged furry discord moderator on a vidya modding server.
And while we're bashing young (and not so young) men's bad habits, let's not let young (and not so young) women get off unscathed. There are also numerous technologically-enabled anti-social addictions that women dearly love. Infinitely scrolling web content. Social media. Pretending to be an "influencer" but actually just producing content nobody needs. Compulsive online shopping. Eating sweets until they grow so fat they dread leaving the house lest they be rightfully judged. Feeding their neuroticism with ever-new diagnoses and imaginary dangers. While we tell young men to cut the cooming and gaming, man up, make something of yourselves, flourish in actual society! we should also be telling young women to put the phone down, clean up the mess they've made of the house, actually pay undivided attention to the baby for once and stop stuffing their faces with sugary crap. Women can be degenerates entirely without onlyfans pages.
Having this diatribe out on the page, let's get back to your question.
And are you certain that young men will be turned off by that message?
Depends on how far down the rabbit hole they are.
The ones who can't muster the strength to pull themselves far enough out of their hedonism hole to even see the "real" world, the ones who have bought into their own justifications and rationalizations of their degenerate behavior, will probably react defensively to the message that actually, their behavior is bad, will feel "under attack" as you put it. But having those people on your side is bad optics anyways; they're nothing but sad sacks who happen to have a vote. A vote they will certainly use for whichever party promises more gibs for the unproductive - so why bother worrying about what message reaches them?
The more casual hedonists who still interact with society at large, who can hold down a job and can credibly claim that they have their addictions under control, those might be receptive to the message. But what will they do with it? I suppose these are the target audience, and the ones that might appreciate support and empowerment in their daily struggle to balance their addictions and their more pro-social activities.
Young men who do not spend every evening in pursuit of escapism, who aren't at risk, might still appreciate the message as validation.
But really now, for long-term political implications I think that unless you either
- go full Taliban, ban all the things and administer beatings to the deviants, or
- eliminate gibs so that checking out of society to sacrifice yourself to your addictions will actually kill you
the wireheading-ourselves-to-death future is pretty much unavoidable. As technology improves, its ability to put claws into our brains and promote our worst instincts grows faster than its ability to help us get ourselves under control. The last 100 years of rapid economic growth and unceasing social upheaval have seen too much happen in too short a span of time for societies and cultures to learn how to deal with these new situations in sustainable and productive ways. An enormous amount of wealth that keeps most people afloat regardless of their bad habits, public welfare to sustain even the worst wireheads, and multiple generations of atomization and globalization to ensure that people are increasingly left to their own devices with their horizon limited to their personal pleasure, and technology ever evolving to make addictions go harder and faster...well where can it go?
[American political implicaitons]
lol i dunno
Also, I play too much vidya lately. Yeah I'm tired in the evenings and I have a cold and I just want to switch off and relax so that I'll be sufficiently re-charged for the next day, but if I take a serious look at myself I have to admit that I could just as well cut this relaxation phase in half and just go to bed earlier, get up earlier, and do something useful in the morning instead. Ask me tomorrow whether I actually did that.
No tinkering whatsoever this week. Family maintenance consumes all. Thanks for asking and please keep it up.
That is rather the weakest part of his argument. Many people here absolutely do argue against video games, against pornography and in favor of marriage.
Do I need to quote Blood Meridian again?
- Prev
- Next
Pretending that this is a serious suggestion:
It's not the quantity of the beatings, but their accuracy. You need to
And this is difficult because
Either way, you raise up class of violent state-sanctioned thugs who beat people up for not loving the state enough. It's not a winning recipe in the long-term.
More options
Context Copy link