Tree
2mo ago
Where did things like that go?
Since they disallowed banging the babysitter everyone thinks it’s pointless.
Tree
2mo ago
Germany's problems are not dysgenic fertility. They are: low fertility, and terrible immigration policy. Why does the alt right conflate everything together? It does not matter that the lower class is reproducing more than the higher class if both are not at replacement level. Dysgenic fertility is a first world problem, so to speak – our problems are far more serious than dysgenic fertility. It’s like worrying about disproportionate drowning in the desert.
Why would all else be equal in high risk aversion world? It’d be a wasteland. People would almost never change jobs, or create companies. Capital would be far less productive, it’d be all tied up in swiss bonds. It’s true as the one-eyed in the land of the blind you would personally do very well. Hell, you could even become the world’s richest man by exploiting all the riskophobes, ie selling insurance (buffett reference).
Tree
2mo ago
So be it, I believe you when you say your preferences differ, I’m not all that invested in team tit.
Obviously the lesbian separatists have far more political, as well as personal, motives for their claims.
And I don’t know much about those bimboficater mods, but they seem to be a reaction to forced uglification and outright hostility to male sexuality (or as they call it, objectification) in gaming, but we don’t need to get into all that.
For whatever reason, the "tit men" always seem to be desperate to assure themselves that everyone secretly shares their preferences, and they are just the only ones being honest about it
Because when your friend is within hearing distance of his flattish girlfriend he will always proclaim he loves small boobs above all others, when it contradicts everything you thought you knew about the man.
people with socially shunned sexual preferences.
If liking big tits, as common and prominent as it is, is a socially shunned preference, then every expression of male sexual preference is socially shunned. Which it is, to a degree, see never-ending objectification complaints. Stuff like : You like asian women, that's fetishism. You don't like asian women, that's racism, etc.
Tree
2mo ago
How would you go about justifying those ?
Because it’s not just AI on the opposite side, there’s that study about enhanced strippers making more money, porn actresses, insta models, why is page 3 for a nice chest such an institution, size of the breast enhancement industry, etc.
I don’t think you could find as many arguments in favour of your thesis as the blog’s, but assuming you did, and you wrote it all down, it would still be considered rude and ‘creepy’ to write such a long blog on sexual preferences. It would be ‘marginalizing’ to non-preferred women no matter what the preference ends up being, like ranking women 1 to 10 is controversial independently of the scale used. So some guy would inevitably show up to defend women and say it's all wrong and call the writer of this alternate thesis a nerd and a loser.
Now if you tell me this consideration consideration has nothing to do with your opinion, then I’ll grant the possibility that the blog is only applicable to ‘tit men’ (they'd still be a majority though).
Tree
2mo ago
Without the cinematic parts of washing his hands, calling jesus innocent, saying his blood’s on their heads, it’s normal roman governor behaviour. He’s there to maintain peace and render justice onto the barbarians, there’s zero dereliction of duty in that account. And I don’t appreciate those so-called “christians’“ tarring of a roman senator as a weak-willed incompetent.
Tree
2mo ago
Yeah, they are constrained by reality and acting ability, it's considered classier to be famous for something else than your bust.
What is your thesis, exactly? That men prefer B-cups?
Tree
2mo ago
definitely not 'movie star' like say, Monica Bellucci or Jennifer Conelly.
It’s quite a coincidence that the women men consider the most attractive (or “beautiful” to be polite) ever, and those two are good picks, also happen to have large... tracts of land.
Something that needs to be said more often is that keira, boobs or not, is just too thin, it's already slightly icky. There’s no point in being that skinny, it’s undesirable and it’s unhealthy, in that order.
Tree
2mo ago
According to not-the-gospels Pilate however, Jesus had done wrong and his blood was gladly taken on, as befits the role and dignity of a roman magistrate.
The Gospels' portrayal of Pilate is "widely assumed" to diverge greatly from that found in Josephus and Philo,[85] as Pilate is portrayed as reluctant to execute Jesus and pressured to do so by the crowd and Jewish authorities.
John P. Meier notes that in Josephus, by contrast, "Pilate alone [...] is said to condemn Jesus to the cross."[86] Some scholars believe that the Gospel accounts are completely untrustworthy: S. G. F. Brandon argued that in reality, rather than vacillating on condemning Jesus, Pilate unhesitatingly executed him as a rebel.[87]
Paul Winter explained the discrepancy between Pilate in other sources and Pilate in the gospels by arguing that Christians became more and more eager to portray Pontius Pilate as a witness to Jesus' innocence, as persecution of Christians by the Roman authorities increased.[88]
Bart Ehrman argues that the Gospel of Mark, the earliest one, shows the Jews and Pilate to be in agreement about executing Jesus (Mark 15:15), while the later gospels progressively reduce Pilate's culpability, culminating in Pilate allowing the Jews to crucify Jesus in John (John 19:16). He connects this change to increased "anti-Judaism". wiki
Tree
2mo ago
I’m not too worried about dysgenic effects at this juncture, we have so little children that I’d take even lower class stock. Besides ,such subventions already exist in a similar form with dysgenic effect, in germany we have ‘children’s money’, which is at 255 euros/month/kid for the poorest (297 if you work), then you get the same in tax credit as you go up in income.
Of course, most of those subventions are officially justified on the grounds that every child should have a “minimum” to live on, which some courts and left-wingers keep increasing like they do every other minimum. And when the right’s at the helm, they increase it for more natalist and family values reasons.
So it’s hard to get a big part of that into a randomized payout, but it kind of ruins the bonus psychological effect of gambling if it’s just tax credits over years.
What I want to do is psychologically trick people (the ultimate decision lies with women) into having kids. Not pay them the full cost, and even less enormous sums in tax credits so that rich women in banking and medicine who understand opportunity costs have children, just cheaply manipulate them for cents on the dollar.
(I’m trying to keep this fun for the thread’s sake, but I can’t help veering into the culture war, broadly defined.)
Side-note:
those who are poor and relatively high in negative risk aversion.
You could say the lower class are true risk-takers, mavericks and entrepreneurs, not scared bean counters like the middle class who insure everything and buy bonds despite having a stable job.
And yet, usually less risk aversion is correlated with higher economic status:
Although I’ve also read that it’s U-shaped, with the middle class most risk averse, like the cliché above. In that perspective, it’s likely that a randomized bonus has a stronger positive effect than a fixed sum, ie more bang for your buck, also and especially for the rich.
I was discussing the, imo, incoherent, common view of risk a few days ago. I don’t think you can call the risk averse “those with a modicum of future time orientation” – The main distinction between losers and winners in this game is: how much are they willing to pay for their risk aversion, or for their risk taking? Buying insurance or a lottery ticket both make you a sucker, of opposite risk aversions.
Tree
2mo ago
The state should do more lottery-based rewards. A one-time 20K subvention per kid, that’s boring, and everyone knows it doesn’t pay for the child’s maintenance. But 20% chance of 100K, now you’re talking, people will keep pressing that button for the dopamine hit, then the gambler’s fallacy comes into play, they’ll be sure the 5th, 6th, 7th time’s the charm, and when you win it’s like getting a free kid, so you can get right on making the next one since you were already psychologically primed to pay for the previous baby.
Tree
2mo ago
That’s a good defining aspect of the woke right.
The discrimination against whites and males, that is on the books, enshrined in government contracts, jurisprudence, harvard. Explicit. Not woke right.
To justify the octopus conspiracies otoh, they have pamphlets from the 19th century, hinting at early life bios of successful people, coded parentheses, jewish media interpretation, and aryan studies. It's all implicit mystery knowledge, like the tenets of scientology. You then become clear, awaken, put on the 'they live' glasses, get a superpower where you don't have to check early life section anymore.
Tree
2mo ago
Let me put it this way : one black muslim, five black christians, or a hundred poles. I'm not sure more than a trickle of black christians would make the cut at my ideal immigration level. Some igbos, yeah.
Part of the reason our immigration policy is such a disaster is an obstinate refusal by the elites to see things in anything approaching a utilitarian, cost-benefit way. Or rather, they decided that the 'humanitarian' part of immigration should not be sullied by contact with the 'useful' part (which demanded degrees, language skills, civic understanding of our society, etc). They're low decouplers, I suppose. The results are that our humanitarian immigrants are the least useful (= most damaging) immigrants in the world.
Tree
2mo ago
somali
black priest
Find the difference.
You and the average western intellectual could really benefit from adding that subcategory. It's not complicated, their tribal religion requires them to hate us ("The enmity and hatred that has arisen between us and you will last until you believe in Allah alone" Coran 60.4) and obey the moral code of a 7th century desert raider. This has negative consequences when you're trying to live with them.
Tree
3mo ago
I understand this is what is taught, I was taught it in uni. Nevertheless, I disagree.
This model of a man they have conjured to justify insurance, is neither a homo rationalis economicus (for whom it would be far too inefficient), nor your neighbour (who enjoys gambling).
There is no good reason to privilege the 'original state', your living standard now. Yes one (insurance) maintains it and the other (lottery) changes it, but why does that matter?
Some people live in a house, but they prefer some randomness in their life, so they take a 50/50 chance of living either in a mansion or a condo. It's fine. I mean I think it's a cool way to live, but it's an aesthetic preference, I would never advise people to essentially burn money to get that volatility (like economics profs are advising people to burn money to get rid of it).
You could say the neighbour is just gambling when he purchases insurance, it's just that he uses the high from winning to compensate for the psychic pain of the loss of his house.
Tree
3mo ago
That is the high brow justification for it, but I disagree with how they model people’s utility functions, and besides, people’s utility functions are neither set in stone nor economically justified.
People would be far better off with a flatter, less utility-diminishing curve, given that they spend near half their income to slightly reduce lifetime income volatility, and if the last century is any guide, they want to spend even more, no future loss is too small to be tolerated, should it cost half of gdp.
There’s no real difference between the TV insurance and home insurance, it all depends on the assumed steepness of the diminishing utility curve.
People’s utility gets modeled as a steadily diminishing curve. In reality there should be one huge drop in utility when you go from from starving to non-starving income, and then very very flat. Because the only way to lose all future utility, to get wiped out in the kelly sense, is to die irl.
And on that subject, people also gamble. A lottery is very similar to insurance. You pay a small sum, and after a random event you sometimes get paid a multiple. It’s a negative EV transaction because the losses in the pipes are large. Any rational man with a sufficiently flat utility curve would reject them.
But one of the two is supposedly justified while the other breaks their model and makes no sense whatsoever. Gambling people are spending good, high utility money, then losing some in the pipes, and for what? To get low utility money.
Tree
3mo ago
Thanks, it’s an under-appreciated state of affairs I like to harp on. We may be the descendents of winter people who always had to anxiously stack their grain, but we now live in a land where no one even remembers what true hunger feels like. Most financially literate people understand that it is irrational to insure your TV or phone against breakage, yet claim it is reasonable to insure anything bigger. Even your house burning down does not threaten your existence in any way, there is no need to preemptively hyperventilate by giving some slimy salesman thousands of dollars per year.
Tree
3mo ago
I see, I did not mean to question your taste in family values thots.
To get back to your original point, I don't live in the US, I don't work in tech, yet I think unions are a scourge. The first, and main thing they do, is make it extremely hard to fire people. So the company stops hiring. Outside, unemployment rises, and the normal job market gets very brutal and cuttroat because all the good jobs have been cordoned off. The union employees work less and less for more and more, and then the entire industry goes bankrupt. Classic european industry life.
Tree
3mo ago
You said the motte works in SV, that is incorrect. I haven't claimed that the motte is full of normal christians, just that some christians living in flyover country are here and know and complain about aella.
Tree
3mo ago
The rat and reactionary twitter have a lot of overlap. The people here don't live in silicon valley, neither are they normal christians.
I think my criticism is about as deep as the usual take about people being "clearly dissatisfied" with the sexual revolution, modernity, neoliberalism, house prices, health care, etc.
I feel the hostility for aella and polygamy is higher than is warranted. Despising people does not require so much communication. Too much protesting versus “I don’t think about you at all".
Tree
3mo ago
I think the man who classifies muslims as christians will make more mistakes in his daily predictions (ie, navigating daily life) than the man who classifies mormons as christians.
The validity of the categories is independent of the subject's self-identification, or of the ur-trope-namer’s decision as to who is allowed to use the name.
To make the obvious analogy, some kid may think they're 'nonbinary', but to the outside world, and to me, they will be put in one of the two original buckets, I'm not creating a new bucket for this nonsense. And in this case I'm not creating an extra mormon bucket when the christian bucket will do.
Tree
3mo ago
who's talking about general reach? I'm talking about this sub. Your opinion of aella is by far the most commonly expressed here, and you're not in Silicon valley.
Tree
3mo ago
They “know” her from outrage-bait reactionary twitter. On sunday they meet in a pointy house in the sticks and sing hymns about the whore of babylon. They go home and have wet dreams. Then they come to themotte and write posts wondering why anyone cares about her.
Tree
3mo ago
Most of the polyamory/aella gangbang posts are from christians/social conservatives saying polyamory and the sexual revolution have failed, fun is bad and you'll pay.
Tree
3mo ago
The only (practically) people who think of Mormons as Christian are Mormons who are being dishonest (hence: the motte and Bailey).
No. Most people in the world, non-christians, think mormons are christians. It's difficult to tell them apart if you're not in it. They fit in the broad category "christians".
You’re thinking of the Cagots, who were treated like pariahs for hundreds of years. No one really knows why, as they seemed similar in every way to the surrounding population, except for pariah status, which besides the strict social segregation restricted their trade to carpentry.
This has led one writer to speculate they were the descendants of a fallen medieval guild of carpenters (?). There’s the national myth theory that makes them the descendents of the muslim warriors who lost to Charles Martel when he stopped the islamic expansion in 732. There’s one etymological-based theory where they were the slaves of the ancient visigoths (“cani gothi”, dogs of the goths). There’s the reverse uno card theory that says they were the first to convert to christianity and the surrounding pagans kept resenting them for their virtue signaling long after they themselves converted.
But one of the top theories is that they were descendents of cathars. And the imo most likely, is that they were descendents of lepers, because a lot of the prohibitions involve touching.
More options
Context Copy link