Tretiak
6d ago
My brain feels modded every time I read your handle. I keep seeing "nutsack" whenever I scroll past you. Do people ever call you that in multiplayer?
Tretiak
6d ago
For the record it's not "rock, paper, scissors," it's "scissors, paper, rock." Whoever it was who duped the new generation to say it backwards should be caned.
Tretiak
6d ago
I always hated when I'd ask someone the time and they'd say "quarter til," "half past nine," "ten before din'," "twenty before honey," "forty-six before the shits," etc. Just tell me the fucking time, damn it.
Because the point there is that this "conservative" mindset doesn't really have much to do with the reality of the past they are imagining. It's basically a fantasy of having a maid/sex doll. It's not conservative, it's just anti-feminist and misogynist. Compounding this is a borderline delusional assessment of what women actually do. To hear it from a number of mottizens, women are overwhelmingly employed as HR administrators who exist to leech off hard-working men.
Most critics of the conservative mindset aren't understanding men when they point to the existence of the 1950's as a better state of gender relations between the sexes than 2025 can yield. I've never met a single detractor you could ever say this to without them trying to shove back down your throat the proposition that the mid-20th century wasn't some kind of utopia, as no conservative I've met has ever said that. Incidentally it was never until I saw men arguing with the blue hairs that I'd even heard the term "bang maid" before. I thought it was the right-wing that was supposed to be misogynistic. This is just women hating on other women. I don't know where this denigration of traditional vocations like motherhood come from. I think motherhood should be given formal recognition as a real career path and women who choose to pursue it at the expense of a career in the private sector should be paid by the government, provided they meet certain conditions.
To your last point, maybe the reason you keep hearing it from mottizens are because women are more often than not net tax recipients whereas men are net tax contributors in the economy. They take more than they give back all whilst claiming it's everyone else that's entitled when it comes to making any demands upon them as "equal" citizens in the nation. You're entitled to the fruits of your labor, and now you've also got to shoulder the burden with everyone else.
Yes. "Traditional gender roles suck and are outdated. Stop enforcing them."
It's largely women that have a problem with this in 2025, not men. They're the ones who want to hold men to historic conventional standards of behavior. Men have no problems living a life emancipated from the 'sexist' norms of treating a woman with respect and common decency if that's what they choose and insist on. Peace. Have fun. If you want to be treated like a disposable piece of garbage at worst and with indifference at best, you can have it. But this is based on a complete misunderstanding of what the average man's life is like. Men literally never hear words like "thank you," "I love you," "appreciate it," "you do a good job," etc., a single time in their entire lives.
One of the problems with blaming modern views on gender for societal collapse is that it doesn't track. Socially conservative countries seem to be struggling with these issue more than very liberal ones (e.g. Korea or Poland vs Sweden or France). It seems like the gender trads have looked at the consequences of pulling ourselves out of poverty and said they'd rather go back to the crushing misery than try to figure out a way to reconcile prosperity and freedom with having 2.1 kids.
"Women" aren't to blame for the collapse of society dude. But any complex analysis of the question begins with analyzing what each group's contribution to the problem is. As a side note, when the data surrounding the demographics first started making waves more than a decade ago, it was well agreed on that that this was a problem of highly developed and industrial societies first and foremost. It doesn't mean conservative societies will be immune from any impact. No one has said all conservative solutions to address the problem are going to work. But it's 'only' a conservative solution to the problem in nature that's likely to work. A "conservative" culture isn't simply a "conformist" culture. It's a pro-natalist, family oriented society focused on the collective good. Decree 770 was very paternalistic and against individual "freedumb" but at least it's prolonged the life of Romania; we'd probably be worse off without their contribution to the culture of cyberspace. Good luck Japan.
Is it that he seems to hold a belief that shorter guys compensate for a lack of height by choosing scientific occupations? I'm not sure about this, but I'm almost curious enough to pull NLSY data on height and major to find out.
Sometimes I’ve wondered if this stuff happens on some kind of unconscious level people aren’t entirely aware of. A lot of socially awkward people for instance find their way into reclusive activities and hobbies often because they don’t integrate well with others and are not invited to participate in a lot of outgoing activities. It’s not a coincidence that geeks and nerds all tend to ‘look’ a certain way physiologically and find their place in the same setting and occupied by the same hobbies. “Are you into computers because you can’t socialize or are you incapable of socializing because you’re into computers?”
Or it’s the same reason guys with big dongs find their way into pornography while guys with small dongs tend to become serial killers and ride motorcycles. This kind of self slotting of people into categories rarely happens through conscious and deliberate decision making. It’s some kind of social pattern that I haven’t deciphered yet but it’s a lot like when they gave testosterone to liberals how they instantly became republicans. Thankfully I’m not just right-wing but I’m far right-wing.
Tretiak
6d ago
Other geneticists have a right to not want to be associated with that. In the same way if someone in my friend group says some extremely inflammatory shit in a public place, now I’m complicit in his statement and actions and condemned by association. It doesn’t matter if you share the same sentiment or not at that point and it may very well be stupid and ridiculous, but it’s easy to understand why people don’t want the spotlight and attention on them. Whether in my personal or professional life I’m not someone who’s out to antagonize others intentionally and would prefer not to fight battles I don’t have to.
They must’ve caught the solar flare unfortunately, if I’m to go by his logic.
Much hay has been made of the motte-and-bailied line “diversity is our strength”, but doesn’t the defense consider viewpoint diversity as a strength? Isn’t this why academia is pilloried today for being majority female and nearly all writing, voting, and having opinions indistinguishable from a neutered LLM ordered to repeat DNC voting points?
Intellectual consensus within communities isn’t the same thing as ideological conformity. What separates one from the other is whether or not there’s a forum for open debate and airing out disagreements. Sure I’ve noticed some of the latter here when certain topics come to the fore but on the whole, TM is absolutely ‘nothing’ like Reddit and thankfully so. You can still feel when you can’t discuss a certain issue because it grates against the preferences of people here. Most noticeably as well the phenomenon of downvoting someone’s comments while offering no comment response to you that disagree with anything you’ve said. Disapproval still exists. LW was considered for a long time to be a very “cold” and unwelcoming place by others. But it was a forum for very serious discussion. A lot of the topics there demanded a level of engagement I wasn’t willing to invest in. KF and PCM were communities I felt much more at home in when I felt like checking them out because they allowed much greater latitude in letting off and occasionally being a smart ass. Not all environments are equal. TM is very unfit for my usual style of argumentation which is to incorporate irony and sarcasm amid intellectual replies, but I’ve learned how to deal with it.
In a way you can’t avoid convergence of belief in certain domains. Especially where there are clear cut right and wrong answers waiting to be discovered. The rest is just open exploration. Evidence is found to be of the Bayesians, precisely that kind of evidence you only ever expect to find on one side an argument. Otherwise what are you expecting people to say? “Here’s a knockdown objection I haven’t accepted yet?” If you were capable of saying that then there’s clearly a problem with you. The best I can do is present you with strawman arguments all sorts of weak objections. And to that end, being “closed minded” isn’t a criticism because the same argument can be made the other way. It’s very easy. Whenever you’re faced with something you really don’t want to believe you simply say “… but how can I really know this? Isn’t science supposed to consider all the answers?…” and if that’s as far as you can bring yourself to a conclusion, where you can’t close your mind any further, then that’s the same thing as having made up your mind isn’t it? If you refuse to close it. “The point of having an open mind like having an open mouth is that it occasionally closes on something solid.”
I believe you and thanks for the counter input, but this is such a vastly different way of thinking than any other man I’ve ever talked to. I have never encountered any situation that would lead me to believe that this goal is equally shared among men as it is among women. I hate to be a Redditor, but do you have any kind of evidence that men and women are both equally interested in being financially supported by the other sex?
No. In fact I’m saying the exact ‘opposite’ of this. What I’m saying is what’s different in what you wrote is that if a person just walked up and offered me that kind of lifestyle on a silver platter with no strings attached to it, you’d have to be a fool not to take it. If I come across $100 bill on the sidewalk with absolutely nobody around, I don’t say to myself “well I didn’t work for this,” and pass it up. But I’m not going to steal it out of somebody’s pocket.
Men and women are absolutely not equally interested in the finances of the other, except in men’s cases they’d probably want to know if the woman has any outstanding debts. No man I know has ever specifically desired a financially independent woman. I have never once heard that from a single male individual in my entire life. Incidentally however if she is financially independent, it’s a cool thing to know I suppose. But ‘no’ man I’ve ever known has said he’s attracted to such women. It has no effect. Men like women for women. Not women as a proxy for a flashy lifestyle. Men are very much attracted to ladies. It’s what made things like the Rita Hayworth scene in Shawshank so iconic. Women sell themselves short and vastly underestimate just how much a nice and pleasant demeanor is attractive to men. Physical beauty is cheap to men because men find the vast majority of women attractive. But several men I’ve met have said they’ve lost interest in women as soon as they opened their mouth, due to their attitudes.
Well, except the many examples of all the guys who do end up living lives of vast indolence and luxury, and acquire equally vast harems of women.
And as I expressed, yes, if you offered that to men on a silver platter for free and expect nothing in return, perhaps a large proportion of men would take it. Most men though are not working to acquire riches for bitches. Somali warlords could do that without any of what Elon has if they wanted to.
Women do in fact appear to enjoy living luxurious lives with minimal effort and having that provided for them. Women are more neurotic than men.
Dude. I would enjoy living a luxurious life with minimal effort if that option were provided to me. The tendency to indolence and the preference for taking the path of least resistance is a very human thing. That isn’t specific to women at all and should apply with equal force whether you’re high in neuroticism or not. Would you want your sister or cousin or daughter to shoot for a life where she’s well taken care of if a man approached you to ask for your her hand in marriage, if he said he’s able to provide it? I would say yes. A woman says that, she’s a status chasing gold digger. What’s the problem?
The reason that doesn’t work in reverse most of the time is because men and women don’t want the same thing from each other. A woman who tells me she has a career, I could be a stay at home father (which I would never do) and be taken care of, owns a house and makes a lot of money has absolutely 0 bearing on whether I’m attracted to her or not. Fundamentally I don’t care about any of that. Sounds like she’d make a great husband. Men want a wife, not a business partner. Is she pleasant to be around? Does she care about family? Would she make a good mother to my children? That’s what most relationship minded men desire. She could be unemployed, with a high school education and not own a car and yet if she smiles, knows how to be happy and her and I can go on walks and enjoy each others company among other things, she’s ripe for the picking. The rest is just a “cool; nice to have” sentiment.
Women are aiming upwards for the strongest mate, or perhaps the most status providing one. Nothing wrong with that, each group has its mating preferences, but from a societal point of view, it’s just as destabilizing as men who only want to be fuckboys forever, which is of course the optimal male strategy.
Most men don’t want to be fuckboys, let alone a fuckboy forever. If you offered it free to them to live out Genghis Khan’s lifestyle maybe they’d take it, but nobody wants to put in the effort to become Genghis Khan to do it. Most men want a woman who desires them who they can get it from on the regular.
Tretiak
7d ago
Well science has adduced that women do experience basic emotions more strongly than men do. My own observation here is that some vocal individuals evidently have a lot of hangups with women even if I think they’re right on some things. But the most misogynistic people I’ve ever met in my entire life have been other women. Especially when you get them arguing on behalf of the men close to them; especially their sons. But women get shit on all the time for things they’re not allowed to say but men will happily say on their own behalf. Hypocritical if you ask me.
Progressives have never read the Al-Muwatta by Imam Malik. Always criticized the Christians for supposedly wanting take society back to the Iron Age but are fully supportive of people who would take you back to the Medieval Age when Constantine couldn’t even find someone who could remember how to make pazzolana anymore.
I honestly think much of society is overeducated. It wasn’t until recent decades you found phrases like “educated idiot” to become more commonly observed in our parlance. In one sense if you make it independently out in the real world you have to become increasingly informed as the world today is a more complex place than it was a thousand years ago. Assembling an iPhone is much more difficult than figuring the basic uses of a garden hoe. Turchin I think was also onto something when he formalized the argument in greater detail.
Tretiak
7d ago
That’s always been true. That’s just confirmation bias applied to people’s news diet. No one is different in that sense. I think that’s why you saw a push in advertising in some news outlets for a time for sites like Ground News and Inkl that try to categorize and aggregate news by coverage you see according to different accounts.
Tretiak
7d ago
The left will continue its endless parade of condescending “play nice” politics until they get their feet held to the fire of the consequences of what ask for. Until people pay a price for being wrong there’s little reason to stop treating America as a national Ken and Barbie household where we can all sit together and sing kumbaya.
Tretiak
8d ago
There are virtually no life events that consistently lead to suicide, in the sense that there are more people who have the same experience and don't kill themselves, from even the most traumatic events.
I say this only half joking but does smoking count? People that smoke aren’t trying to kill themselves unless they’re probably smoking a carton a day, but you know nonetheless you’re slowly killing yourself every time you light up.
You’re missing the point for why I asked the question. Yes, you can say some things about it. But it takes away so much of Russian civilization that it leaves you with very little to talk about. That’s a testament to its influence and importance. I remember getting into a debate with the British theologian Jonathan Hill once who’s actually an atheist, but theology has always interested him which is why he pursued a doctorate in it. One of the questions I asked at the beginning of our discussion was why he chose to study Christian theology and his response was “… because Christian history is world history…,” implying that its impact on societies is too significant to be decoupled every aspect of how humans live their life.
With Putin’s drinking, maybe it’s just a public perception of things. Some of Hitler’s strongest supporters of his fascist activities were actually middle and older aged women. Hitler obviously isn’t Putin, although the mainstream media here in the US is hard at work trying to convince people that he is. I’m curious, have you ever read The Plot to Seize Russia?
What evidence are you leaning on in support of the accusation? It has to be more than that he’s said inflammatory things for effect.
Tretiak
9d ago
In the US, Christianity has taken a major hit in the culture and has been severely disempowered in its message. It’s one of the things a lot of us hope to see a restoration of in the future but right now it’s progressive ideology in places like California and NYC that are the trendsetters for the rest of the country. To confuse that with Christianity however is a mistake.
Tretiak
9d ago
In the US it’s essentially a meaningless gesture. It’s violated all the time as a matter of some “sacred duty” to uphold the integrity of the office. Same as in our court system when there’s some criminal matter have you have to swear on the Bible to tell the truth. If you refuse to swear on the Bible they have you make what’s called an “affirmation” instead but in both cases, they violate this requirement so often that almost nobody takes it seriously. It’s an almost useless symbolism.
Oh man. That is great. We’d have loved you back when the lot of us played the original StarCraft on Battle.net. It was a paradise of vulgarity, immature teenagers and young adults.
More options
Context Copy link