@Westerly's banner p

Westerly


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:45:34 UTC

Talk to me on Discord! Westerly#7626


				

User ID: 316

Westerly


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:45:34 UTC

					

Talk to me on Discord! Westerly#7626


					

User ID: 316

There were honestly so many retcons over the course of COVID that I lost track. I can only hope someone more spiteful than me collected them all lest they be memoryholed. I at least remember when the WHO edited the definition of 'herd immunity' to exclude natural immunity after the vaccine came out, or when magazines retroactively attached prefaces to articles about how leaky vaccines might make diseases more virulent explaining this did not apply to COVID for unspecified reasons

The traditional SSC response would be something about ingroup and outgroup and how when they say “white people” this is code for red tribe white people aka bad white people unlike themselves. I do not believe this. I believe there is a legitimate undercurrent of self hatred and suicidality to a lot of left-leaning beliefs. I believe the honest answer would be that white people should (ideally voluntarily) just die out.

traditional families are yesterdays fashion

Very true despite what feminists will say about having no problem with women that want to be moms. It is either or. My wife’s cousin, maybe 7 years back was in elementary school and the teacher asked what every kid wanted to be when they grew up. Her response of “a mom” earned her parents a concerned call from the teacher, chiding them that they should encourage her to have bigger aspirations. Of course she just came out as a lesbian last month, so mission accomplished I guess.

I recently came across something while listening to a crime podcast that I have heard many times before. The adage that "rape is about power, not sex". I have literally heard this since teachers told me this in school. The most recent context as I mentioned was a crime podcast. Specifically the hosts were covering a case committed in Thailand I believe, and they were saying that the suspects favored by the police were likely wrongfully accused/targeted because they were illegal immigrants. As a point of evidence in favor of their innocence, the hosts remarked that the confession extracted by the police gave the motive as uncontrollable lust at seeing the victim behaving in a promiscuous way (making out with her boyfriend in public). The hosts pointed out that since science has proven that rape has nothing to do with sex, and only with power, this explanation was obviously false and the product of a coerced confession.

But upon thinking about this, how does this make any sense at all? If rape had nothing to do with sex, shouldn't we expect men and ninety year old women to be raped just as often as twenty year old women when attacked? After all, wouldn't it be an even greater assertion of power to assert your power over a male than over a female? Of course rapes of males by males happen, but to my knowledge generally in a prison or explicitly homosexual context, in either case where women are off the menu. I can't tell you how many cases I have heard where a couple is attacked, the man is killed and the woman is raped then killed. I don't know if I have ever heard of a case where a heterosexual couple is attacked, the woman killed (without assault) and the man raped then killed. Furthermore, doesn't rape require some level of sexual interest from the perpetrator (assuming he doesn't use an object or something else)?

I just can't believe how often this "fact" is trotted out as if it is completely proven. I can't even begin to imagine how such a thing could even theoretically be proven, except maybe by observing that heterosexual perpetrators were just as likely to rape men as women (which is not the case to my knowledge). How did such a fact come to be accepted without challenge? Is there some persuasive argument for this that I'm not aware of? What would the purpose of making this up be? Is it just to distance the woman's behavior/dress and general victim blaming from the crime?

”Groomer” as I understand it, is a person who’s making a covert attempt to directly modify a kid’s sexuality in unhealthy ways

This is the equivalent of wokes using “white supremacy” to include timeliness, dress codes and objectivity. Maybe you feel turnabout is fair play, but it’s dishonest and is a transparent attempt to leverage conditioned emotional reactions to a different, narrower concept against a newly broadened category

I also really doubt any supporters of this would say its purpose is to punish reds as opposed to “protect trans kids.” I think it’s fair to ask whether “protect trans kids” or “hurt red tribers” is a model more predictive of actual behavior, but you have to actually ask that, because this law is consistent with both so far as I can tell.

So we set the precedent that threatening nuclear annihilation gets you any concessions you ask for? Sounds like a way to guarantee we get more frequent threats of nuclear annihilation. If it worked once why shouldn’t he keep doing it? Isn’t this where the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” adage comes from? I don’t see how this averts any threat, it just kicks the can down the road by virtually guaranteeing such threats become more common. Now maybe that makes sense if you have some reason to believe you’ll be better positioned to resist them in the future and you just need to buy time, but that isn’t obvious to me

This strikes me as rationalists rationalizing their own class self-interest. The same way EA just so happens to only support democrat politicians, rationalism coincidentally just so happens to work out extremely well for the types of people that are rationalists. Easy to be YIMBY when you are 25 and living in a rented apartment in San Francisco.

Seems a fitting illustration of my earlier comment that mentioned the recurring theme of suicidality of leftism and endless, unquestioning affirmation. If you would affirm and aid a teenage girl in cutting her breasts off, why not aid her in committing suicide? Who is to say her desire is invalid? She is just speaking her truth.

In discussing transgenderism in teenage girls, such as in Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage, analogies to other forms of self mutilation like cutting and anorexia are frequently brought up. To those (such as myself) that question gender affirming care, there is the fear that we are effectively engaging in cutting-affirming care. I can easily imagine a future with suicide-affirming “care” for teenagers being the logical endpoint. I can even imagine the arguments like “They are going to commit suicide anyway, you might as well make it legal and as painless as possible” (see: abortion and drug arguments)

This is the truth. Women are infamous for hating guys that have tinder photos “holding fish” or standing in front of their truck, being classic low status red tribe indicators. If you are on The Motte you shouldn’t be reading as visibly red tribe, and unless you sperg out they will just assume you’re leftist because of the confusing tribal signals.

Can you please not use the midwit meme? You might as well just say “You’re a retard”, but for some reason the mods tolerate one but would never tolerate the other

leftists are always on the lookout for things to subvert. Because extreme leftists fundamentally cannot create, only destroy

Oh come on this is ridiculous. While leftist entryism seems to be a real phenomenon, blanket stating that leftists are just fundamentally evil like this requires a little justification

I wouldn’t take anything they say about not dating Trump voters too seriously. Incels have done enough chadfishing experiments to show that you can say or believe whatever you want so long as they are attracted to you

Now as far as my personal experience goes, my sample size is very small consisting only of my wife and a handful of people I have dated. But I have never found political differences to be a hindrance. I have only encountered a couple people in my life whose political beliefs were based on anything more than emulating their social peers. So generally in my experience you date a girl and she will come to adopt all your beliefs because you will become the focus of her social life.

All real experiences are being replaced with more optimized simulations. Real experiences have limitations to how much you can optimize them. Pets can literally be bred for cuteness, docility, smallness etc, not so with human children. Streamers can optimize friendship, sex workers/OF egirls for sexuality, retirement homes for elderly care, recorded music for friends/family singing. Real experiences limited by blood relationships, geographic proximity, reciprocity and non-specialized providers just won’t be able to compete in the future (present) and it seriously troubles me

If I understand you correctly, this is what you are calling the Phenotypic Null Hypothesis: that a trait being heritable does not mean it necessarily has a direct genetic cause. Particularly relevant to HBD, my understanding is that you might say that blacks scoring lower on tests might be shown to be heritable, but perhaps that could be because of racism. Since blackness is also genetically heritable, if blackness were to cause them to experience racism which causes their test scores to be lower, then this would be a plausible explanation for why low test scores appear to be genetically heritable in blacks, but it would actually be due to blackness being genetically inherited and that causing low test scores through a more indirect means than low intelligence.

That seems plainly reasonable and true so far as I can tell. I think people are perhaps responding to you defensively because this feels like an isolated demand for rigor or weakmanning directed specifically at HBD, without considering the epistemic failings of hardline blank-slatists which are surely even greater. Also I think that showing a trait to be heritable has to count as weak Bayesian evidence at least in favor of a genetic explanation.

Just out of curiosity, how does this even come up with your psychiatrist?

Basically: single-purpose specialized experience providers often leveraging technology will outcompete everything real eventually

So Texas is directly nullifying federal law

Genuine question: Do states like California not do this regularly when it comes to sanctuary cities and enforcement of some drug laws? I was under the impression they got away with that without issue. Why should this be any different?

Given the wide variation in homosexual practices by culture, it seems pretty evident that cultural pressure/conditioning/therapy/whatever can actually effectively change the sexuality of a significant portion of people

What’s with the Aotearoa affectation?

Trad macho posturing bullshit like this is always so laughable being posted on a community that is an even less productive use of time than some Minecraft open source project. Say, MeinNameistBernd, shouldn’t you be teaching Sunday School, bodybuilding or reciting Greek poetry right now?

These kinds of choices are just degrading, painful and exploitative. What’s the harm if I offer a poor man one million dollars to have sex with his wife? If he values his wife’s purity he can just refuse, no harm right? Obviously not, if he’s in a situation where he needs the money, even just having this option can be deeply distressing.

Nobody thinks being obese is better than being fit, but pizza is still outcompeting healthy foods for an increasing portion of the population

Does anyone have a link to a sincere presentation of the case for him being a federal agent? Googling it literally only shows references to a “debunked far-right conspiracy theory” but not one genuine presentation of it from a right-leaning source

All of these premises are just plainly ridiculous. They don’t follow from one another at all. Am I obligated to be friends with retards, schizos and sociopaths? Am I obligated to have sex with 100-year olds, men, and retards? Are blacks not allowed to say “I just feel more comfortable with black friends”? Are women not allowed to reject incels?

If the answer to any of these is “no” then we know what this is really about. This is just cover for browbeating white people for having white friends or partners, or anyone for rejecting trannies. If the answer to all of these is “yes” then this is such a silly fantasy it needn’t be taken seriously

Involvement on its own doesn’t mean anything. Ironically this is somewhat analogous to claims of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 elections