WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
No bio...
User ID: 269
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Yeah, but that's up there with milquetoast phrases like "Boys will be boys" IMHO.
Like, by comparison, it is not uncommon for women to check in with friends before and after dates "Just in case". It's just common knowledge that it's a thing you should do. Maybe mother's tell their daughters, I wouldn't be shocked. But I knew many women who had this sort of buddy system when they were going on dates. Along with dozens of other rules of thumb to protect themselves in case the man was a scumbag or violent.
What defenses are men armed with? "Don't stick your dick in crazy" I guess that works, but what is crazy? Well now we're right back to red-pillology as the only definer of women. And generally, after they've slept with a woman, everything that happens after, even the most nightmarish abuse and family terrorism, is viewed as something they brought on themselves. All they do is shut their mouth, get a lawyer, and say goodbye to half their assets and income.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I guess I never went through a redpill phase. I certainly went through a phase where I realized that you do need to make your romantic intentions known early on with a woman, and trying to build a relationship on top of a friendship just doesn't work. But I only rarely encountered women who were "hooking up with alphas" as I was trying to date them; okay, maybe a couple times, but it was obvious pretty quickly that those ladies were emotionally troubled anyway, and a relationship with them would simply be unstable.
But I've also had women ask me out, women hunt me down or drop notes in my locker or use mutual friends to try and get me to ask her out, when I was back in school. In college I was asked out once, and had a few women who seemed eager for me to ask them out. Not every woman who's been interested in me has been my type -- but most of them were perfectly normal, stable people, and the relationships I've had, though fewer than perhaps I'd like, have been founded in mutual vulnerability and intimacy. I could always share my emotions with my partner, and we looked out for each other and cared for one another. When my relationships have ended, it was either because of a natural falling-apart (moving away, mutual loss of interest) or it was my fault. So the stereotypes of what male-female pairings are like, in TV sitcoms and motte posts and redpill guides isn't my experience of love.
I guess my few interactions with women who seem like the redpill stereotype involved me bouncing off them -- I don't play games, and I don't chase skirts. I don't sit for shit-tests and I don't like coquettishness. My yes is my yes and my no is my no. If women want to create drama for the sake of drama or engage in verbal sparring like a Jane Austin character, well, they're welcome to find this somewhere else. So I suppose my romantic style heavily filters against manipulation, and firmly towards well-adjusted, romantically decisive women. I intend to keep it this way.
So now I wonder, are you one of those mythical, well adjusted, family oriented men who other mythical, well adjusted, family oriented women instinctively seek out? Or are you an oblivious alpha-chad who's mere presence is capable of making women act right? I have so many questions about your experiences, and how on Earth so many seemingly well adjusted women approach you. Or are you an unreliable narrator? How old are you? Do you go to church? Did you get married? Do you have a family yet? I'm so curious.
Cause I mean, the advice of "Just be yourself and don't tolerate women acting like that" isn't uncommon. And maybe it's regional, but after HS I never once encountered a woman who wasn't "acting like that". It's like after being released into the wild, all the good women got locked down or went to ground, and only the predators were out at night. Following the standard advice of "Be yourself and don't settle" was a recipe for being always alone. So instead your learn how to defang the predators.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Women have had the knowledge that men are sex-crazed brutes forever, they tolerate us anyway.
Debatable, but also, let me compare the information ecosystems at work here. Men's many faults and failure modes are part of mainstream culture. Women can open say, in mixed company, in virtually any setting, "All men want is sex." And all the men will nod thinking "Not me, but those other guys sure". If they have daughter's they'll think of all the men they hope stay the fuck away from her. The women might still be thinking of their husbands. But generally, nobody will protest the statement, and it's treated as just obviously true and uncontroversial.
Knowledge of women's many faults and failure modes exists in a ghetto and is profoundly stigmatized. It's not worked into mainstream culture at all. Father's rarely pass the information they've learned onto their sons, lest their wive's overhear and lose their shit that their husband is teaching their sons to "hate women". All we ever hear is a litany of "Women never lie about rape/lie about paternity/baby trap men". To accuse any woman of doing so sets off the entire cartel like you have personally accused every woman of doing such a thing. They cannot dissociate from the "Women lie about rape" the same way men can from "All men want is sex."
So most women are armed against male excesses, and most men are fed into the wood chipper repeatedly until they rediscover the forbidden knowledge from first principles yet again. Or they get lucky and find even some light red-pill takes.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Thank you for your service, keeping me inside the overton window.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I'd say the absolute floor is to be aware of how to handle the "shit test". The fact that women are relentlessly probing your boundaries for weakness, and like children, if you give in they lose all respect for you. If you treat women like peers with mutual respect, you might foolishly give into one of these "shit test" and then you're fucked. You can literally watch them lose interest in you and check out of all future dates.
I have no theory of mind for this behavior. Red-pillology says there frankly isn't one, it's entirely biological. They don't even know they are doing it, and don't even know that's how they are reacting to it. Maybe that's a less inflammatory theory than thinking it's on purpose, maybe learned from those "How to train your man" magazines I always see at the grocery checkout and never read.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I guess let me be clear. Not I, nor any of my peers, were spinning plates.
Well, there was one guy... but there's always one guy...
The point I'm trying to make is that red pill observations about women where the only thing any of us found with any explanatory or predictive power. They were horrifying, and reduced women to attention seeking narcissist/children most of the time. But damnit if they didn't work. And frankly, at the time, they hardly seemed worse than the covers of women's magazine's you'd see in the checkout isle proudly advertising ways to "train your man".
But all the same, when your attempts to treat women as people with equal agency and responsibility to you fail miserably for 10 years, and the advice you constantly receive is "Treat them like narcissist/children" and it works... I mean... how do you go back? How do you compartmentalize that back away? And once again, this isn't in the effort of getting laid all the time and having as much sex as possible, but merely getting a second date. Merely not being immediately rejected. And then maybe, if you are lucky, having her decide to decamp the cock carousel for you, and hoping she doesn't regret it and go back on your commitments to each other.
Now, I suspect there is a hidden breed of woman out there, well adjusted and predisposed to marrying a humble well adjusted man, and starting families. I may have seen a few back in my highschool days. I think some of them even married their highschool sweethearts, and I think some may even still be together. I think by some degree, if you are still dating in your 30's, you've got problems, and you are picking through other people with problems. I also think our society is destroying the environment that raises well adjusted, family oriented people, and they are damned near an endangered species at this point, such that the modal advice to treat women like spoiled children is probably the most actionable, especially into your 30's.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
However, the analytic perspective by itself is joyless and one-dimensional. If taken too far, it reduces romance and sex to a real-life equivalent of grinding a video game. Joy re-enters the equation if one sees the other person as someone who transcends yourself and your image of them and predictions about them. The jaded perspective thinks "oh boy, here's yet another woman who is just like all the other women". And while there is a grain of truth in "all women are like that" (or "all men are like that"), it is not actually true. All women are not the same. All men are not the same. And to over-analyze them, to treat romance and sexuality like attempting to optimize a game strategy, turns the whole thing into a meaningless chore.
You have it exactly backwards. Everyone starts here. Well, I donno, maybe I shouldn't say that. Maybe kids these days really are growing up on a steady diet of Andrew Tate and Pearly Things instead of romantic heroes in fiction. Maybe I'll circle back to this.
But back when I was a young man, this was our default stance of myself and the peers I knew. Overwhelmingly myself and my male peers viewed and treated the women we tried to date as a person who transcends ourself and our image and predictions about them.
And overwhelmingly we were disabused of those notions. "All women are like that" doesn't spring out of the void. It springs for many from spending their entire 20's experiencing women like that. Some of my peers made the adjustments and adopted what "red pill" truths and strategies they could stomach, others were too disillusioned at the amorality of dating to continue.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Most people’s opposition to the trans thing is solely aesthetic
Not if you have kids.. The consequences go far beyond "solely aesthetic".
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
There are things that work in a high trust society that don't in a low trust society. Switzerland, notably, almost singularly in Western Europe, is still super homogeneous, and hasn't thrown open it's welfare state to 3rd worlders. Good for them that they haven't manage to slide down some slippery slope when it comes to assisted suicide. But they've made profoundly different choices about the type of nation they want to be than just about all their peers. I doubt we can pick and choose how we wish to emulate them without there being significant unintended consequences.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
So I had a cousin commit suicide this year. I don't know the exact means and methods he used, seemed garish to ask at his funeral, and frankly it doesn't change anything to me how he did it. He suffered into his 50's with mental health issues, and I can only assume the ruins of the life he was still inhabiting overwhelmed him. I wish he hadn't done it. I wish I could see him again, have a cigar, and shoot the shit for another evening. I wish it wasn't so hard for him to exist. But I can't change it.
The pain it caused in his mother, who he saw all the time, and his sister, who he saw less often being states away, was beyond words. That said, as nightmarish as that act was to them, there at least was no 3rd party to the act to complicate their feelings of grief. There were no accomplices who gave him advice, walked him through the act, supplied him with means and methods, or even just did it for him. When all was said and done, he took all the guilt for the act to the grave with him, and saved his family the further grief of having anyone else to be angry with, anyone else's actions to judge.
I can accept that some people just want out. I can accept that though it may be painful for their families, their decisions about what to do with their life is theirs to make. I don't think I can accept third parties being involved, making it easier, "normalizing" it, and complicating the grief of an already unimaginable difficult thing to cope with.
Before I was born, a culture war was fought over ending life, and the defenders of it ran on the slogan of "Safe, Legal and Rare". 63 million abortions in the United States later, it's clear this was just a slogan. I don't know why I would trust these same people a second time.
Well, not me personally, I wasn't alive for "Safe, Legal and Rare", but you know what I mean.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Y-Yes? That's literally what I said about myself in the first post. Is that supposed to be some insightful zinger?
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I'm so sorry. I truly don't understand how anyone can have a functional use of math if they didn't at least learn basic arithmetic by rote. These alternate ways I see of doing addition, subtraction, division and multiplication out of common core are bonkers to me, because of how intensive they are in terms of the number of steps they require, or how much scratch paper you'd need for all the intermediate parts. They look more like academic proofs of how basic arithmetic works than how a person should be expected to functionally work with numbers in the spur of the moment.
I mean shit, just yesterday I was playing a game, figuring off the top of my head what the odds of a single 5 or 6 were off rolling a pair of dice. Came up with 20/36 in fairly short order. Although I will be marginally embarrassed if my off the top of the head work turns out to be wrong after all that.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Ok, so we're back to all teachers being the problem then?
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
It's not the mockery. In fact, it's specially that it isn't mockery. It's a genuine, straight to the white viewer plea, so do something about Trump, because something must be done. The mockery I can handle. The "clown nose off" moments are when I turn off the TV.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Well, that was fast.
I got a second game of Hands in the Sea in last night! We switched sides with me playing Carthage. I came out the gate swinging, cut off Roman supply out of Italy using my starting fleet of warships, recruited some cavalry to raze their colonies while I had them bottled up, and just generally kept the pressure on while I leisurely expanded. Won in 4 turns with an automatic victory based on being more than 25 VPs ahead during the scoring phase of a turn.
Rome's biggest problem was with supply being cut off, they could start a battle with Syracuse (which is a vital supply point in Sicily), but they couldn't reinforce the battle to win it which requires supply lines, until they disrupted my naval blockade. They wouldn't need to destroy my fleet, they'd only need to build at least one warship, and then contest control of the blockade. That's enough to re-establish supply for reinforcing a land battle. After they take Syracuse, they'd have a local supply point on Sicily and could have ground me down with their legions. Unfortunately, Rome was caught flat footed by the dire consequences of being out of supply, and instead of building a fleet and contesting control of the waters, spent time recruiting legions they couldn't send, and pursuing deck optimizations that lacked actual bite in the conflict. There was an attempt to finally break my blockade, and it bought Rome a single turn of supply in Sicily. But it was insufficient, and I sank their fleet in short order. By the end of the game Rome was drawing their entire deck into their hand every turn... without having valid or meaningful actions they could use all those cards on. Alas.
We're already planning another rematch, where I will probably take Rome again and need to resist the strategy I just absolutely dominated with. Wish me luck.
I believe it was season 21, episode 10, Splatty Tomato.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=STT1ZHPPpGQ?si=0SBcTWEn7GyX2KdJ&t=100
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
At one point this may have been true. After vaccine mandates and pronoun mandates, the activist have more or less gotten the last of the conscientious objectors out of the profession, and the normies have been indoctrinated.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I thought South Park went fully mask off at the end of the 2017 or 2018 season when they looked directly at the screen, broke the 4th wall, and told me "Well Whites, what are you going to do about Trump?" Haven't watched it since.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I think for three years I watched Robby Suave at The Hill tee off on the Teacher's Union for fighting against phonics based teaching, despite all the science and decades of outcomes showing that whole language teaching is a miserable failure. But teachers hate it, because it's rote and boring, and they insist on narcissistically avoiding all unpleasant aspects of their job. Despite being responsible for the education of our next generation. So their union fights phonics based teacher curriculums tooth and nail.
At least that's what Robby's reporting showed consistently over the years. It was a bit of a hobby horse for him, and an area where his libertarian brain really found a nit to pick with the "trust the science" blue team.
The point I'm drifting towards is that this is really a proxy battle against teachers. The profession is overrun with activist LARPing as educators, their union is controlled by a lesbian activist, and to whatever degree education is occurring, it's haphazard and inertial based on decades of diminishing institutional knowledge. It's a low pay, highly political profession, and increasingly only true believers are attracted and willing to stay in the profession. The ones that treat the trials and tribulations of the profession as a test of faith for their activism are the only ones that thrive.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I think I binged Twin Peaks maybe 3 or 4 years ago when it was on Netflix? Then rented Fire Walk With Me on Amazon, and purchased the bluray for The Return.
You really feel the gap where Lynch wasn't involved in season 2, but when he comes back he absolutely fills the show with a presence you couldn't put your finger on, but could feel the absence of. Then The Return cranks that quality up to 11 and is a massive impressionistic mind fuck.
I've seen analysis that try to distill was Twin Peaks, and especially The Return, are "really" about. And then I've seen the rebuttal where you need to shut the fuck up and let the feelings and impressions the show creates wash over you. Don't try to reason what it's about, intuit it.
I really should watch Twin Peaks again, it's probably one of my favorite shows of all time that I felt I got the most out of. And you're right, it's spiritual message is very much looking into the darkness of the world and choosing love anyways.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
I'm not sure that literally not understanding the meaning of words (like silence) qualifies as the same type of stupid as not keeping up to date with mountains of caselaw. Dude literally insisted he was going to keep silent as he proceeded to just keep talking anyways, while repeating that he was being silent along the way. That's just retarded, not legal. If anything it's the poor cop that got hung up on mountains of case law. Supposedly he was supposed to re-mirandize the suspect after the suspect, by a technical definition, "reinitiated" the encounter.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
A bit ago I finally pulled a box off my shelf of shame and played Hands in the Sea, a game about the first punic war. I kickstarted it forever ago, then kickstarted the second edition upgrade kit, then I moved, then I lost touch with the friends I usually played those sorts of games with. I marked this game as received on Kickstarter in October of 2016, and it finally hit my table July of 2025. Jeeze.
I originally took an interest in the game because a respected wargame youtuber, I think Judd Vance, was going around saying it was one of the best games he'd ever played during playtesting with the designer. It takes the deck building system from A Few Acres of Snow, widely but perhaps unfairly panned for having an unfixable OP strategy, and fixes that as well as improving on it in nearly every way. I never played A Few Acres of Snow on account of it's poor reputation, so I can't attest to that personally. However, I did greatly enjoy it.
If you've played a deck building game, the central mechanic might not be alien to you. You have a starting deck of cards, you draw five, and you get to take two actions. Where it gets wargamey is that the actions are all printed on a player aid, there are about a dozen of them, you can pick any action you want, and the cards mostly provide resources to accomplish them. Broadly there are two types of cards also, territories which you either start with or conquer, and then also personnel like legions, commanders, traders, etc. I won't bore you with a detailed rules breakdown, but generally you'll be conquering territory, trying to fuck up each others lines of supply through naval fuckery, and racing towards a set of military and economic victory conditions.
I played the game with my brother who is back in state. It went well, and I couldn't help notice how differently we try to learn a game. He wanted to try each different action and learn how it worked. I just learned a subset of them that I thought would make a good strategy, and clobbered him. He kept trying, and failing, to ask AI rule questions, I looked them up on BoardGameGeek. That said, it probably would have been a close game if the random events didn't hand me several absolute coups.
Yes there are random events. You roll a dice to see which player they effect, and some are weighted more towards Carthage or more towards Rome. Unfortunately this provided no assistance, and my brother playing Carthage just got absolutely hammered. The first few random events cost me some money and cards. Then for the rest of the game my brother ate shit. He lost his entire fleet to a storm, losing his singular advantage over me that he was really beginning to punish me with. Then he lost a heavily fortified town that was holding the line in Sicily to a rebellion. A town I quickly scooped up before he could react.
He tried to pull his game out of the tailspin it was in. But curiously enough, the game's length is determined by how many times Carthage goes through their deck. So the more he tried to optimize his deck to combat my strategy, the quicker he was running out of time to execute, as the game can only go 12 turns. Also, I was scoring way more points than him during the scoring phase of each turn, which was pushing me faster and faster to an absolute victory. In a way, it was a mercy killing the way that accelerated his loss.
So, all in all, I really enjoyed the experience. But I did win a crushing victory, so of course I would.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1mo ago
Fair
At the close of the hearing, the suppression court granted the motion to suppress the statements Stevens-Reddy made after he invoked his right to counsel. It found that his invocation of the right to counsel was clear and unequivocal; his words after Detective Gallagher told him his attorney would be unavailable were equivocal; and his interaction with detectives after he asked for an attorney and was not re-Mirandized “may have been voluntary, but it certainly was not knowing and it was not an intelligent waiver. ”
Too retarded to understand his rights, courts give him a mulligan anyways.
Oh god, don't get me started on institutional confusion between the WGS84 ellipsoid model and the various EGM geoid models. Or the fact that Mavlink has a long going bug where they output altitudes in WGS84 allegedly, but in actuality it's EGM(96?), and the bug has been around so long, they've decided not to fix it because "now people depend on that behavior". At least that seemed to be the state of things last year.
More options
Context Copy link