@ZeStriderOfDunedain's banner p

ZeStriderOfDunedain

Ze Strider

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 04:34:38 UTC

Maybe it was the weather, but that night I found her very alluring.


				

User ID: 812

ZeStriderOfDunedain

Ze Strider

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 04:34:38 UTC

					

Maybe it was the weather, but that night I found her very alluring.


					

User ID: 812

You might be onto something there! Millennials are still seen as youngish people in the media, lots of millennial aged men and women in Hollywood who were childhood crushes for a lot of zoomers growing up are still seen as desirable. And big productions usually cast somewhat seasoned actors and actresses for main roles, which would put them in the 30+ age bracket. Which makes me think that male preference for strictly younger women is not quite as universal as women usually preferring older men.

"Emotional intelligence" certainly seems to be a $4 doublespeak for "my way or the highway".

Closely related: how society "intellectualises" female gaze and sexual interest as more sophisticated than its more primal and unfiltered male counterpart, hence justifying policing of female sexualisation in media.

Something something misogyny of gamers and Star Wars nerds. You can make a much stronger case for anti-men sentiment in female dominated kdrama/kpop fandoms, as (unironically pro-4B) radfems frequent these spaces and gatekeep like crazy. But it's just a case of women by default having more social capital than men on average.

Somewhat OT but there seems to be lot more males in gen z with an older woman fetish at least online, in spite of the metaphorical "wall". I saw a Chinese woman talking about this, she links this to directness and better socialisation of older gals, which makes sense but I suspect there's more to it.

Idk if it's tragic or funny that /r/okaybuddyliterallyme was swearing up and down that they were just exiled depressed introverts but NOT incels, repeating the script "I'M the one to blame" verbatim. Admirable if genuine, but it's reddit so I default assume it's just performative accountability to retain a single crumb of ingroup social acceptance. But there is negligible difference in social/sexual success between self declared incels and whatever Ryan Gosling posters fashion themselves as.

This is why I endorse that Chinese dating discourse from the last thread, those gals were brutally honest!

W is literally one of the rare presidents from the last 100 years who really doesn't have any defenders on either side of the aisle. He clearly doesn't have a home in the current GOP, and nobody on the left is ever going to bat to defend his presidency. And honestly, after that infamous freudian slip in 2022, it's safe to say that W himself shares that sentiment. And while Presidents like Grant, Truman, Carter, and even HW have seen historical reassessments boost the ranking of their presidencies to various degrees, that's never happened for W. Those guys were hurt by making unpopular decisions at the time that were somewhat justifiable in the long run, but the Iraq war looks like a bigger and bigger mistake with each year that passes. And Trump seems to be headed down a worse trajectory, there's at least that W was probably just a passenger in his own presidency while Cheney and Rumsfeld were behind the wheel.

a battered wife is unhappy with her husband's temporary alcoholised and violent state but will still tell the cops to piss off if they come to investigate reports that he sexually abuses their child.

Yeeep. Harsh but all that NATO infrastructure, dollar clearing, intel pipelines, and post-WW2 habit make outright defection feel so much costlier than staying. They signal public unhappiness to war wary domestic audiences while operational alignment cracks on as usual. The real question is future power dynamics in the middle east. Let's say Trump withdraws today and pretends shit never happened. The past month has dramatically altered the timeline. We're told the UAE is joining to open up the strait. Israel's "moderate" Yair Lapid backed the attacks on Tehran's oil fields. Iran is absolutely pursuing a nuke now. Does anybody remember Gaza? Where do we go from here?

Internal diversity. It's just us weirdos and freaks. But wouldn't it be a more interesting space where left leaning users participate while being held to the same moderation and quality standards so they engage without the usual social shaming dialogue (accusations of bigotry, bad faith, or moral failure)? Let the discussions move beyond status games and purity spirals toward actual arguments. I want the leftists in the conversation. Darwin was one of the few prolific leftist posters around here, though a ragebaiter admittedly. Been two years since he ditched this site and retreated to reddit.

I'm not quite sure that Chinese women are especially more materialistic than women elsewhere, but they do seem strikingly unashamed about voicing it openly and without the usual western layers of therapeutic language and performative empathy.

But you’re pursuing me, which means that in your eyes, I’m a match for your looks. My God, just thinking about it gives me a vague urge to kill someone. I beg you to stop liking me. Your pursuit has deeply hurt my self-esteem.

Posted without context, this would get instantly dismissed as bitter incel fanfic in most online spaces. Yet here it is, raw and unfiltered from Chinese dating discourse. No vague "I'm just not feeling it," no soft landing about "personality" or "timing." Just a direct ledger of perceived market value, and going straight to the jugular where the suitor's interest itself devalues the woman's in her own eyes.

But I find the honesty refreshing in its brutal contempt for pretense.

I'm not calling you anything personally, nor am I implying you engage in that sort of behaviour. I'm largely indifferent to someone's personal prejudices, be it antisemite, anti-Muslim, anti-Indian, anti-apache helicopter. I'm just echoing Amadan's sentiment that this particular discourse, unless heavily moderated, has an extremely high propensity to collapse into a kind of zero-nuance intellectual junk food, where a single reductive heuristic is made to bear explanatory weight for an otherwise complex world. Take Tucker Carlson for instance, he constantly implies that Israel and Israel alone wanted this war to happen, as if Trump did not have any agency here or that the war doesn't reflect his own ideological commitments independent of Israeli/Jewish influence. It's rhetorically potent and emotionally satisfying, but it obscures more than it clarifies. At that point, it turns into a self fulfilling prophecy and even Jewish moderates grow understandably suspicious of any non-Jewish criticism of Israel, reading it through the lens of prior experience rather than in isolation. In turn, those most immersed in that discourse often do tend to display broadly negative priors, which reinforces the cycle. Kinda how black activists who fixate monolithically on institutional racism and slavery probably do signal anti-white proclivities.

Because the move from critiquing institutions like the ADL or AIPAC to gesturing at “Jews” as a coherent bloc with aligned interests is where the analysis tends to degrade. It collapses a wide range of individuals, incentives, and internal disagreements into a kind of ethnic shorthand that explains too much and therefore explains very little. At that point, it begins to resemble the exact pattern Amadan is pointing to when he talks about criticism of Israel bleeding into garden variety joo poasting. I'm not particularly sensitive to charges of antisemitism but it just makes the conversation tiring.

Bro stole the words out of my brain.

Again, there was two years of digging through everything they could get their hands on. Yes, the deleted messages and encrypted apps leave some gaps, but the team still pieced together a pretty clear picture that didn't show campaign level conspiracy or coordination with Russia. It's more like the parent searched the whole house, questioned friends, checked call logs, and even found some flirty texts, but nothing that actually proved the daughter was sneaking out for secret hookups.

They could have just released the files as they promised to do multiple times before and during the election season.

It is perfectly reasonable to wonder why they pivoted so hard, and that reason is pretty likely related to either people in the admin itself or a powerful third party who they wish to protect.

The actual contents of the files are ancillary to the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.

American elites are a pedo cabal, the Epstein files is the grand unifying conspiracy that explains the world, and old Jeff was a Mossad linked predaphile blackmail kingpin puppeteering America towards Greater Israel. Any mention of sexual activity on Little Saint James island is evidence of minor sexual abuse. Absence of details means the real tapes have been scrubbed a long time ago. Exoneration means elite capture, silence is cover-up, and deviant Jews are overseeing the network.

That is the popular narrative. And it is epistemically bulletproof.

Best case scenario is we revisit this fiasco with a little more lucidity once it's ancient history.

The strategy is to not enter the burning building to begin with if you don't have a plan to get out.

Not the first, not the last ladder climber to yank his own rug just to make his rival trip. Recent events should be the most glaring exhibition of a consistent blind spot in Trump’s capacity for modeling downstream second and third order consequences.

Never. The objective of Russiagate has always been to attack Trump, his legitimacy as POTUS 45, and erode public confidence in his administration. I don't know if an Iran war was always inevitable independent of Trump, but Trump has most certainly accelerated the timeline.

The Mueller report explicitly concluded it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," despite the Trump Tower meeting, WikiLeaks interest, etc. There was no smoking gun of active collusion, even after the most exhaustive investigation since Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance. There is a boring explanation to Trump 1.0's aggressive actions (like trying to have Mueller fired via McGahn); rather than an attempt to hide some deeper conspiracy, it was understandable frustration and defensiveness in response to what they (Trump and MAGA) view as an overreaching, politically motivated investigation that ultimately found no criminal coordination despite two years of scrutiny.

Epstein files continues to suggest something deeper

I'm apparently the only "Epstein skeptic" here, I discussed it in an earlier CW thread. Regardless, there could be a deceptively simple explanation here as well: there is simply no exit strategy here. The "files" are a raw doc dump of anything tangentially related to Epstein. Analogously, any tangential mention of Trump (and other individuals) that's not quite incriminating but still supremely humiliating can and will be used to impugn him as a child rapist. But Trump himself lit the fuse with the "pedo cabal" hysteria, and he probably did not expect it to blow up under his own arse.

But the ratio feels disrespectful to listeners who aren't already invested fans willing to sift through hours of filler for 15 good minutes. The meandering is the main event, loaded with Rogan specific easter eggs that his guest had clearly rehearsed for. I'll take the press junket thing.

I can't speak for where the usual TheMotte user stands on these things, this place attracts and tolerates people with well outside the overton window takes without being brigaded by downvotes and redditor insults, as long as they can do so with some sort of rigour and charity.

That said, when I rail against "feminism" as a mind virus, I'm targeting the existing, mainstream, culturally dominant version: the 3rd wave plus progressive bundle that dominates media, academia, HR, policy advocacy, and campus and corporate norms. The version that rarely, if ever, distances itself from female favouring asymmetries (family courts, affirmative action, distortionist history, #BelieveAllWomen defaults, benevolent sexism as privilege, etc.) and almost never features prominent mainstream voices aggressively holding women accountable for exploiting them or calling out female hypergamy, entitlement, invasion of male spaces or bad behaviour as systemic problems rather than individual flaws.

Also, earlier waves of feminism heavily baked in original sin dialectics (men as inherent oppressors, patriarchy as omnipresent original sin women are born into resisting), while lounging off of the comforts of the modern world (which allows for systemic equality between the sexes and offers vocations that women can fill without being bogged down by physical disadvantages), which itself was built upon and continues to be sustained by (mostly) male physical labour. And radfem roots (still influential in TERF corners and academia) strategically seek to halt the progression wheel short of full gender abolition so biological females retain sex based privileges indefinitely. At least the 3rd wave goes the whole 9 yards, with a little more nuanced understanding of systems and not blaming individual men.

But no feminist school consistently critiques female privilege, enforces symmetric accountability, or disavows the bundle of progressive stances that tilt the field toward women in culture war flashpoints. There is no feminist aligned with the mainstream calling out the harmful propaganda pushed by multimillion dollar shows (I'm speculating) like Netflix's "Adolescence", nor the blatant falsehoods associated with its messaging (implied or blatant) that run against actual hard data. I don't take issue with women earning or owning property, but it does not function as a buffet where you only pick what you like. It's a package deal, it comes with all the policy and CW outcomes that disadvantage men. That is why I'll never side with feminists, even when I agree with them.

I'm on my bus home so apologies if this comes across as a brain dump, but I hope my point was sufficiently cohesive.

Female sexual success is default assumed, that is why virginity is valued in women. It is a choice. A modestly attractive woman can easily gain sexual access to her looksmatch. Male sexual success is not default. It requires social proof, status, dominance, or standout traits to access desirable women. And of course, "success" implies that the women the man is having sex with are at least somewhat desirable.

as getting attention from girls is the single most important form of status among their peers

Indeed, and I can somewhat understand the sentiment behind attempting to dismantle attached status to male sexual success. But this gives "progressives talking about sex instead of having it". I'd wager it's the conception error that underpins the conviction that conventionally gendered preferences and behaviours in young boys and girls are byproducts of external socialisation, and therefore, can be overturned. Since female sexual success carries no comparable status premium within the culture, the instinct is once again to refashion men in the image of the female ideal.

For sure, the misogyny is largely amplified by the streisand effect. Even those who unironically push #notallmen are falling into the rhetorical trap of auditioning for women's social approval by "speaking up and calling out their bros". I don't disagree with the sentiment, it's basic human decency after all and both men and women should do it. But I do object to posturing for social capital via feminism.

Oh I think that. Social media has dramatically hastened the senescence and unraveling of society when organic bonds, cohesion and shared reality were already in a state of entropy. I'll happily freeze the clock to the late 90s if this timeline was inevitable.

Fair enough but I was posing that query to the anti-manosphere folk, not a TheMotte user. I agree with what you say, but that is not what the usual critics regularly write screeds about. Nor are they the champions of healthy male bonding activities like team sports. Au contraire, it's the same folk who believe (or flock with people who believe) that the Boy Scouts was exclusionary for only allowing boys. The subject of their concerns is always women and being palatable to women.

there is a strong psychological motivation to generalise from some women's questionable dating choices.

True, and I think this is a thinly disguised "permission" to take the black pill and opt out.

Then they get served algorithmically with more "opportunities to notice" the questionable dating choices

Perhaps, and sure there may be some incentive to not notice the good ones. However, this is also due to the disproportionate share of loud online voices pinning men's dating struggles on some form of personal moral failing, like their perceived rightward shift and the so called manosphere. No man who's struggling will enthusiastically listen to platitudes about feminism, male privilege and women's issues. And they can tell you're gaslighting them because some of the worst men they know don't face these struggles to begin with. You can't preach compassion and empathy for someone's feelings and mock someone else for getting their feelings hurt. The first hurdle for the anti-manosphere folk is to acknowledge certain experiences that may be inconvenient to feminism, so I'd say there is also a reciprocal motivation to not clear it to begin with.

I saw a thread about Louis Theroux's manosphere documentary. OP relates his teen daughter's alleged words and experiences to make a point about healthy values and teen male behaviours. The current verdict is that boys should have their screen times monitored or limited so they don't get corrupted by the manosphere, and raise them with feminist values. Okay. I agree with some of this. There are certainly incel adjacent online spaces that spiral into nihilism and hate. There are teenage boys with zero offline male role models to mainline this stuff and end up emerging more bitter than buff. Parental gatekeeping of violent porn, gambling apps, or extremist political content seems like basic risk management. If your heuristic is “anything that makes my daughter feel existentially unsafe is bad for my son too,” the monitoring prescription follows naturally. And yes, the generational digital literacy gap is real. Parents are often shocked their kids know the lore. I'd go further, I'm in favour of a blanket social media ban until they (both boys and girls) turn 16.

That being said. This comes just one day after Clavicular's recent clip with Leela Saraswat went viral. FWIW the "boyfriend" commented on Instagram that it was an old prom pic and they weren't dating. But are we allowed to question what message women's questionable dating choices (made of their free will with no external pressure) send to young boys and girls? We have a clip of an (allegedly) attached woman melting for a high value male on camera, yet the discourse pivots to “protect boys from the manosphere”. Here's the truth nuke: Clavicular is not an incel. He is living proof of the sexual marketplace the manosphere describes, which is heavily determined by looks, money, height, race, social status, etc. He pulls taken women with minimal effort. Young men are not “corrupted” into noticing these patterns. They notice them first (through lived failure) and then find the subculture that names the pattern instead of shaming them for noticing. So what is the problem with the manosphere? That it spreads dangerous lies and radicalises young men into subjugating and even killing women? Or that the rhetoric makes women look bad?

If it's the former, I need to see some evidence. Netflix's "Adolescence" made waves last year for catching the so called andrew tate problem that's apparently radicalising 13 year old boys into stabbing their classmates. Never mind the fact that homicide rates in the UK have been trending DOWN over the years, particularly against females. Are we allowed to discuss the harm caused by manufactured hysteria? If it's the latter, then you’re not protecting boys. You’re just delaying the day they notice the discrepancy between official feminist sermons and observed reality. And when they finally do notice, they’ll be angrier for the wasted years. And manosphere critics would tell us they've been "corrupted".

Lastly, since #notallmen was mentioned as a gotcha, can I point out how this "collective guilt" only flows one way? If every man should feel ashamed about the manosphere because we share genitals with them, what about the (overwhelmingly male) miners, linemen, firemen, welders, construction workers, road workers, steel workers, etc etc who commit to physically intensive and dangerous labour everyday to keep your lights on? Do we all get a collective male labour paycheck for that too, simply because we share genitals with the workers in these vocations? You don't need to hold yourself to consistent principles if you have sufficient social capital, like feminism does.

Getting ahead and blaming Israel is also smart

Yup. Few people among MAGA who are against the war are willing to admit that Trump is personally enthusiastic about it. If POTUS says no, there's nothing the Israeli lobby can do to force his hand.