@aiislove's banner p

aiislove


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 07 11:25:19 UTC

				

User ID: 1514

aiislove


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 07 11:25:19 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1514

I used to want to be part of the blue tribe but after seeing how they treated the red tribe since around 2008 I just don't anymore. The condescension and classism is so hideous. How can you see people who you feel culturally superior to and have contempt toward them rather than compassion and empathy for their condition? Yes, walmart is a hideous place, but god so is Baltimore. The red tribe likes big trucks and guns because they're tiny scared people in a big scary country. If you're taking the bait and seeing them as some Jan 6 insurrectionist threat rather than people with decades of subpar education under a semi hostile cultural millieu that confuses them and your response is "ew, no thanks" then I think that view is morally repugnant and I don't want to take part.

I think your response is actually a good way to illustrate why school shooting makes sense in an American context and why it doesn't in a Russian/rest of the world context. Your summary of school is pretty unemotional, including a list of daily routines and focusing on the drudgeries of your daily life. You just mention girls for one line. When Americans are asked about their highschool experience, especially young men online, you're likely to get a lot more of an emotional response, with a more bombastic tone and a litany of perceived injustices that they experienced. Americans generally want to be the most successful and well liked and popular person in the school and they often can't stand accepting their place somewhere else on the totem pole. Young American men are driven to externalizing their problems, blaming the social situation rather than on themselves or something outside of everyone's control, so to punish the externalized enemies is more logical in the American context than in most countries. Any time the weak are able to be armed it's really no surprise that sometimes they will take the opportunity to try to claw back some dignity through violence.

I don't own a big truck, but I'm pretty sure big trucks make you feel smaller by comparison.

You buy the big truck to augment your feelings of smallness. When you control the truck you feel much larger than any person who is not controlling a truck. You feel smaller than the man controlling the tank or the semi truck but you feel bigger than anyone in anything smaller than you.

What is the source of the FUN of guns? Is it POWER?

Do you think that painting people as obese walmart shoppers who dislike the things that you like is a good display of empathy and compassion? Can you see how I might interpret your opinions as being rooted in condescension and classism?

We need to invest much more into understanding the genetics of human intelligence and developing technology for polygenic gene therapy.

I was totally with you until this paragraph. No we don't. "Fixing" the IQs and abilities of the races flies in the face of nature and history and humanity. Let Asians be smarter. Let black people be better at running. Let everyone be the way nature/God intended them. I don't imagine creepy futurist scientific interventions will be any better than today's misguided progressive interventions, for example distribution of genetic intervention is unlikely to be evenly distributed in the near future.

I don't really see a better proxy for judging a sense of duty to others than blood/nobility. Anecdotally, the people in my family who have inherited their wealth generationally have significantly more sense of responsibility to the community and those around them than the ones on the other side of my family who believe they've earned their wealth and refuse to take care of their homes and barely invest their resources to help themselves, let alone the people in their families or the broader community. I suspect this stems from the sense of fear that those born into no money feel toward money, whereas the family members who always had money were much less fearful about it and happier to spread the wealth around. Frankly I want to be ruled by people who are secure in their wealth and are willing to spend it to improve their lives and the lives of those around them rather than by people who want to hoard their resources out of learned apprehension and fear. Family history of wealth tracks the former better than any other metric I can imagine.

You have an interesting perspective but I wouldn't break things down into distinct categories as you have. In my experience, the needs you listed aren't unrelated at all but rather all play into each other. The sex and intimacy validate the ego. If you have sex with no ego validation (for example by having sex with a prostitute) it is extremely unsatisfying because you don't feel that your partner likes you in any way, so there is little to no ego validation. This is the same if you have a sex partner you don't feel equal to and feel they only like you for your money/status/power/something other than your intrinsic qualities or physical characteristics.

Intimacy is also a motivation only insofar as it validates the ego. It reinforces your feelings of power and worthiness to be held and admired and to offer admiration and intimacy in turn.

The whole idea of first having to change themselves to get validation and/or intimacy is somewhat logically contradictory.

In my experience it's very gratifying to be able to change yourself and have power over your own body and physicality and then be validated through sex. When I felt very badly about myself I was incapable of having good sex because I hated myself so much that anyone who liked me as I was repulsed me. After improving myself I am much easier to love. If you are so insecure that self improvement points to your weaknesses rather than as a place to improve yourself, you are working against your ability to be loved and have your ego gratified. Men are competitive and will always have insecurities so if you aren't working on yourself you're doomed to be stuck in a mode of self doubt which leads to misery.

I think men who don't appear to be driven by intimacy are insecure about their ability to show love to other people and avoid this part of relationships. It's not that they don't want to feel loved, but they have experience from not being loved in the past or are afraid of their partner rejecting the showing of love so they avoid it.

Seeking mainly validation from sexual relations is usually a bad idea in general if for no other reason than that it makes one's ego dependent on what other people think of you sexually.

Yes, men must find a source of validation from within themselves or else any amount of external validation they get is just not going to work on them. If you've known insecure people and tried to give them a genuine compliment they often reply with bitterness or as though you're attacking them when you're just trying to be nice, it's the same thing.

So the solution, it seems to me, is to try to be mainly driven by wanting sex as opposed to validation and intimacy.

Sex without ego validation is completely pointless. As a gay man I can get so much sex but if I'm not feeling loved by my partner it just feels like masturbation with the extra needless steps of looking for a partner for no reason if they don't validate my ego or provide some intimacy toward me.

I think all men want sex and intimacy as a way to boost the ego. They are not separable. I am a gay man so I don't know how straight men think but I suspect motivations are largely the same.

even if people in polls say they'd still "like" to be in a relationship or have sex, revealed preference suggests they often care less about it than in previous generations.

I blame this on a huge lack of self esteem which stems from increased narcissistic traits in the general population, especially among rich developed countries. I don't think less people want relationships, more people are afraid of rejection because they lack self esteem and so are less likely to put themselves in a position to get a relationship. At least that's based on my experiences.

Can you speak more plainly? What are the other popular theories you're talking about?

do Mayflower descendants deserve more wealth and power just because their ancestors from 400 years ago fled England?

This isn't what 2rafa is proposing in her post at all, she is proposing that the Mayflower descendants deserve more wealth and power because they have more sense of duty and respect for the people around them and the institutions that their ancestors built than the descendants of people who flew over 30 years ago do.

Mmmm ok. If your house is on fire then get out of the house. Once you're safe, don't wallow in sadness and self pity and beat yourself up because your house burned down, even if it was because you left your oven on. Acknowledge that it was your fault but that you didn't mean to do it, forgive yourself and move on, believing that you won't make such a mistake in the future. My whole point is that even when bad things happen to you, you can choose to view the events in any light you want. You can empower yourself by making it a positive learning experience, or you can disempower yourself and wallow in misery by telling yourself you're a victim of terrible tragedies. This is your choice, the former leads to greater happiness and satisfaction and the latter leads to self pity and doubt.

This is classic victim mentality. We make up stories to ourselves about what we've been through. Reimagine the perceived injustices you've experienced as times when you've grown or learned to make them strengths rather than weaknesses. If you're here you're probably smart enough to twist anything you've been through into a bad experience, but you could just as easily shift your perception of these things into positive experiences. It may seem like it doesn't matter but you're always going to be happier if you shift your beliefs to a positive view of events rather than a negative one. And most of the time there is no objective truth to the matter so you might as well choose the more theoretically positive one for yourself.

I don't know if that makes sense, but basically stop painting yourself as a victim in your own mind and view your suffering as empowering rather than defeating and you'll be much happier and confident and effective as a person.

Convince yourself that getting out of your comfort zone will improve yourself or your life, or give you the life you want to live instead of the one you feel stuck with. Be honest with yourself about what you really want and then work to fix what's holding you back.

For example a few years ago I was very obese and pretty depressed about it. I consistently ate between 4000 and 5000 calories a day without a second thought. I was able to return to a healthy weight through diet and exercise because I believed it would improve my life. Today, a few years later, I've kept the weight off because I know that going back to my ridiculous eating habits would ruin my life again.

Also, shaming and ridiculing yourself can be useful if you don't want to feel shameful and ridiculous. I told myself that binge eating is disgusting and not done by the type of person that I want to be, so I don't do it very often anymore. In your case, if you don't want to be bookish, and want to be more action-taking, tell yourself that bookishness isn't "nice and all" but is actually bad and lame and you should do what action-taking heroes do, since you want to be like them.

When you imagine having sexual intercourse with a woman who do you want to have sex with? Someone who is aggressive and dominant or someone who is submissive and docile? I prefer the latter for men, the former keeps me from being comfortable enough to imagine performing with them. When bottoms are too active it is a turnoff, do you not feel the same way toward women? Of course I need to believe my partner is attracted to me, so I'm not seeking disinterest entirely, but a partner who is doing less makes it easier to perform versus a partner who is trying too hard to perform their role. You need confidence in yourself and your partner to make love and it's easier to have confidence with a smaller weaker partner than with a stronger one. If straight men don't feel this way then muscular strong women would be more popular as sexual prospects but they're really not. Similarly I don't want to have sex with men who are too strong for me because it makes me feel weak.

You're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'm not sure if you are interpreting the sentence you quoted as meaning that I am applying the same ideas to the psychology that women have when they have sex with men, which is not what I was implying. I meant that I imagine that for men who are attracted to women, that those men also have to be able to see themselves as more dominant and masculine over the women they are having sex with, and that it is easier for, say, a blond white man to imagine himself dominating an Asian woman compared with dominating a black woman.

On another tangent, I believe men who are interested in being dominated by women are sublimating their domination instinct and directing their sexual anxieties toward the female to cover their insecurity and fear of not being able to perform. Exploring this dynamic in sex might be titillating and sexually gratifying for the man but I can't imagine it boosts or stabilizes his ego in the long term, it is a rather masturbatory practice and doesn't result in self security. Similarly a gay man who only bottoms or performs submissive roles in sex is probably unlikely to experience full gratification from sex.

When I look at news in the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times about the war in Ukraine, all of the reports seem to betray an anti-Russian bias. Is this an organic situation that reflects the actual views of the reporters, or the editors employed by the newspapers? Or is it a result of US government interference pushing their anti-Russian agenda in the domestic news? How much freedom do reporters have to publish their own pro-Russian views, if they were to have any? Does the US government intimidate or otherwise control newspapers into not reporting news that paints Russia in a positive light?

You're in the honeymoon phase. Enjoy it now because in a few months or years you'll start to realize the money doesn't buy you happiness, class or status and you'll feel pretty desperate that you spent money on uhhh, the gemological institute rather than on improving the happiness of the people around you. And if you don't reach that point it's not great either

I realized years ago that I can't stand commercial porn because it's impossible to imagine myself feeling empowered with the actors you see in commercial porn. I know from experience that if I'm around a bunch of super hot people, it doesn't make me feel super hot, it makes me feel super ugly. I seek out homemade porn that lets me envision myself empowered if I was in the room: porn featuring homeless men, for example, because I feel superior to them.

All porn is cuckhold porn.

Well, all sex acts are downstream of power. Cuckolding is an explicit illustration of power. I have engaged in anonymous sex with other men since I was 18, once I realized how power and domination work between men this became clear. The more dominant male performs the top role and the more submissive male performs the bottom role. (This is not just in anal sex but in oral sex and aggression dynamics and so on.)

I like to view straight cuck porn often, because I find the eroticization between the two males very exciting. I usually ignore the women when I view it. Seeing two straight men go through the same process that two gay men go through when they have sex is gratifying. Cuck porn is basically gay porn with a woman inserted, but the domination and power dynamic between two men is still the same, even when there is no sex act performed directly between the two men.

What's the best way to make an iphone app with no coding knowledge?

social contagion as a result of peer pressure.

I think you're right. I noticed during covid that the mechanism by which this happens is never a positive one: it's never people independently standing up for their beliefs that they independently believe are positive, but rather, it is borne out of an indignation that their peers aren't being held to the same repressive standards that they're being held to.

Progressivism is a social contagion due to a crabs-in-the-bucket mechanism. It spreads because people are irritated that they can't get away with being racist or sexist or utilize their own privilege to benefit themselves and are thus driven to disempower everyone around them in the same exact way.

I thought up my username in a few seconds, it's just a pun on "ai" meaning love in Japanese, plus I like making AI generated art, not because I want to use AI to game social interactions. I'm not a transhumanist.

You can always turn the difficulty dial to whatever you want.

That's not the problem, the problem is that there will be people using the difficulty dial to begin with, and that I will have to make the decision not to turn the difficulty dial, and we'll all have to live with the effects of there being a difficulty dial...... It's just a mess and I'm ready to live in the woods without it all. Using a dial to make yourself popular is the definition of cringe in my opinion, it is so pathetic, I'd rather be unpopular than using a transhumanist means to buy friends.

Any thoughts on the "Chinese spy balloons"? I just did a search for "balloon" on here and couldn't find any discussion of it. Was wondering if anyone had any theories or points to share on the situation

I empathize with your sentiment but I think it's a little bit uncharitable, I mean people had a valid right to be afraid of the virus as well. My father was high risk and ended up dying from it, so to paint everyone who freaked out about the virus as a sheeple is slightly insulting, though I realize that for the majority of people they didn't have nearly as much reason to worry. I also wonder if you're living in a blue tribe setting or somewhere outside the US as the response from where I was in a more rural area wasn't nearly as sheeple-y as your post seems to indicate, plenty of people were rolling their eyes the entire time in the small town I was living in

You really don't think you own a big truck and a gun because it makes you feel less small and scared? I don't buy it, I can't imagine a situation where I'd own things that project power and security for any other reason than it being rooted in fear. My father hoarded guns and ammunition before he died because he was a small man in a violent city and didn't have the skills or interest to move out of the only place he'd lived his whole life. I'm unconvinced that most red tribe people are attracted to guns because they are fun rather than because they are afraid of the government and the collapse of society and a host of other things that they have a right to be afraid of. How is it condescending to point out the horrors that people are facing? I'm just as likely to say the blue tribe are also small scared people in a big scary country but they are more prosocial and are throwing their bets in conformity and the safety of the crowd rather than the safety of self defense as the red tribe does.

Also pinging @The_Nybbler

The point of Barbie being "sexually harassed" five minutes after arriving in the real world is to illustrate that her luxury beliefs and wokeism is delusional. The Barbie dream world represents everyone who lives in a woke simulacra of the real world where the horrors of reality are shielded from their view. The point of the harassment isn't to portray the dangers of sexual assault, it is to illustrate the dangers of living in a fantasy world when other people are exposed to real horrors every day. Barbie brought the sexual harassment onto herself by dressing in a sexualized way and not anticipating the realities of interacting with people who aren't in on the luxury beliefs that Barbie got to hold previously.