cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
2yr ago
The problem you are running into is that a lot of being attractive is kind of slotting into a comfortable middle zone. That middle zone exists on a spectrum, so people will warn you away from both ends of the spectrum, but it will sound contradictory.
"Don't seem too obsessed and attracted to them." vs "Don't ignore them and be indifferent to them."
"Don't be arrogant and over-confident" vs "Don't be shy and lacking in confidence"
Dating is going to be hard cuz it is partly a social dance. You have to demonstrate some level of social skills. And one way to measure social skills is to have a bunch of changing and complex rules for dating that aren't easily legible.
I personally found the primal aspects of dating helpful to think about. To me they seemed fundamental, and no amount of social games were going to fully erase them:
-
Demonstrate an ability to provide resources (kids need resources).
-
Demonstrate social skills by having friends, playing the dating game, and making them laugh (social skills need so you don't let other people in the tribe steal resources for your kids).
-
Demonstrate an ability to cultivate long-term loyalty (show that you continue to support them and their kids with resources once the fun of sex has worn off).
I think male attractiveness is just what features of males correlated with good resource gathering many years ago. So being healthy and physically fit. But women seem fully capable of being attracted to resource producers that are not healthy or physically fit. But you need at least one of these things. Be fit and attractive, or be rich. Hopefully both.
The apps just seem designed to get people to have sex. If you want to use an app or website, try and find one that is based on trying to create relationships. Hopefully it has some barriers to entry.
cjet79
2yr ago
I was only in India for about 6 weeks nearly a decade ago, but dang was that alcohol culture very different than what I am accustomed to.
-
There would often be 12 beers listed on the menu. I'd be lucky if they had 4 in stock. Typically they only had one type of beer.
-
There was one place that sort of advertised itself as a place with a bunch of beers. They advertised having something like 36 beers on tap. Most bars in the US will have a minimum of 20 beers on tap. 40 is more regular. A bar that advertises itself as a place with a bunch of beers on tap needs at least 100.
-
Alcohol generally cost about the same amount. What I mean by that is a cheap US domestic beer in the US was about the same dollar cost as a cheap Indian beer in India. I was in an expensive area in India, but I also live in an expensive area in the US. Just about everything else was around 1/6th of the cost. My Indian coworkers were understandably more reluctant to drink.
-
I liked drinking heavier beers at the time, we would definitely buy a bunch of Kingfischer Ultra to drink back and drink at the apartment. Light watered down beer is still the best for hot days.
-
In the US casual dancing is accompanied by either drugs or alcohol. Almost no exceptions. In India people seemed to enjoy dancing sober. After experiencing both I prefer the Indian culture on dancing. But I'm a person that likes dancing. India also had a wider array of 'easy moves' that everyone could do. In the US you are either a near-pro dancer, or you look dumb. The drugs and alcohol are required to be willing to look dumb I guess.
-
The benefit of drinking light beer all day is that it has a built in limiter on how drunk you can get. At 4-5% as long as you aren't literally trying to chug down the beer you will stay comfortably drunk/tipsy without too much risk of getting sick. Anything above 7% typically requires me to be very aware of my alcohol consumption or there is a high likelihood of getting sick at the end of the night.
cjet79
2yr ago
An HK style, we don't do idpol would have been better.
what was the story with them? I missed it
cjet79
2yr ago
I sort of lean towards weak-manning not being a thing, and any view that anyone holds is fair game. But treating every member of a group as if they have to defend every weak position of their side is a form of waging the culture war. It commonly happens in the real world, but I'd hope to avoid it here.
One specific reason why I find weak-manning ok, is that the arguments themselves don't play fair, and so I'm not gonna play fair in trying to tear them down.
Consider something like humor and comedy. A funny thing does not have to be true. So false and true ideas can both be supported by comedy. Humor can work as a an argument for something because people like laughing, they might be laughing at a viewpoint, or laughing with the presenter. But ultimately its just an association of a happy emotion with a certain political viewpoint. It is one of the purest examples of "arguments as soldiers".
Arguments that might be "weak" around here, because they are objectively foolish or devoid of logic/evidence, could actually be some of the strongest arguments out in 'the wild'. Religion is a good example to bring up. One of the reasons I've seen people start to believe in the Christian faith is because they are fundamentally broken people, and being convinced that someone loves and cares about them is a salve to their wounded minds. That there is no evidence the sky-god exists and actually loves them is not something that they appreciate people pointing out. They aren't seeking truth. They are seeking medicine. And you are ruining their placebo. However, when they try to shove the religion down my throat the kid-gloves that I'd normally use come off.
Similar things with politics. Some of the people I know that support one of the major parties seem to do it out of the same tribal part of their brain that supports sports teams. Evidence and reason don't actually matter very much to them. I don't go to sports games and point out that many of the athletes are probably using steroids. Because sports games don't come after me or my bank account. Politicians do come after me. So again, the kid gloves are off. All the stupid arguments are getting called out. What I once did, and no longer bother to ever do, is to seek out the strongest arguments for a position and try to knock those down.
There are a complex set of economic arguments for why minimum wage might be good. It has to do with elasticities of prices, monopsony, and some complex models. But luckily ~100% of people arguing for minimum wage don't know any of those arguments. If you brought out those arguments to try and knock them down they'd just get annoyed and angry at you. "No, I support a higher minimum wage because people should be paid enough to survive!"
I'd like everyone here to consider that what they think are "weak-man" arguments might actually be the strong arguments for a thing. We are coincidentally in a place where logic and evidence have some advantages as argumentative techniques. But that is by design, and something that has to be enforced.
cjet79
2yr ago
I was playing with someone with Chinese characters in their name, and maybe some Australians. So it might still work. I'll gift you the game if you are willing to try it out
cjet79
2yr ago
Social: I went to a "Cato University Seminar" in highschool. I didn't really have many libertarians around me at the time. It was like first discovering I had people out there that were like me. The discussions were amazing. There was drinking, but I was fine to control myself. And there was hanging out in the hot tub.
Nature-oriented: Maybe one of my beach trips with family? or the recent mountain biking trip? Maybe a ski trip. Idk I feel like a good nature rejuvenation happens more often, but they aren't as intense.
cjet79
2yr ago
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700K CPU @ 3.80GHz
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
64 GB Ram
cjet79
2yr ago
I don't think they have any of the original music, but it's all a good homage to my untrained ear.
cjet79
2yr ago
I am playing Starship Troopers: Extermination, I bought it just yesterday. Overall impression: Very fun.
Buy it now while multiplayer servers are hot. It is a 16 player PvE game. You land in a dropship, complete some objectives, collect some ore, build a base, survive some waves of bugs, and then you scramble back to a dropship to escape as bugs overwhelm your base. If everyone makes it out alive you get some nice point bonuses. There is point collecting and gear unlocking between rounds using the points you made during the round. Pretty standard multiplayer FPS unlock mechanics these days. The moments when I hit some lag wasn't as bad as other multiplayer games. It was less likely to lead to a frustrating death against another human player. Usually I just waste a few bullets shooting at an already dead bug if there was lag. The base defense part is intense, and there is maybe too much camera shake from all the explosions going off. Visually the game looks pretty cool, not the most up to date, but blowing up bugs causes a nice green cloud of blood, and dead bugs look riddled with bullets.
I wish I had friends to play video games with. Sadly most of my current friends want to hang out in real life and do things like fire actual guns, drink nice whiskeys, and hangout to talk about local issues. If anyone wants to get online and try it out with me that would be awesome. I have a new headset coming via Amazon in a day or two. PM me for my steam ID.
cjet79
2yr ago
I was thinking purely about the food. If someone laid down taco bell and chick-fil-a in front of me it would depend on what I was in the mood for.
The experience itself would be a clear win for taco bell. The long lines at chick-fil-a has always been a turnoff for me. I'm fine with either drive through or dine-in.
Chicken taste ok to me, but I like the taste of beef. So Chick-fil-a is serving a good version of food I don't like that much, and taco bell is serving a mediocre version of a food I do like.
cjet79
2yr ago
I'm about ambivalent between the two options, probably slightly in favor of taco bell. But if someone was talking up Chick-fil-A it would probably change my mind.
cjet79
2yr ago
Every time you write about legal stuff I just feel more and more convinced that the rules are made up and the laws barely matter.
What is the point of a statute of limitations if it can be changed after the fact to include things previously protected by that statute?
What is the point of the trial related amendments if you can just have your reputation smeared and ruined by the media without anything vaguely resembling "due process"?
What problem are civil courts solving other than 'how to make lawyers rich'?
Plea deals destroying incentives to get your day in court. Prosecutors seemingly immune to any consequences of malpractice.
An old movie keeps coming up in my mind. It took me an hour of searching to find it based on my vague recollections. Interstate 60. There is a section of the movie where the main character (on a mythical road trip) takes a stop in a town called Morlaw. The entire town is comprised of lawyers that are constantly suing each other for everything (get it, Morlaw -> More Law). Any unlucky idiots that find their way to the town get caught up in the web of suing very quickly.
How does the protagonist escape? Do they make a compelling argument that this is insane? Nope, that doesn't convince any of the lawyers. They just see that as another reason to sue him.
Valerie McCabe: Every adult citizen of Morlaw is a lawyer, so everybody sues everybody else. It doesn't matter if there's a cause. It's how we ensure that everyone makes a living of their profession.
Neal Oliver: Yeah, but that's insane.
Valerie McCabe: I could sue you for that. You just made a defamatory remark about this town. Hey, are you looking at my legs? I could sue you for that too, sexual harassment.
Neal Oliver: Is there anything you can't sue me for?
The way the protagonist escapes is by making a call to a friend he met on the road. An ex-marketer that is dying and decides to go on a personal crusade against lying. This ex-marketer has a bomb vest strapped to him, and seems willing to use it. Yup, that's right, it takes literal terrorism to extricate the main character from a web of lawyers. The ex-marketer decides to stay around Morlaw to keep them in line.
Our legal system increasingly resembles a system of "might makes right" if you have enough powerful people on your side then the law can literally be what you want it to be. It doesn't feel like there is a legible system of rules where an underdog that is correct or in-the-right can beat the system. In the end someone might make the same realization that the ex-marketer makes. "Why play by your rules when I'm always going to lose? Why not bring violence to the table?"
cjet79
2yr ago
I also found the situation disappointing.
The past comments should have probably had censure, the fact that you felt such a comment was within the rules is a problem. That sounds like a mod failing.
It did provide you leeway. If you were a problematic poster I would have given 3-7 days, or maybe that would have been the last straw and it would have been a permaban. A warning is appropriate when someone has just barely crossed the line. When overstepping it too far a harsher response is necessary. The further you cross the line the harsher the response. This is to let you know and other posters know where that line is.
Your comment here makes me think the ban was not harsh enough. I'd never reban you for the same offense. But I want to make it as clear as possible: the comment you made was real bad, and it clearly broke a few of our discussion rules. You need to avoid making these comments or you will quickly blow through any good will you have earned through quality comments.
We have permabanned users with multiple AAQCs to their name. It is sad when it happens, but we will do it if it becomes necessary. In the few cases of this happening that I remember, the users always seemed surprised by their permaban. They had became so accustomed to their good posting being a shield that they lost the habits of avoiding bad posting. I have wondered before if that was a failing on the part of the mods. That we let the bad posting go on long enough unpunished (or lightly punished) that it became a habit.
cjet79
2yr ago
I find the idea of women's sports chuckle-worthy, about the same tier of interest as the Little Leagues. Aww, you poor things, incapable of standing up in absolute terms, let's make a nice carveout for you so that you can say you tried.
As others have pointed out this was not in the spirit of the rules in multiple ways. Usually you are a good poster, but this is a bad enough violation that I'm still going to give you a one day ban for it.
cjet79
2yr ago
Nukes actually seem pretty easy to explain to anyone that has a passing familiarity with explosives and poison. Really big bomb that poisons the area for a few decades.
I think ops original point stands pretty well, that could get good mileage out of transferring understanding from existing stuff to explain the danger of AI. Terrorism is one of the easiest goto examples. Really rich terrorist, with top tier talents in all fields.
cjet79
2yr ago
I've been into "intellectual" pursuits for most of my life, since middle school at least since I started consuming all science news articles I could find.
A couple things that might be "wisdom" from me:
-
Pursuing intellectual topics does not require anything other than average intelligence and interest. You don't have to be a genius to find history, cool science, or esoteric brain topics fun. I do believe IQ is real, and can have some noticeable real world effects, but most of those effects can become a wash if some other person has more time and interest.
-
Speaking of time, you are starting late, but that is not a bad thing at all. In some ways I am jealous. There are many cool things to learn, and you have lots of low hanging fruit. Unlike school this is not a competition. You don't have to be the most learned person in the room. You only have to compare yourself against how much you knew yesterday.
-
Romantic partners don't have to share all of your interests. I have a wife who is not intellectually inclined at all. I'd also be pretty confident that she is smarter than me IQ wise. I don't think most people are intellectually inclined. That is fine. You can still connect with them on other areas of shared interest. You can still be attracted to them. You can still enjoy activities with them.
-
You can often find the intellectually inclined doing things that work out their brain. It might seem obvious, but its worth pointing. People that care about their body can be found doing things that exercise their body. Same with the mind. There are meetup groups for slatestarcodex, dungeons and dragons groups are about using your imagination and acting skills, and any text-based online community or forum is going to mostly be people using their minds.
I like browsing youtube for interesting science education. There are some very fascinating historical blogs and podcasts out there.
When I asked ChatGPT for advice for you, they gave what I thought was mediocre advice, so I won't repeat it. But when I asked what groups you should join I thought their advice was more helpful (except for item #7, which is a bad suggestion I think):
-
Book clubs or reading groups: These groups bring people together to discuss and analyze books on a variety of topics. They can be a great way to meet like-minded people and expand your knowledge.
-
Historical societies: Many cities and towns have local historical societies that offer lectures, tours, and other events related to local history.
-
Language learning groups: Meetup groups and language exchange programs offer opportunities to practice speaking and learning languages with others.
-
Philosophy clubs: These groups discuss philosophical concepts and ideas, often with a focus on applying them to real-world issues.
-
Meetup groups for intellectual or academic topics: Meetup.com has a wide variety of groups for people interested in everything from science and technology to social issues and politics.
-
Toastmasters International: This organization helps people improve their public speaking and leadership skills through meetings, workshops, and other events.
-
Mensa: This organization is open to people with high IQ scores and offers networking opportunities, social events, and other resources for intellectual growth.
cjet79
2yr ago
I mean this sort of thing really does seem like an unequal compromise because it amounts to putting a hard cap on gun control but still allowing very lax states. Why would Democrats agree to that, especially when all polling indicates that gun control is a winning issue for them?
At the national level they could argue to change the specific restrictions in the strictest gun control category. At the state and local level they get to fight over upgrading the strictness level of gun control.
Also the whole attitude of 'we can win, so why compromise ' is part of why gun owners are so "uncompromising".
cjet79
2yr ago
The cornerstone of progressive education is that people are, at worst, a disease killing the earth. At least half of them are actively evil. And even the innocent ones who have done nothing yet are completely disposable if a woman finds them inconvenient.
This has many problems:
-
Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is
-
Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
You've also been warned about these type of comments in the past.
5 day ban
cjet79
2yr ago
This is not the kind of comment you can throw out without evidence. And if you do point it out with evidence, it should be done as lightly as possible in a non-antagonistic way.
You should know better.
cjet79
2yr ago
Practically speaking, what measures will gun rights advocates actually tolerate? It seems like the only thing they can countenance is more guns.
There is generally a sense among gun owners that there have always been more concessions to be made. Any "compromise" with gun owners needs to be an actual compromise, not just a "you lose one more inch" style compromise.
I'm not huge into the gun scene, but some of the compromises I've heard could be:
-
Easier gun modification, specifically silencers. Its a pain in the ass to get a silencer on a gun right now. And unlike how Hollywood depicts them, silencers do not "silence" a gun. They turn it from instant hearing loss without ear protection to hearing loss under prolonged use. They also require subsonic rounds (otherwise the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier defeats the purpose).
-
Some form of national gun transportation standardization. There are scenarios where you can legally own a gun, have it locked up in your trunk, drive across the wrong state line and suddenly you are violating a law.
-
Some form of concealed carry reciprocity. States all have their own versions of concealed carry (or don't allow it).
There are 51 versions of gun laws out there. Standardizing them in a way that doesn't treat California or New York laws as basis for standardization would potentially be appreciated. One way I could see them doing this is create different levels of constitutionally approved gun restrictions. Maybe 5 levels. With level one being the strictest, maybe equivalent to cities in California, New York City, or DC. And level 5 being the least strict, something you might see in rural Alaska. Municipalities are allowed to choose one of these levels of strictness, but they can't keep making up all their own restrictions and bullshit.
One thing I'd personally be interested in seeing it to remove all special exception carve-outs for law enforcement or active military. Instead there is only one category of carve-out: "Militia". The police and military can be assigned to this carve-out. But there is also a path for regular citizens to join the militia (devil would be in the details here).
cjet79
2yr ago
This is not a good post.
I don't know, I think it's illuminating to see how many people on TheMotte both loathe mentally ill homeless people so much and are so authoritarian that their desired solution to the mentally ill homeless problem is to kill them all.
This is a bit of weakmanning.
At this point SneerClub might as well just shut down. TheMotte beclowns itself enough on a regular basis that outside mocking of this place is superfluous. There are some great contributors who rise above the mess, but a large part of this site is just /pol/ but with unnecessary verbosity.
This is antagonism and writing as if you don't want a majority of themotte to participate in the discussion.
1 day ban.
This is a general warning to everyone: I just finished going through the mod-queue for the Jordan Neely post from last week. I did not ban anyone because I was over a day late to modding it, and I didn't feel like handing out 5 or 6 bans. I will be paying attention to this thread, and the general amnesty from last week will not continue.
This is a place for civil discussions. We are not here to wage the culture war. And this is not a place for you to just vent your feelings and frustrations.
@Goodguy is either lucky or unlucky in getting the first ban. If I have to do more bans they will escalate in length.
This is not enough for a top level thread comment. There is a possibility it was just posted in the wrong section, if I didn't have that uncertainty it would be a one day ban. Don't do this.
Edit:
The discussion on this topic last week had some bad posts and bad quality discussion. There was general amnesty for bad posts from that discussion, because I was late to moderating it. That will not be true for this thread. I've already handed out one ban there will be heightened scrutiny on these posts, especially if you are one of the people that received a warning in the thread from last week. If you are already on thin ice and don't trust yourself to avoid culture warring you are better off minimizing this thread and going to one of the other quality discussions taking place.
Please don't post bare links with minimal commentary.
More options
Context Copy link