coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
That “only” a small percentage of women are on OnlyFans does not mean that the behavior is not rooted in a biological drive. Only a small amount of men become addicted to lootbox gambling, and yet addiction to gambling is a 100% real thing that is a result of both genetic factors and biology generally. The women not on OnlyFans may simply be raised well, have higher intelligence, are more cautious related to privacy, or are married or in a relationship. Yet OnlyFans is still exploiting the biology of some genetically at-risk women, just as lootbox gambling exploits the biology of at-risk men. (Similarly, some people are predisposed to alcoholism; my 23andme says I likely drink a lot of coffee, and it is right.)
Regarding the numbers, a 2024 filing showed 4.6 million creator accounts, of which a majority are naturally women, and nearly all of these women will be 18-30. This does not tell us how many had created an account and then deleted it; it is unlikely that the average creators sticks around very long. And this is not among American women only. So the percent of women 18-30 on OnlyFans is not certain.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21hr ago
On the reward circuitry level there is no difference between obtaining cash from variable posting of nudity and obtaining in-game rewards (often tradeable to cash) from variable shooting of an opponent or clicking of a treasure chest
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21hr ago
OnlyFans is structured to hit on those same neural correlates, as likes and payments and praise come immediately after a sexual display or act. Women may truly be “addicted” within this specific context which minimizes reputational checks and where they receive compliments and coins concomitant to the primitive sexual display behavioral loop. Mainstream social media use among young women parallels this addictive loop, because they receive points and adulation for dancing and less overt displays of their body like the wearing of revealing clothes.
IMO OnlyFans is to women what video game lootboxes / sportsbetting are to men. Deep in male nature is the desire to seek fortune through competition / warring, and deep in female nature is the desire to present themselves for sex and obtain resources from the wealthy. These are primitive drives, millions of years old, predating modern human evolution. In both instances it triggers an urge that can overpower rational risk-reward calculation in many people. These things should be banned just like cocaine is banned. They are physiologically the same as cocaine. Cocaine is an endogenous dopamine hack, OF / gambling are exogenous dopamine hacks.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
I really want to visit now. Seems really cool.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
For some reason my memory of Chuck Norris was blended with my memory of WoW. Maybe because of Barrens Chat?
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/249062-world-of-warcraft-classic/41897772
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
The word meme was was not commonly used to refer to internet memes until ~2008, and then only in contexts outside of where memes developed. There was a period where no one who made or disseminated memes ever referred to them as “memes” and doing so was seen as passé. This changed with the popularity of Reddit, but we have now returned to a period where memes are no longer referred to as such — contagious social transmissions are now “trends”, or just “images” if referring to images that go viral as reaction comments on shortform social media. It is an interesting fact to explore that the surest way to disrupt the popularity of a meme is to call it a “meme”, filing it away immediately at a category of ephemeral expression soon to be forgotten.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
I’m of the opinion that the more “competition” between traditional churches the better. I would even like the Catholic Church to split into different denominations so that the one with the best spirit and art can triumph. There should be factions among Christendom so that we can measure who produces the greatest fruit somewhat-empirically, and which produces the greatest art and spiritual change according to the opinion of Sensitive Young Men (and I wonder if this explains some of the rise of the Church in Georgia). I think, also, that Israel is a fair example of how you can have national and religio-political unity without having any semblance of organizational unity among the competing strains of the religion. I mean there’s controversy with the Haredi, but otherwise no one can claim that they are socially or politically disorganized. And it does not appear that each of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence are “organized” in any way that aids their defense or prosperity despite having so many precise areas of agreement.
Orthodoxy in America may be one of the few denominations which have a genuine rise in attendance (1, 2), and while the converts might claim it is due to the history and liturgy and theology, I think instead it is an aesthetic-spiritual-vibe-feel sort of thing. (Would they attend if it was in a strip mall, there was no incense, the robes were a fugly purple, and the priest sang in gay voice? I don’t think so). However, they are starting from such low numbers that I don’t think it will really matters for a number of decades.
The significant life and death of Patriarch Ilia II of the insignificant country of Georgia
The Head of the Georgian Orthodox Church just passed away, leading the officially secular government to institute five days of national mourning. According to surveys, Ilia was the most trusted man in the Caucasus. The public’s trust in his “patriarchy” peaked at 94% in 2010, at a time when trust in the parliament stood at a pitiful 34%. Ilia presided over the most interesting rise of religiosity ever recorded. In 1977, when he entered his position, Geogia was in possession of only a few dozen churches. Youth church attendance sat at 7%, and the perceived importance of religion was somewhere below 50% (likely quite far below, but there is little data before 1993). By the end of his life, 2500 orthodox churches were built, youth attendance rose to 60% by 2010, perceived importance of religion rose to 85% in 2014, and general weekly attendance jumped from 27% in 1996 to 44% in 2014. Even well past the end of Soviet atheism, religiosity continued to rose, with monthly prayer increasing from 57% in 2007 to 75% in 2020. Much of this data is explored in the interesting paper, “A counterexample to secularization theory? Assessing the Georgian religious revival”.
Serendipitously, I was exploring Georgian Orthodox music at the time of patriarch’s passing. The god of the algorithm and the God of the gods rewarded my search for good music and led me to the mass held in honor of the Patriarch. If you like choral music, or the aesthetics of Game of Thrones, you might like it. I personally think the aesthetics are peak. The godchildren of the Patriarch led his procession throughout the capital city, though it’s hard to know how many gathered for the occasion because he had 50,000 godchildren. Why so many? In an effort to increase the Georgian TFR, the patriarch promised to be the Godfather of every third child born to an Orthodox Christian family. The result was an enormous religiously inspired baby boom:
We find a 17% increase (0.3 children per woman) in the national total fertility rate, a 42% increase in Georgian Orthodox women’s birth rate within marriage, and a 100% increase in their 3 and higher-order birth rate within marriage. The impact of the intervention also correlates with higher marriage rates and reduced reported abortions, aligning with the church’s goals
The speaker of the Georgian parliament honored him as follows: “Georgia has lost a spiritual father, our most Holy Patriarch, who dedicated every minute and second of his life to serving Christ, defending the homeland, and caring for his flock.”
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4d ago
My apologies for not specifying the 13,000 pound elephant with a trunk the size of an NBA player reverberating the entire room with its trumpeting. Foreign Affairs 1979:
Americans must recognize two facts governing the situation in Iran. One is the breadth of support for the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini among politically sophisticated intellectuals as well as millions of urban and rural Iranians who never before participated in the political process. The other is the complete absence among these same people of loyalty for Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who is regarded as a traitor, a creation of American and British imperialism. In their view, the shah’s regime reflected American interests as faithfully as Vidkun Quisling’s puppet government in Norway reflected the interests of Nazi Germany in World War II. The shah’s defense program, his industrial and economic transactions, and his oil policy were all considered by most Iranians to be faithful executions of American instructions. Ultimately, the United States was blamed for the thousands killed during the last year by the Iranian army, which was trained, equipped, and seemingly controlled by Washington. Virtually every wall in Iran carried a slogan demanding the death of the "American shah."
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4d ago
So you’re saying that the Iranians, in their desire to deter America from ever again “fucking with them”, should have done a lot more than what they did? What do you think they should have done instead?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
Even ignoring that the hostage crisis was because the US protected the Shah (whom they imposed on Iran) when Iranians wanted him tried, the idea that 52 hostages means that you can fund 50,000 Iranian casualties from chemical attacks is insane. Why do pro-Israelis seem to have no notion of proportionality? US protects Shah from revolution -> 50 hostages -> US supports Iraq inflicting 50,000 casualties on Iran through chemical weapons even as Iran petitions the international community to compel them to stop. Like what are we even doing here. And Iraq invaded Iran! It wasn’t even a defensive use of chemical weapons.
Note, though, that conservative old-order Amish sects have a retention rate of up to 97%. The women in these communities are allowed to leave, and there are organizations that will even help them transfer over to our Mad Max universe if they so desired. But they prefer their way of life because they have been conditioned to value it. The Amish are practicing the exact God-given freedom that the Founders had in mind when they spoke about freedom of religion, because this freedom permitted the plurality of religious sects to do pretty much whatever they wished in their communities. Freedom in the context of American mythology originally meant that families could raise their kids and police their communities according to a faith tradition of their choosing, free from any government intervention: like the Amish, the Quakers, Mohammedans, Freemasons, anything. The Founders envisioned a society in which thousands of strict microcultures could develop or flourish unregulated, two of which could be atheism and feminism, but by no means were these considered a kind of default setting that every kid must pass through before becoming an adult with substantially less neuroplasticity.
When we say “women are now free”, what we mean is that their values are no longer decided by anyone who loves them deeply, but instead are decided by nameless bureaucrats who they will never meet, whose opinions are informed by the lobbying of corporate interests upon politicians. This is not really freedom. You have exchanged one kind of social conditioning (decided by loving figures in their own community) for another kind of social conditioning (decided by unknown people interested in maximizing their bank accounts). We can call this feedom, to differentiate it from freedom proper. In the system of feedom, women are raised to pay the most fees, in the form of taxes to the government or in the form of labor to corporations. Their lives exists to increase the wealth for the rich and oligarchic families that rule over the government, the publishing industry, the corporations and the media. The wealth that the fee-women generate ensures that the women in the oligarchic households never really have to do actual work; they live lives of incredible leisure masquerading as Socially Important Work. They will acquire a small business for its aesthetic value, or they might sit at a sinecure law firm because of their family reputation, or they will get involved in the “art world” or NGOs which is really just partying.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
What the king says becomes the law, that’s why I brought up law.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
The Muslim nations surrounding Israel are not saying “Israel shouldn’t exist”, no one is saying that there, they are saying “return to determined borders and give Palestinians freedom, and in return relations are normalized”. (The object-level discussion is on whether stability is desired.)
there are many Muslim countries, both in the Middle East and outside of it, and there is only one Jewish country. Strangely, very few Muslim countries are therefore willing to open their borders to Palestinians
Because having a lot of land, or being in a large religious tent, does not give an alien people the right to take land illegally. This does not absolve the crime. Just like I can’t just steal a percent of a Jewish billionaire’s bank account simply because his group owns an enormous amount of resources globally. If I were to do that as a sovereign nation, many Jews would get mad and petition their government to destroy me. There is only one Jewish country because Jews are 0.7% the size of Islam (and only half of them have a desire to live in Israel, so it’s more like 0.4% factoring for Muslim diaspora). In other words, they are owed one tiny country if we intend to allocate countries based on size. They do not deserve more than one country if your framework for deciding these things is population size. If those countries opened their border, Israel would close their border on Palestinians forever, stealing their land, as they have done in the past.
the Middle Eastern Muslim attitude toward Palestinians seems to be that they are useful idiots and foot soldiers, but you wouldn't want your daughter to bring one home for dinner.
This was, also, the Ashkenazi opinion on mizrachim. Yet they are only nation regardless.
you are suggesting, deductively, that the stability of the region depends on Israel no longer being safe
No, you would need to prove that Israel is “no longer safe” if they don’t have nukes, and then you would have to explain why this wouldn’t apply to Saudi Arabians or Syrians or Egyptians. Israel would be plenty safe even without nukes.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
Are you really asking why an absolutist monarch would be able to enshrine something into law and actually have it followed? Saudi Arabia does mass executions all the time. Including on Muslim clerics that they disagree with. If the King says that his subjects must assent to Israel’s borders and not protest, then they will obey him. MBS does not have a lot of Arabs openly disagreeing with him. Is Israel more trustworthy with their constant ceasefire violations?
The problem with Israel having nukes is that it incentivizes other states to have nukes. While the Israelis may be solipsistic enough to feel they are the only ensouled and rational creatures dwelling in the Middle East, we can’t actually expect other sovereign states and cultures to feel this way. If what we want is regional stability, then enemies don’t just get a vote, they also get theory of mind and dignity. Would Israel be fine with Oman getting nukes? Egypt? Is the region safer with Saudi Arabia under the nuclear umbrella of Pakistan? (Do you know that was triggered by Israel breaking all international norms by trying to kill a negotiating team in a sovereign country? How might a rational country change their policies after witnessing that?)
a majority of Palestinians report that their preference is for Israel to cease to exist
A majority of Palestinians exist in a perpetual post-9/11 state due to the relentless Israeli atrocities that go unpunished. Just this week, the stories are that a family of five was gunned down in the West Bank, while another family was tied up and raped as state-sponsored Jewish-supremacist terrorists beat random women and stole their valuables. This comes as the Defense Minister of Israel has apologized to five IDF rapists, believing that they should not have been charged for raping a detained prisoner, an act that was corroborated by the chief lawyer of the IDF (since resigned), a medical report, and a video. Just this week.
In any case, the surrounding Muslim countries have genuinely sought normalized relations contingent upon a Palestinian state. That was behind the Abraham Accords (no settling in West Bank). Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait are all willing to do this, unless you think they are just making things up. Turkey’s relationship with Israel has soured because of Gaza which shows that they are genuinely interested in Palestinian rights. Wouldn’t Jews behave the same way if the roles were reversed? If there were a group of oppressed Jews somewhere in the world, then Jewish communities worldwide would be pressuring their governments to intervene.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6d ago
According to Saudi Arabia, normalization is possible with a return to 1967 borders and a sovereign Palestinian state. My suggestion is that if “stabilization” was what we really wanted, this would stabilize the region.
a significant percentage of Muslims will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of Israel
I’m not so sure. Israel, as a condition for their recognition of a Palestinian state, can ask the Arab monarchies to enshrine its borders into law and penalize those who openly call to dispute these borders. I think MBS would genuinely consider doing this for regional stability, but would Israel ever consider it? (Likely not, they want more land!)
I do not think there is any country safer in the Middle East than Israel. They are nuclear-armed, they have western leaders constantly harkening to them, they have the most sophisticated intelligence network by a large margin, the have an incredible tech sector and they have an extraordinarily wealthy and committed diaspora located throughout the world. No single group is safer. I just do not see a reality in which Israel is threatened.
I haven’t watched the documentary yet, but IMO if you wish to increase the sum total happiness in society, it’s better to lean into “women should be ashamed of their gender” than “men should be ashamed of their gender”. This is because women are more sensitive to shame, threats of social ostracization, and other kinds of social stressors, while being more socially conformist, and while also being more “vain” in their choice of mate (hypergamy, which is just nature naturing), and more likely to instigate divorce when the status differential is changed in their favor [1, 2, 3]. Men, contrarily, are more likely to take risks and break social norms in order to secure a mate, and so any attempt at shaming them into not getting laid will be less effective. So there is a qualitative difference in the effect size of any behavior-policing social intervention: with the same amount of shame, you can modify more of the behaviors and values of more women than if you tried the same for men. We know from a study on the Lancaster Amish that women who are controlled according to traditional values have less stress, fewer symptoms of depression, higher aggregate scores of mental health, lower levels of intimate partner violence, higher levels of social support, and even report lower levels of unfair treatment owing to gender (lol, lmao even) compared to the general population. We can only imagine how happy they would be with traditional values + modern Starbucks beverages. Traditionalism also uniquely buffers against the depression-increase when women marry:
Detailed reviews of epidemiological findings suggest that marriage may have detrimental effects in females, possibly due to gender-specific demands posed by marriage and the resulting limited number of roles available to females. Similar reasons may explain why looking after small children is associated with greater risk of depression in females. Both home-making and child care reduce the likelihood of females being in paid employment or put additional responsibilities on those who are employed. Married females with no paid employment have to rely for identity and self-esteem on the role of housewife, a role that carries many frustrating elements and has been increasingly devalued in modern societies […] Indirect evidence for the strong effect exerted by social and cultural factors is provided by those studies showing no, or limited, gender differences in depression rates […] in cultural groups where high value is attached to the female role, such as in Mediterranean countries (Reference Mavreas, Beis and MouyiasMavreas et al, 1986; Reference Vázquez-Barquero, Diez-Manrique and PenaVázquez-Barquero et al, 1987), among the Old Order Amish (Reference Egeland and HostetterEgeland & Hostetter, 1983) or among orthodox Jews in the London area (Reference Loewenthal, Goldblatt and GortonLoewenthal et al, 1995).
In light of the data, I’m not sure why anyone would take manosphere / feminism discourse seriously. Neither of them have any evidence-backed plan to make men and women happier. Maybe the manosphere increases male happiness by providing a sense of cameraderie? I doubt feminism makes anyone happier as feminists always seem distraught.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6d ago
If you care about stability as a terminal goal, then we need to get rid of Israel’s nukes, and also get them out of their occupied land, which is a precondition for normalization among the Arab nations. But I don’t think pro-Israelis care about “stability”, they just care about Israel.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6d ago
They never had a nuclear weapons program. That is not a real thing. No expert has alleged that. I think everyone would be okay with quietly destroying a legitimate nuclear weapons program in Iran. But that’s not even a card on the table.
we turn them into a failed state
Why would this be a proportionate response to their arming Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups which pose 0 threat to America and only the tiniest threat to Israel? Why would we even be interested in turning Great Civs to dust? This is not a noble pursuit. It seems sociopathic. The ideology behind this isn’t even found in Albanian blood feuds, which have some measure of honorable proportionality. This is like African Warlord moral reasoning, or ISIS reasoning. Iran is filled with people, some of them are very smart and talented. It’s a more aesthetically beautiful country than Israel. It has cool art. If you’re interested in urban architecture, you’ve probably seen modern Iranian buildings online without knowing it. Americans (before the conflict) could just go to Iran and travel. You could be invited to someone’s home. You would be treated with more hospitality than an American treated in some religious quarter of Jerusalem, by whom you would considered an eternal stranger.
An actual problem plaguing America is the amount of drugs that come from domestic and Central American gangs. This actually threatens us. Horrible casualties from drugs. we can actually just blow up these gangs, and it would be both morally sound and effective. The cartels work with the Mexican deep state (really), and we can declare war and blow them up to save American lives. But why would I want to destroy Mexico forever just because they are responsible for some tens of thousands of dead Americans, unless I am a genuinely evil person? I wouldn’t even want us to target the homes of Mexican soldiers, which I think we are doing in Iran right now. Do we really think that we will be hegemonic forever (note the demographics), so we don’t fear China will use the same strategies against our grandchildren in 2126?
I think it is just as valid to ask as how is it not?
Consider that America gains power in negotiation with Israel and the Gulf Arabs if there is a strong Iran threatening them. This makes us wealthier and safer: we can obtain more things, including technology, for less under the promise of our protection. If Iran is taken out, our advantage over these foreign countries is weakened. We have also closed the door on getting anything from Iran, which sucks because we could have certainly recruited hundreds of their 150 high iq human capital in exchange for sanction reliefs. That would have helped us against China!
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6d ago
backing Iraq in invading Iran
America supported Iraq while Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran resulting in 50,000+ casualties. Iran did not respond in kind on religious grounds, which is ironic; they may have used them years into the war less extensively, but the evidence for this is iffy (no UN verification)
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6d ago
I think it oversees literally all intelligence related to terrorism except for domestic threats: https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/features_documents/NCTC-Primer_FINAL.pdf
NCTC serves as the primary organization in the USG for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the USG pertaining to terrorism and CT except intelligence pertaining exclusively to domestic terrorism. NCTC has a responsibility to inform its partners on all international terrorism issues, and unique authorities allow personnel to analyze intelligence collected both inside and outside the U.S.
If that’s so (?), this is the top dawg of American terror intelligence essentially saying that Israel and her agents in America got us into this war.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
7d ago
Well there’s a lot you can do if you support MAGA. You can rally behind its new figures (Tucker, Fuentes, Fishback). You can make propaganda. You can start an organization, for the purposes of propaganda. You can create art, for propaganda. (I really think everything just comes down to propaganda). You can boycott things, and get people to boycott things. Things are decided by money and opinion: get the money, change the opinion. You can ensure that your money only goes to Americans with a pure allegiance, and you can change opinions. The strategy of “spend a decade in the Fox News room for the small chance to persuade Mark Levin” is just not realistic.
the first 10 million would be spent funding a group of young scholars and researchers wielding AI to determine precisely how Marxism originally won. The answer is some combination of (1) popular agitprop and (2) compelling status benefits for successful Marxist activists. An ideology does not need to be true or proven to successfully proliferate, it simply needs to be fun to express and exciting to believe at first pass; almost nobody, and certainly no young person, considers the consequences of their ideology beyond the first pass. The end result of this phase would not be some worthless boring thinktank paper that no one would ever read, but instead a dozen or so pages filled with bullet points on rules and recommendations for practical utilility. I would pay careful attention to the social ecosystem of Marxists prior to the Russian revolution and during Mao’s cultural Revolution. There were very concrete social rituals that were promulgated to increase the motivation and activity of Marxists, which are interesting to read about.
the next 10 million would be spent determining who to champion as primary social influencers. One passionate social influencer can create 1000 passionate social influencers organically in turn, so this is the place to start. Ideally you would form small teams of one charismatic leader and 6 to 11 assistants; the assistants research all the information and implementation details while the charismatic leader focuses on honing his visceral persuasion skills. 2016-Trump and Obama are examples of charismatic leaders; in online spaces, Nick Fuentes and Dean Withers. The heyday of SJW occurred when the beautiful young elites signaled their allegiance; the decline corresponds to the ugly and unwell signaling their allegiance, and then being counter signaled by “Libs of Tik Tok” type accounts. There was never any rationality involved in either the rise or the decline. Just signals.
the final 10 million would be spent funding the above groups so that they can spend all their time on persuasion and induction into the social ecosystem. The flowchart would be simple: someone comes across the attractive and compelling ideologue, and then are filtered into the social ecosystem, and then become an ideologue themselves. This is literally how Marxists grew originally, and how the Chinese cultural revolution became so energetic: there were thousands of “agitators” which would persuade new members to gradually become agitators themselves. Marxism et al is especially dangerous because it is such a primitively attractive ideology based on primal instinct: people have more than they need, so they should give it to those who need it. Hunter Gatherer tier feelings. This is how you would behave in a small group of friends, so why wouldn’t it apply generally and collectively? And it shifts the burden of (dis)proof to the capitalist, and it takes so much longer to explain why things are more complicated than Marxist ideology, meanwhile the Marxist can just repeat his slogans endlessly. (Today, we have the opposite problem where the capitalists lean into primitive instinct maxxing with their slogans revolving around the notion that “a person deserves what they can create”. Just as instinctive, and also a dangerous simplification, and again shifts the burden of proof to the opposition).
I would not need the remaining $220,000,000; I would donate the remainder to the poor.
More options
Context Copy link