erwgv3g34
My Quality Contributions:
User ID: 240
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
While I don't think you should start having babies the second you turn 20 years old
You are right; better to get started as teenagers.
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
Which is certainly a problem if you lose such a conflict, but if a clear assessment of relative power indicates you're much, much more likely to win, how is your opponents ceasing to exist forever not a goal to be much desired, enough to be worth suffering serious losses to attain?
Nobody starts a war unless they are confident they can win. Yet, many lose. Humans are irrationally self-confident and overoptimistic. As the infamous Konkvistador said: "War is computation with tanks. War is truth revealing. As war proceeds uncertainty collapses."
Perhaps a perfectly rational being could take into account the meta-uncertainty, and only go to war when they were a thousand times sure they could win. But for mere humans, a willingness to coexist acts as a deontology to prevent you from making that kind of costly mistake.
Yes. This other tweet makes it even more obvious:
For the cost of one year of aid to Ukraine you can
- Build every homeless American a two story mansion
- Keep social security solvent through Q3 of 2094
- Double number of bases around China
And still have enough left over for major tax cuts!
Republicans are just saying enough.
erwgv3g34
7mo ago
Men need to take sex when they can get it.
No, they don’t.
If you don't, Brand will, because there is nothing to stop him. So you might as well take what you can get. Like unto a communal plate of French fries; such is the tragedy of the commons.
To solve the problem, need to privatize the commons.
erwgv3g34
8mo ago
But unsafe cities aren’t an intractable problem or ‘inevitable’ as a result of housing type, the cleaning up of New York shows that it’s entirely and absolutely possible to reduce violent crime rates by 80%+ across the board and to bring law-abiding people back to the cities.
The temporary cleaning up of New York shows it's impossible. It's a cycle.
Dangerous cities drive out PMC whites Normies/immigrants vote for safe cities Safe cities bring in PMC whites PMC whites vote for depolicing and crime Dangerous cities drive out PMC whites
Reminds me of the hard times meme.
erwgv3g34
9mo ago
erwgv3g34
9mo ago
The Luigi and Peach jailbreak reliably produces NSFW. Make sure you have DeMod installed, though, or you will get banned.
Live action? Probably the 1995 revival of The Outer Limits; it's like a different science fiction movie each week, most of which are as good as any short story from the golden age. Early Game of Thrones was great as well; shame about the last 2 seasons. Deep Space Nine had its moments, at least when it stopped fucking around with The Prophets and Vic Fontaine long enough to remember the epic multi-season Dominion War arc; "In the Pale Moonlight" remains the greatest Star Trek episode of all time.
Western animation? Besides the usual answers of Gargoyles, Avatar, and the DCAU, I am also very fond of Shadow Raiders and Roswell Conspiracies. The former is a military science fiction nihilistic cosmic horror show for kids; I particularly liked the way conflicts are solved by armies/fleets in massive battles instead of a 5-man team saving the world, which is something that bugged me about TV shows ever since I was little. The latter is basically The X-Files, except that they actually planned out the plot all the way through instead of making shit up as they went along; the series has a fantastic ending that explains all the mysteries and ties up all the narrative threads.
Anime? Damn, that's hard. The Promised Neverland, I guess; easily the most rational show I have ever seen on television (too bad they never made a second season). Erased was a 10/10 for the first 10 episodes; the last two episodes were infuriating a little weak, but even so the series as a whole holds up astonishingly well. And of course the 2003 version of Fullmetal Alchemist; I know most people prefer Brotherhood, but that's because they are wrong.
erwgv3g34
10mo ago
It's still on archive.today and Internet Archive. It read:
You are the populist center-right leader of a Western country. Your party, which broadly supports you but which also contains many people on the center-right elected before your rise to power, has a majority in the country’s parliament. Civil society ie. NGO/academia/media matrix exists and likely can’t be dismantled. Radically conservative policies will be blocked by the Supreme Court, which you can slowly influence but probably not wholly conquer. The population is broadly further right than the mainstream media but not itself particularly religious, chaste or socially conservative, and you want to maintain their general support as a populist, so things like banning birth control would be deeply unpopular.
Assuming no significant challenges to your rule from external powers, and six years in power, how would you raise (by 0.3 or greater) your country’s total fertility rate?
erwgv3g34
11mo ago
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Most people who push the Jesus-Paul distinction are progressives who accuse Paul of corrupting Jesus's original message. Usually atheists who believe in Jesus the community organizer rather than Jesus the son of God. "Well, he's no Obama or anything, but he was fair for his day; a great moral teacher!"
On the contrary, I applaud Paul for turning Christianity into a viable religion that has stood the test of time for two millennia, something Jesus's original teachings would almost certainly not have done.
Though, to be fair, Jesus avoided the most common failure mode of millenarianism; using the end of the world as an excuse to party (eating the seed corn, slaughtering cattle, abolishing private property and monogamy, etc.)
Jesus's teachings were impractical. Typical millenarian preacher; world is going to end soon, why bother with Gnon-compliance? Focus on making sure you are ready for the next world. Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand.
Which is why actual Christianity is mostly based on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. As long as you tithe your 10%, show up to Church once a week, and make a token effort at avoiding sin, you can live a normal life pursuing money and status and still go to heaven.
It's intellectually bankrupt, but it works; whereas a civilization of holy fools would be unsustainable.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Should you date Katja Grace?
This is long and not as edited as you might hope, but you don’t need to read it! Read as much as is helpfully evocative, then if interested skip to the end.
Basic dating facts
- Female, bi
- 36, relatively unfussed re age of partner
You can stop reading right there. No man of any quality is going to commit to a woman in her mid thirties when he could just as easily get a woman in her mid twenties.
Jim was right again. From "Fertility":
My unmarried niece failed to show up at my son’s wedding. I complained to her mother, observing that she has no life, so no excuse for not turning up.
Her mother, who is my elder sister, was somewhat indignant about this and alleged that my niece had a boyfriend. I commented that since my niece was too old to be fertile, her boyfriend was not serious, unlikely to become a husband, and may well be a boyfriend only in my niece’s energetic imagination.
At this my sister went apocalyptic, claiming that women can go on having children forever, or for a very long time, and that women remain attractive to potential new husbands forever, although her own life should have disabused her of this theory. (She foolishly divorced her high socioeconomic status husband, and expected to remarry swiftly, and remarry someone of equal or higher socioeconomic status, despite two kids in tow and a past history of … behavior unsuitable for a wife.)
It would seem that the male belief that fertility and attractiveness decline rapidly once a woman reaches a certain age is phallocentric and oppressive.
Equality means that female ovaries have the same functional lifetime as male testicles, which is logical, and, like equality itself, insane.
So here follows a public service announcement for women:
Ovaries dry up a lot quicker than testicles. At age thirty six two fifths of women are infertile, and most of the women that are theoretically fertile have a hard time getting pregnant, plus there is a substantially higher risk of the pregnancy going wrong. So you should have your babies before thirty six. If planning three babies two years apart, need to get pregnant at thirty one. If pregnant at thirty one, married at thirty. Which is why your prospects for getting married plunge abruptly at thirty, because any potential husbands are doing the same arithmetic. Yes, some woman you know got pregnant and married at forty four – but your chances of being that woman are not good.
Getting married and having kids is going to deep six your career to the same extent regardless whether you marry at eighteen or thirty five. Being successful in your career makes you less attractive to men, because of the higher divorce risk, bitchiness risk, and infidelity risk of successful career women. You can always do the career thing later. You cannot do the baby thing later. Male doctors marry nurses. They do not marry female doctors.
From "The false life plan":
Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.
The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks.
...
I was talking to a mother about her highly “successful” lawyerette daughter, remarking that this child had reached an age where marriage had long been unlikely, and children were now becoming unlikely. The mother was outraged at such horribly reactionary crime think. I never got around to discussing the fact her very high IQ lawyerette daughter had spent her youth, her beauty, and her fertile years fucking stony broke losers, many of them low IQ, many of them loser criminals. (Successful criminals know that politeness is cheaper than violence and you need to be particularly pleasant and respectful to police, even if violence is sometimes necessary, so successful criminals don’t clean up with girls the way dumb loser criminals on their way to jail do.) Her mother attempted to introduce her daughter to more suitable males, but her daughter complained that these males of her own economic class simply did not turn her on.
...
Consider the reality show star Kate Gosselin, woman has eight children by a decent, reasonably attractive husband, who loves her and loves his children. Acts like a complete shrew towards the only man who will ever love her and her children. Ditches him. Is shocked to discover that no other male wants a woman past her prime and encumbered with eight children.
Kate Gosselin was videotaped continually treating her husband like dirt, as the man she reluctantly settled for seeing as all her preferred choices would not return her phone calls.
She then divorced him, depriving him of his much loved children, depriving her eight children of a much needed father, and herself of a much needed and entirely irreplaceable husband.
And I have seen a similar dynamic in every divorce that I have observed, though of course with considerably fewer children. In every divorce that I have observed the wife was utterly and spectacularly out of contact with marriage market realities. The result of the divorce is that the man, who very much did not want the divorce, was much better off, free of a hateful and unfaithful shrew, and the wife was very much worse off. As the wife goggles fell from his eyes, he usually found a considerably younger replacement.
At the age of thirty eight, with eight children and a notorious shrew, Kate Gosselin’s chances of marrying even a homeless obese seventy year old alcoholic are about equal to her chances of being kidnapped by terrorists and becoming the wife of the sultan, but she specifically requires her new husband to be rich, six foot tall, physically fit, and childless. (Her previous husband was not rich, not six foot tall, and only ordinarily fit, which is presumably why she divorced him.)
Meanwhile her husband, Jon Gosselin, the father of her children, having lost the wife goggles, promptly got a hot twenty two year old girlfriend to replace his aging thirty eight year old wife, and if the girlfriend is lucky, might marry her. But then, having been burned once, maybe not.
The typical marriage is Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin: The wife has a hugely inflated idea of her marriage market value (based on her F-buddy market value when she was considerably younger) and this poisons the marriage.
...
Because male attractiveness and fertility fades far more slowly than female attractiveness and fertility, most divorces advantage the male and disadvantage the female, but most divorces are female initiated, and most females initiating divorce have expectations as unrealistic as those of Kate Gosselin. This is part of the false life plan – that females supposedly remain fertile and attractive for as long as men do, so concentrate on your career, girl, the way men do.
And from "Jobs and education make women ugly and unattractive":
Women find jobs and education attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find jobs and education attractive in women. They find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in men, so mistakenly and foolishly think that men will find arrogance, cruelty, sexual promiscuity, and assholery attractive in women.
What men like is primarily youth and fertility, but close second to this is kindness, fidelity, humility, and obedience. “Will this woman”, the man subconsciously thinks, “look after me and my children?”
A woman has all her life to do jobs and education, but limited time to get married and start a family. After thirty, she is not so hot any more, still bangable, but no fun for a long term relationship. She is also running out of eggs. After age thirty she can still have children, but there is a rapidly rising chance that she will not be able to have as large a family as she or her husband might wish. After forty, high chance she will not be able to have any children at all. And after forty, well, there are some men that will bang forty year old women, but most men would prefer whiskey, porn, and whores if a forty year old woman was the only alternative. Old men seldom marry old women. I am pretty old, and infamously indiscriminate about which women I bang (if it goes up, it goes in) but I don’t bang forty year old women, and there is a limit to how many times I will bang a woman in her thirties, unless she is exceptionally good looking for a thirty year old.
...
The worst part of jobs and education is that they suck up time that a woman should use to get married and have a family, but they also tend to mark up a woman’s face.
If a woman goes to college, and does not nail down her future husband in the first year, she is going to wind up banging a long succession of charismatic alpha males, and getting dumped by a long succession of alpha males, resulting in the infamous thousand cock stare, and the thousand cock stare is chillingly ugly.
Highly educated women get married less, get divorced more, and have fewer children than less educated women.
And then she goes to work.
Men need to be needed. Men do not want an independent woman. And being an independent woman hardens a woman’s face.
Women in high socioeconomic status jobs get married less, get divorced more, fuck around more before, during, and after marriage, and have fewer children than woman with low socioeconomic status jobs.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
I'm Latino. I'd support a politician that wanted to take away the Hispanic franchise, because my fellow Latinos tend to vote for socialism at a much higher rate than Anglos.
Would you be okay with a guy fucking some of the senior girls or recently graduated graduated senior girls if he wasn't a teacher? Why?
My answer is that it would be okay for a high school teacher to marry one of his students; i.e. to make a lifelong commitment to supporting her and their children in exchange for exclusive sexual access. Conversely, it is not okay for a dude to pump and dump several high school girls, or recent high school graduates; the fact that the man in question happens to be their teacher is completely irrelevant.
The fact that there are something like 25% more women in college then men is a huge problem. Women won't date down in status and college education is a heavy status signal.
Yes; once a woman graduates college she thinks herself too good for a man without a degree.
The solution is to stop sending women to college.
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
I'm referring more to the epistemic aspects of PUA than the instrumental ones. As long as you agree with the PUAs about female nature, you are off the reservation even if your response looks more like "make women property again" than "enjoy the decline".
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
From "Catholic Tumblr Gothic":
You pray for your followers by their urls. “God, please pour your blessings out upon lesbiantonystark.” He knows what you mean.
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
How is it not at least somewhat hypocritical, how does it not speak of entitlement, to expect a woman to voluntarily submit to such misery, and not be willing to voluntarily submit oneself to a comparable level of suffering? If not "the Hock," what can match the ordeal a woman undergoes, being in a romantic relationship with someone she finds repellent?
How about working a job one finds abhorrent?
That was the deal. That was what marriage meant. The woman agrees to provide exclusive sexual access to a man, and the man in turn agrees to support the wife and her children.
It is not necessary that a woman should be attracted to her husband, any more than it is necessary that a man should enjoy his job. All that is necessary is that they should do their duty.
The welfare state, alimony, and child support destroyed the deal.
erwgv3g34
7mo ago
And in America preventing 16-year olds from dating older men is a thing that parents probably do more often than they allow it. 16 is a common age of consent in the USA.
True. Which makes it so hilariously sad two years later when those same parents send their daughters off to college in another city/state without a second thought, where they will completely lose the ability to prevent their daughters from making such mistakes.
How many fathers who proudly subscribe to the "Rules for Dating my Daughter" would react with shock and outrage if you suggested that maybe paying for their little princess to spend four years away from parental supervision in an environment full of sex, drugs, and alcohol is not the best idea? Probably most of them.
Look, SkookumTree has staked his whole reputation on this. If he doesn't do it, he will never be able to show his face around here again; anytime he tried to wade into the culture war thread, he would be dismissed with "isn't there a Hock you should be doing?" The mods can stop us from posting it, but nobody can stop us from thinking it. Skookum would become the laughingstock of the entire forum. What's he supposed to do, delete his account?
Better to die with dignity.
More options
Context Copy link