erwgv3g34
My Quality Contributions:
User ID: 240
erwgv3g34
3mo ago
You are correct that divorce is almost never in a woman's best interests. That doesn't mean it is in the man's, either. Women suffer romantically (because a single mother in her 30s will never be able to get as good of a husband as a childless woman in her 20s, if she can get another husband at all) while men suffer materially (because, as the primary bread winner, he is the one that gets hit with the alimony, child support, etc.). It's mutually assured destruction.
That doesn't change the fact that women are responsible for the vast majority of divorces, either initiating them outright or making their husband's life hell until he files for one. It is just evidence that women cannot be trusted to make their own sexual choices. Which is precisely why they were not allowed to until the sexual revolution.
From "The False Life Plan" by the Dreaded Jim:
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.
Now theoretically, if a woman is chaste, men will only approach her that are appropriate to her marriage market value, and she will avoid getting an inflated perception of her value, but no man believes that a chaste women is likely to remain chaste, because, they are not likely to remain chaste. So a woman faces a storm of approaches that would never happen if the boys had to ask her dad before approaching her, and if her dad said yes, they would get not a date with the opportunity of physical contact, but merely the opportunity to court her for marriage. These approaches lead Kate Gosselin to believe that she is entitled to marry a six foot tall physically fit millionaire, and that life, her husband, and the male dominated society is being terribly unfair to her in not giving her what she is entitled to have.
erwgv3g34
3mo ago
Because you can't program virtue ethics into an AI. You need a utility function.
All of Yudkowsky's philosophical work is grounded on the framework of AI development.
erwgv3g34
3mo ago
States' Rights died in the Civil War, and Civil Rights pissed on the corpse. The blue tribe feels zero compunction about imposing its values upon the red tribe. Why should the red tribe be any different?
erwgv3g34
3mo ago
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
From 1984 by George Orwell:
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"
...
"The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men." He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"
Winston thought. "By making him suffer," he said.
"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy—everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."
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
4mo ago
From "Neutral vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle" by Scott Alexander:
The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
Same phenomenon you see in r/PoliticalCompassMemes. In fact, "Seven Zillion Witches" was considered as one of the possible names for what would eventually become The Motte, though I can't find the thread right now.
The alternative explanation would be that HBD and PUA are correct, so any place which allows uncensored discussion of those topics will eventually convince people to believe in them, and believing in HBD and PUA is sufficient to qualify as alt-right.
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
If I put a baby in her, maybe she'll relax.
Yeah, this. Women have an instinct to take care of small, cute, helpless creatures. Normally that instinct is supposed to help them raise their children, but with no kids they redirect the impulse towards cats and dogs instead, not unlike a man who masturbates to porn for lack of a girlfriend. She'll stop obsessing over fur babies once she has some real babies. Move up the wedding date and get to work.
In the Blue Tribe, not going to college is Just Not Done. College is a rite of passage, not merely a venal way to increase your salary; you are not a real adult until you have a degree.
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
Looks like a Verbal 660 and a Math 800 (or close enough), anyone who takes even a cursory interest in reading/writing in the English language and isn't failing at mathematics should be able to match it.
That's absurd. A 660 in English is 87th percentile. An 800 in Math is 98th percentile. And that's from the population of students who bothered to take the SAT, not from the general population. 98% of students are sure as fuck not passing algebra. More than 13% of college-bound seniors have taken a passing interest in reading and writing.
I agree that a 1460 SAT is not very impressive for an Ivy League application if you are white, though it's above the average for black students accepted to Harvard. But it's still a WAY above average score. It's just not enough to stand out when you are applying to the most competitive schools in a country of 300 million people.
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
The blue tribe reproduces memetically, not genetically. As long as they control the schools and the media they can keep converting red children into blue adults.
How many red tribers do you know that don't own a television set, homeschool their children, forbid their kids from watching modern movies, and advise their daughters against going to college? Hardcore fringe Christian fundamentalists, maybe. Everyone else is perfectly happy to send their offspring to Caesar for their education, then make a Pikachu face when they come back as Romans.
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
And while I can't find it at the moment, I recall a Nepalese study that found similar results for "Western-style" grade schools but, interestingly, not for "Islamic" ones.
"Impact of female education on fertility status of Muslim community" by Irshad Khan, as linked to in "The Cause of Population Decline" by the Dreaded Jim.
erwgv3g34
4mo ago
From "Nuclear Warfare 101" by Stuart Slade:
Aha, I hear you say what about the mad dictator? Its interesting to note that mad, homicidal aggressive dictators tend to get very tame sane cautious ones as soon as they split atoms. Whatever their motivations and intents, the mechanics of how nuclear weapons work dictate that mad dictators become sane dictators very quickly. After all its not much fun dictating if one's country is a radioactive trash pile and you're one of the ashes. China, India and Pakistan are good examples. One of the best examples of this process at work is Mao Tse Tung. Throughout the 1950s he was extraordinarily bellicose and repeatedly tried to bully, cajole or trick Khruschev and his successors into initiating a nuclear exchange with the US on the grounds that world communism would rise from the ashes. Thats what Quemoy and Matsu were all about in the late 1950s. Then China got nuclear weapons. Have you noticed how reticent they are with them? Its sunk in. They can be totally destroyed; will be totally destroyed; in the event of an exchange. A Chinese Officer here once on exchange (billed as a "look what we can do" session it was really a "look what we can do to you" exercise) produced the standard line about how the Chinese could lose 500 million people in a nuclear war and keep going with the survivors. So his hosts got out a demographic map (one that shows population densities rather than topographical data) and got to work with pie-cutters using a few classified tricks - and got virtually the entire population of China using only a small proportion of the US arsenal. The guest stared at the map for a couple of minutes then went and tossed his cookies into the toilet bowl. The only people who mouth off about using nuclear weapons and threaten others with them are those that do not have keys hanging around their necks. The moment they get keys and realize what they've let themselves in for, they get to be very quiet and very cautious indeed.
Baldur's Gate 3? You filthy casual.
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
Copyright law is in general meant to prevent customer confusion (eg preventing people from believing knockoffs are authentic).
That's trademarks, not copyright.
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
Gotham City and Metropolis are both thinly fictionalized versions of New York City, much like Fort Repose from Alas, Babylon is a thinly fictionalized Mount Dora. Though the fact that both exist in the same universe leads to some issues.
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
I dunno, if it's a battle for civilization you should probably use guns, instead of anonymous comments on an obscure message board.
You are glowing.
From 1984 by George Orwell:
At present nothing is possible except to extend the area of sanity little by little. We cannot act collectively. We can only spread our knowledge outwards from individual to individual, generation after generation. In the face of the Thought Police, there is no other way.
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
It's a play on Eliezer's paperclip maximizer thought experiment. Much like the paperclip maximizer has the goal of tiling the universe with paperclips, EA's actions (mosquito nets, etc.) have the net result of filling up the Earth with poor third-worlders. It's the same idea Garret Harding put forth in "Living on a Lifeboat" with a clever skiffy gloss.
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
For example, it's become very common to put question marks at the ends of statements to indicate uncertainty.
But that's not a bad thing? I've picked up that habit from 2000s internet culture and I honestly like it.
The rest just seems like Eternal September. Once smartphones allowed any asshole with a pulse to use the internet, we got to see what a 530 SAT Verbal score looks like first-hand.
erwgv3g34
5mo ago
Yes, I also get the feeling that HBD is starting to go mainstream. For example, Bryan Caplan's "Let's Ban Discrimination: A Socratic Dialogue" includes this gem:
Leonidas: [frustrated] I’m not even going to engage that, Socrates. You’re ignoring my central point.
Socrates: Namely?
Leonidas: That the average Egyptian worker endures horrible discrimination at Greek hands.
Socrates: How do you know that?
Leonidas: Open your eyes! [He waves in the direction of the street-sweepers.] Egyptians are much more likely to do hard, low-paid jobs than Greeks.
Socrates: Agreed. How, though, does that show “discrimination”?
Leonidas: [stunned] Isn’t it obvious?
Socrates: Hardly. Suppose the two of us were standing at the finish line of a marathon, keeping time.
Leonidas: Very well.
Socrates: Suppose further than out of the first hundred runners in the race, only two are Egyptian. One possible explanation for their poor performance, granted, is “discrimination.” For example, the judges could give Egyptian competitors unfavorable starting positions. But there are plainly other ways to account for their subpar performance.
Leonidas: Such as…?
Socrates: You tell me.
Leonidas: Perhaps… Greeks practice running more. We “try harder.”
Socrates: We did invent the marathon, after all. Can you think of any other explanations?
Leonidas: Well, uh…
Socrates: I promise I won’t repeat a word you say.
Leonidas: [grumpily] I guess you could say that Greeks just have more running ability.
Socrates: A distinct possibility.
Leonidas: So you’re justifying the mistreatment of Egyptian workers?
Socrates: Not at all. I’m trying to discover the extent to which Egyptian workers are mistreated.
Looks like the whisper network paid off.
My school does the same; barricade the door, get the students to the corner of the classroom away from the doors and windows.
Maybe a little emasculating, but I'm struggling to think of the alternative. Train the boys to banzai charge the shooter?
More options
Context Copy link