erwgv3g34
My Quality Contributions:
User ID: 240
Yeah, I agree. Especially watching shows from the 50s and 60s, where a lot of the creators were WWII vets (Rod Serling, Gene Roddenberry, etc.), is a huge contrast to today where most of the PMC wouldn't be caught dead in uniform.
I don't know how to do this locally, but I definitely know how to do this online.
What you want is a LoRA. And since you want it for non-photorealistic porn, you specifically want a Pony LoRA. Here's how it is done:
Get a Civitai account, then acquire buzz (the site currency). Either farm buzz daily for a couple of weeks (follow 3 randos everyday for 10 buzz each and claim a free 25 buzz each day from the image generator for a total of 55 daily buzz in less than a minute's work) or drop $5 to get 5000 buzz. You'll need 500 buzz to train a LoRA.
Go to the "Create" button and expand the drop-down menu, then select "Train a LoRA". Pick "Style" and give it a name (usually the name of the artist). Agree to the terms and upload a zipped folder with all your images. They need to be tagged, but Civitai can automatically tag them for you. Click the "Auto-Label" button and use the default settings. But before you hit "Submit", you need to add a trigger word to the "Prepend Tags" field. These are the Words of Power you use to summon your LoRA. I recommend "[ARTIST NAME]_STYLE", for example "PICASSO_STYLE" or "MICHELANGO_STYLE". In the "Base Model" page, select "Pony" under "SDXL", then hit "Submit" and wait.
In a few hours, your LoRA will be ready. You can publish it to Civitai and use it with their online generator or you can download it to your computer and generate locally with a program like Fooocus.
Before doing this, you may want to clean up your dataset. Get rid of low quality, small, or redundant images. If any of the pictures contains an artist signature, crop it, or else your LoRA will learn to generate faux signatures.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Other than Israel no country has figured out how to maintain both A) a national TFR above replacement and B) clean drinking water.
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
For a man, the financial risk of divorce utterly swamps any possible gains from tax incentives.
To get investment in capital, you need secure property rights, because nobody is going to invest time and effort in a business he cannot expect to profit from, in much the same way no one washes a rented car. Likewise, to get investment in marriage, you need secure ownership of women by men.
As long as Marriage 2.0 is the only game in town, men are going to continue following their incentives rather than accepting a debased marriage.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Today, every age group under 25 is now less than 50% non-Hispanic white. There’s no reversing that.
Not with that attitude!
declare that I only care about the suffering of myself, those close to me, and my descendants, which might be more manageable
This is what I did. when Effective Altruism made it clear that spending a thousand dollars on myself was the equivalent of letting a random African child die of malaria, I had a choice of either becoming an EA and donating 10% of my income towards mosquito nets or admitting that I did not actually care about Africans; I shrugged and chose the latter. I have enough on my plate just trying to care about the suffering of me and mine, anyway.
The problem with affirmative action is that most jobs aren't just sinecures meant to provide someone with a socially approved level of status and monetary support; they are shit that actually needs to get done, and shoving an 85-IQ black guy into the civil engineering position in the name of equality is going to fuck up your building. Generalize, and the more affirmative action you have, the more you fuck up your economy and your government.
Welfare/UBI doesn't that have problem, but it has the alternate problem that unearned wages destroy people. Freed from the responsibility to work for a living, they revert back to pathological r-selection, like Spiegelman's monster. The males compete for women based on who can be the biggest thug rather than who can be the best provider; the women compete for males based on who can be the most sexually available rather than who can be the best mother. You get generation after generation of single mothers and criminals who think of welfare not as charity for which they should be grateful, but as a their entitled birthright.
The best solution is to just admit the truth about HBD, do nothing to promote equality, and let blacks carve out the best lives they can on the idea that everyone can contribute to society thanks to comparative advantage. But in order do that, you need to get rid of things like the minimum wage and zoning that forbid people from making a living if their productivity is not high enough.
And if black envy stoked by race hustlers is never going to accept that they are going to end up on the lower end of society through no fault of white's own, then the only alternative is physical separation. Let the blacks have their own country (carved out of Southern states, most likely) and let the whites have their own country, and never the twain shall meet.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
No, actually, I think I that's correct? In my experience, people who are addicted to alcohol or smoking or porn almost never stop, and the best defense is to avoid become addicted in the first place by not even trying the addictive habit in the first place (trivial for heroin and tobacco, harder for alcohol and porn, impossible for food).
Like, if you expect an alcoholic or drug addict or a masturbator to give up their vices, you are going to have a bad time; very few do. You are much better off deciding if you are willing to accept that person addiction and all or if you would rather cut them off from your life. Same for expecting a fat person to lose weight. Ignoring morality/desert, it requires a nearly superhuman level of willpower that the vast majority of people empirically do not have.
Why do you think some people are able to lose weight, then?
Malfunctioning set point regulator? Not sure. But as far as I know, the overwhelming majority of people fail to lose weight in the long-term.
Eating a lot is a habit. It is probably closer to an addiction. Eating less is very unpleasant and your body will fight you unless you satisfy it. Just like your body will fight you when you try to stop smoking.
The food addiction hypothesis fails to explain why skinny people find it just as hard to gain weight as fat people find it to lose weight. The set point model explains both.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
What would you do if you were an adherent of a religious tradition that called for fasting? The restriction isn't for the benefit of your own health, but rather divinely commanded, and mandates not less food permenantely, but no food for a day here and there, or when the sun is shining one month per year.
Eat as much as possible before the fasting period starts to tide me over. If that failed, I would just have to sneak food in while no one was watching and hope that G-d/Allah/Heavenly Father is merciful, much the same way I watched porn while I was still a Catholic and then prayed for forgiveness and the strength not to do it again (funny how that never worked).
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Of course I eat too much; looking at the people around me, I eat approximately 2-3 times what a non-fat person does. Even though almost everything I eat is healthy home-cooked food, I am obviously going to be fat at that rate.
But what can I do? If I don't eat that amount, I just go around feeling hungry all day, unable to enjoy anything or focus on any kind of productive work, until my willpower finally snaps and I scarf down whatever is at hand.
Which is exactly what set point theory predicts. Set point theory doesn't posit some kind of supernatural physical or biological mechanism; it merely argues that your brain will defend a given weight by making you hungry, cold, and lethargic (or, alternatively, full, sweaty, and hyperactive) until you reach that weight.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Now, more generally I agree that fat people (even "normal" fat people) have a strong tendency to be in denial about how much they eat and how little exercise they do, or about the health effects of obesity.
I'm not in denial about anything; I'm just not willing to spend the rest of my life fighting against my set point by suffering from starvation neurosis and working a part-time job at the gym in order to maintain a healthy weight.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Third, there’s a lot more effort put into keeping the marketplace of ideas free from promoting bad memes. Up until the 1990s, TV and movies were much more reluctant to make positive role models of people doing stupid things. You wouldn’t find heroines who had sex with random men. You wouldn’t see heroes doing drugs.
This was true during the Hays Code era. Not sure it was really true in the 90s. You already had things like heroines cheating on their fiances with random bums (Titanic), heroes marrying single mom strippers (Independence Day), heroes marrying girls who friendzoned them for decades until they were rich and famous (Forrest Gump), etc. Those are all pretty stupid decisions.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
(Hayes, BTW, is reportedly not Jewish)
Then why was he out there protesting? Young white men have already figured out that there is no point in dying for Israel; hence the army's recruitment crisis. It is time for boomers to learn the same.
Men are fine; our level of horniness is correct for dealing with female passivity and resistance. Problems arise when men redirect their reproductive impulses from their natural complement towards a union that can never bear fruit.
Women who do the same are not much better; moving-in together with a near-stranger, suffering from a dead bedroom because neither can take the sexual initiative, truly staggering levels of domestic violence, and doing it all over again immediately after a breakup because women are serially monogamous... lesbian dysfunction is different from gay dysfunction, because women are different from men, but it is still a dysfunction.
The only way to avoid dysfunction is to fulfill our proper telos by seeking partners of the opposite sex, as Gnon intended.
Do you think that a majority of non-hetero people are more sexually promiscuous than hetero people?
Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. So, naturally, gay men have tons of commitment-free sex, while lesbian women move-in with each other at the drop of a hat and promptly suffer from lesbian bed death. Hence the following joke:
Question: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
Answer: A U-Haul.
Question: What does a gay man bring on a second date?
Answer: What second date?
Gay men are ridiculously promiscuous and have a culture based largely around casual sex. Patient zero for the AIDS epidemic, Gaetan Dugas, famously had over 2,500 sexual partners. Gay "marriage" looks like two gays cruising together for pickups, as wingmen (what Dan Savage calls "monogamish"), rather than anything a straight couple would recognize as a marriage.
Think about how much sex the average man would have if every woman he met was as eager to fuck as he was; that's what it's like to be a gay man. It's disgusting.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Hispanics, like Jews, are Schrodinger's whites depending on whether or not it serves The Narrative. See also: George Zimmerman.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
A decent manager would probably be able to find something productive to do with the functionally illiterate office worker Scott mentions in your link.
Sure. If there isn't a welfare state to tempt him away from working in the first place. And if there isn't a minimum wage law to prevent him from working at his natural wage. And if the overseer is allowed to give him a stiff beating when he catches him stealing on the job. And if...
I'm not so sure the manager can actually find something useful for the illiterate worker to do within the constrains of 21st century America.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
From "The Pragmatics of Patriotism" by Robert A. Heinlein:
Since survival is the sine qua non, I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape.
You claim that extinction is the morally correct choice. But that's absurd because morality is a property of consciousness and an extinct breed has no morals, correct or otherwise.
The only morality is civilization.
There's a great comment on the communism thread about how an arbitrary but efficient procedure is better than a fair procedure that eats up arbitrary amounts of resources to calculate:
The first is a simple question about your morning commute. You come up to an intersection, and other cars come up to the same intersection at about the same time. Who should get to go first? Well, right now, you might think that it's just whatever the stoplight says or some local custom about how to deal with stop signs, but is that fair?! You're going to work, which you need to do to feed your family. Surely, you deserve to be able to pass through before some high school senior who's off on summer break and just picking up some coffee and donuts before spending his day just hanging out in the park, maybe playing some volleyball with his friends or something. At the same time, someone else may have more of a need. Their somewhat-senile elderly mother just called them, and they're worried that she's going to accidentally cause harm to herself with what she's up to. So, how do we figure out the fair way to make sure everyone in the intersection gets proper priority? We could have everyone get out of their car and have a little discussion about where they're going and why and then implement some group decision-making procedure in order to allocate priority fairly. Then repeat at the next intersection, and the next intersection, and the next intersection, all the way to work. Even normies can realize that this would be ridiculous. Really press them to make sure that they agree that they are willing to be "not fair", to make the guy going to his mother wait for the high school kid at the light, because the light system is vastly more efficient at moving everyone to their destinations, even if it's "not fair".
(A bonus here is if you can find a suitably shortened clip of a guy asking a commie prof if he can have a playstation in the prof's commie world. Commie prof was all like, "Well, we'd have to have a societal conversation..." and just point out that this is for everything. Stop and have a societal conversation when you want a playstation, when you want to buy a new game, when you want some DLC, when you stop at a traffic intersection, hell, even if you want to pick up some more charcoal for your grill, you're gonna need to stop and "have a societal conversation" about whether "society" is willing to let you have any of those things.)
Making everybody spend seventeen fucking years in the school system so that we can determine who most deserves the high paying, high status jobs is the meritocratic equivalent of having a societal conversation every time two cars arrive at an intersection instead of using traffic lights and stop signs. Literally reserving those positions for a hereditary aristocratic caste would be better than what we have now, because then people could know where they stand and get on with their damn lives instead of grinding themselves to the bone trying to compete with everyone else in the all-consuming zero-sum red queen's race.
And yet you don't see ghetto black women fighting over the passable black male with a fulltime job at McDonald's, you see them fighting over the edgy drug dealers and sexy fuckboys that eventually become their baby daddies.
erwgv3g34
1yr ago
Would you, personally, prefer to take the status of the woman in this arrangement? Would you marry a woman if, under no uncertain terms, she told you she wanted to have a lot of kids but you would have to give up your career to stay home with them?
I literally fantasize about this.
I think we really need to grapple with the fact that the revealed preference of nearly every intelligent and high-quality woman is for having few if any children. And rather than bending over backwards and tying itself into knots to figure out how to psyop them out of this perfectly understandable risk-benefit calculation, perhaps a healthy 21st-century society just needs to put all of its eggs into the basket of figuring out how to have a successful low-TFR civilization. Whether that’s robots, or AI, or artificial wombs, I don’t know, but honestly I just don’t see a viable path forward for forcing a critical mass of women to do something that’s manifestly going to wreck the lives of so many of them.
Or, you know, we can just admit that this whole feminism thing is not working out and go back to what worked for the past 5,000 years.
All empirical evidence is that letting women control their own reproductive choices is literally suicidal on a civilizational level.
The way I've heard it is that an election is a simulated civil war. Both teams show up, you count up the members, assume the larger side would win, then everybody accepts the results and goes home because actually fighting the war would involve lots of unnecessary death and destruction.
Problem #1: Because of median voter theorem, both sides converge to political positions that are almost equally appealing to the center, meaning each side is only winning elections by a few percentage points of the population. This makes it much more likely that the losing side could win the war than e.g. a 30%-70% split, and makes the incentive for the loser to flip the table much larger.
Problem #2: When democracy was first implemented, the franchise was limited to white landowning men. Each expansion of the franchise to people who make for worse soldiers and workers (women, blacks, etc.) has represented a decoupling between the number of voters on each side and that side's actual military and productive capacity, meaning it is no longer at all obvious that the smaller side would lose a civil war. As the sides specialize to appeal to different demographics, the incentive for the party of white men to realize that they are getting screwed for no good reason and start shooting is, again, greatly increased.
(The elites know this, which is why they spend so much time and effort preventing white men from developing class consciousness.)
More options
Context Copy link