faceh
11mo ago
I kinda expect that doing burnouts on Pride-Flag crosswalks might morph into a national pasttime of sorts.
faceh
11mo ago
I go back and forth on how much of it was caused by Elon acquiring Twitter, but that was certainly the signal of some kind of turning point.
The Bud Light debacle happened just about a year ago, and still marks the first major culture war 'victory' for the right I can remember in a long time. Followed not too long after by Ivy League presidents getting booted out for plagiarism.
The fact that twitter was 'freed' up from the kinds of controls that allowed them to quash the Hunter Biden laptop story on the literal eve of an election is quite possibly a major reason that those two events were able to gain traction so as to get mainstream attention.
Or, perhaps, maybe they would have been relegated to Facebook or (gasp) Truth Social instead but still would have broken containment.
If I had to take a REALLY out-there guess, the combination of the Ukrainian war dragging out, the increasingly draconian measures they're taking to push the "T" onto children, and the Israel-Palestine war realigning certain incentives are the main factors that are weakening the coalition that held the elements of the lefty media-industrial complex together, and allowing the more effective elements on the right (few and far between) to score some real, if minor, wins.
Also can't ignore the heavy-handed attempts to get Trump, and how various elements of the regime are beclowning themselves in the effort.
Twitter is the schelling point for people who want to come out and dunk on the left's L's, but might not have been in the timeline where Elon got too distracted to acquire it.
It is now 'safe' to resist the Cathedral, and its becoming fun to do so as well.
faceh
11mo ago
What evidence might convince you that men are struggling to find available and eligible women, and especially that they're struggling more than usual?
faceh
11mo ago
Yeah.
I'm going to revert directly to that question when I encounter them in the future.
People who INSIST that your arguments aren't convincing to them because they are so certain of their position should be able to articulate what kind of evidence might nudge them to change their mind a little. If they have an absurdly high standard that's fine, but they can't very well complain if others hold them to the same standard.
If they won't, that to me is proof of bad faith. They are taking the other side of the argument then, ultimately failing to support their side, and dismissing every form of evidence, data, anecdote, or even thought experiment without explaining why they disbelieve it.
Not particularly enjoyable to encounter repeatedly.
faceh
11mo ago
First pass?
Just hire some research pros to dig into the background of any journos involved in the piece in question with the explicit goal of discrediting them, embarrassing them, or getting them fired.
Find any embarrassing or potentially criminal behavior they can, find solid evidence or cross reference it enough to prove it, then hire someone to write about it all in the most unkind light manageable. Then find the biggest platform for publication you can, and get ready to publish it.
Give the Journo about 30 minutes to respond to a request for comments before hitting 'publish.'
Kind of like how Christopher Rufo came after University Presidents and managed to get a few of them to resign merely by digging into their past scholarship and running it through a plagiarism detector. If it works on people in such positions of power, it'll work on Journos.
Or if they're too unremarkable and impotent for it to work, then yeah, revert to utterly ignoring them.
Hanson is almost the definition of a guy who DOES NOT Motte and Bailey his arguments.
I might believe he artfully phrases some of his arguments to avoid explicitly admitting his belief or disbelief in a certain point. I've never seen him fall back from any 'outlandish' arguments he's made to a simpler or stronger one while pretending he's not backing down at all.
faceh
11mo ago
I remain entirely unconvinced that it is hugely difficult for an average young man to find a girlfriend that is looks matched (which in America usually means fat) and of approximately the same social status (we can include relative chastity here) and class.
What sort of evidence would you find 'convincing?'
I'd have been mostly okay if the show had settled into being a sort of 'procedural' where the Boys have to figure out different approaches to kill different supes while being mostly limited to using standard, nonmagic tech and social engineering and the occasional superpowered assist.
It'd require a lot of creativity to keep it interesting, but yeah, at least they'd have a clear goal in mind.
Homelander as the big bad who is the most difficult to kill and whose confrontation is inevitable would keep the tension ratcheting up.
But now they've had to put Butcher and Homelander in this weird catty rivalry where they will stare each other down and even make snide threats and remarks when they encounter one another, even though both of them damn well know they're trying to kill each other, but are basically just mugging for the audience.
Incidentally, this is why I believe the Venture Bros. still holds the crown for the best, most consistent superhero universe. The reasons why arch-nemeses DON'T (usually) kill each other and the villains are allowed to commit crimes all over the place are all justified in-universe.
faceh
11mo ago
The whole problem is that Hanson's arguments are usually based on a number of different premises that can't be easily reduced to a single sentence, so by rephrasing his arguments in such a simplified way it pretty much ceases to describe what he actually believes or claims to believe.
And him being autistic as hell means that a 'gentle, silent' rape that inflicts no physical injuries can certainly be compared to other acts in terms of psychological impact and harm, because he doesn't place any special sacredness on the word 'rape' that renders the act inherently more evil than any other act which humans find traumatic and distressing.
faceh
11mo ago
"Don't be this kind of person" is really a skeevy way to put it (in my opinion).
He justifies his interference in their activities not because they've impacted him in any way, they've not directed a single iota of attention towards him and thus there's no impetus for 'smoke' in the first place. It's not a rap beef where they dissed his fashion sense or cursed his dead mother and thus justified a response.
But oh, they're the 'kind of person' who invites such scrutiny. Isn't it so handy-dandy that he's the one who gets to describe what 'kind of person' they are and the audience is supposed to just assume that BECAUSE he states this that they are indeed worthy targets of his uninvited ire. And if they disagree with how he characterizes them, that is further proof that they're the 'kind of person' who needed to be called out.
I'd also guess that what he means by "kind of person" is almost literally just "someone who believes things that I find offensive" and so really he has no external reason for it, and he sees this as perfect justification for swinging the hatchet their way.
These are the sort of moments, I've learned, where being a quokka doesn't quite pay off, and it would be useful to have the resources available to hit back hard enough to convince this person that it is indeed not worth the smoke but also doing it in such a way that you're not retroactively justifying the hit piece itself.
But I'm also inclined to inflict the greatest insult an enemy can suffer. To be ignored.
faceh
11mo ago
If they have any balls whatsoever, them actually taking Homelander down will either be triggered by him killing a whole country's worth of people, or the collateral damage in the process of taking him down will kill millions.
The show has already made it clear dozens of times that innocent people die at the hands of supes with regularity. No goddamn reason to downplay the scale of the incident when Homelander snaps.
That's assuming they have any plan on how to end it.
Again, though, I'm not sure who the self-professed liberals in the audience are supposed to be rooting for on the show.
Half of the Protags are trying to gin up social pressure against the sentient nuclear bomb with acute narcissism that is Homelander as if that'll keep him from killing everyone, the other half are trying to kill or hurt him but have been utterly inept at following through.
The stakes have been raised to the point where there should be no other priority but stopping Homelander, yet our main characters are still being given minor side plots to resolve as if this were an RPG and they're putting off the final boss battle both because they're underleveled and want to experience the optional content before finishing the game.
If it is propaganda, then they're seemingly not clear on who is supposed to be the glorious hero of the revolution. Who is the Mao/Che Guevera/Vladimir Lenin of the story here?
Yep. I fell for a few girls who had classic red flags (grew up without father. Claimed to be molested when younger. And/or were on various psych meds, for instance) and I BENT OVER BACKWARDS to be accommodating.
My efforts were not recognized or appreciated or reciprocated, and ultimately the relationships failed in EXACTLY the way you would expect given the stereotypes. The lady blows it up with some irrational, out-of-pocket behavior which completely ignores the actual history of the relationship. Total waste of time and effort to achieve a predictable result.
Eventually you get sick of ignoring your gut and taking chances on the hope that you found a diamond in the rough.
As far as I know, the ex who dumped me prior to our wedding hasn't found another long term partner in the 3 years since.
Suggests it wasn't a me problem.
are we sure this whole thing isn't some not-so-veiled critique of left-wing activism?
It could be. Not even hard to read it that way.
Hughie keeps trying to do things "the right way" and he ultimately got completely duped by Neumanns "empathetic liberal" shtick using skills she learned from Stan Edgar himself. Hughie comes back around to Butcher's "kill 'em all" mentality as the only workable solution.
Homelander is objectively a threat to human civilization, and they are just dicking around "fixing" minor side problems while he ticks ever closer to a mental breakdown.
Like they're more concerned with earning brownie points than ending the threat.
If they had literally just let Soldier Boy do his thing it would have been ended. Whatever else was wrong with the guy, he wasn't one for half-measures and DEFINITELY didn't want to leave unfinished business. HIS WHOLE DEAL when he returned from captivity was to immediately follow up on old grudges.
Homelander is a problem that activism cannot solve. Unless they come up with a much more creative solution than the comics do, somebody will have to fight dirty and finish him. There will be (already is) collateral damage.
Every day he continues to exist is demonstrating the protag's uselessness.
So yeah, I find it amusing how this show basically makes liberals out to be ineffective hypocrites, whilst the liberals watching the show fixate on the surface level jokes.
The amusing irony, to me, is that the more blatantly bad and stupid they make the red tribe look, the more incompetent and feckless the protags look.
They even lampshade it in Episode 1 of Se4. "How have you guys gotten WORSE at your jobs?"
Starlight is supposedly one of the more effective do-gooders but she can't even make a dent in Homelander's popularity, can't do any material damage to Vought, and can't even shift political outcomes in her side's favor.
If homelander's fanbase is as weak-willed and dumb as the show wants to portray them, then the protags should be able to outsmart them and possibly manipulate them to their ends. But nah. Apparently ONLY Homelander and co. are capable of manipulating rubes.
And the only guy who seems to be somewhat effective is Butcher, who is about as problematic as can be even if his heart is seemingly in the right place.
I am not even sure who a liberal viewer is supposed to root for.
faceh
11mo ago
Multiple reasons. At least partially because of stuff like this:
https://nypost.com/2024/06/14/sports/bill-belichick-72-is-dating-24-year-old-former-cheerleader/
A 70 year old man can date a 24 year old.
A 50 year old can date a 25 year old.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/05/us/billy-joel-marries-girlfriend-alexis-roderick/index.html
A 66 year old can marry a 33 year old and pop out two kids with her.
Literally any heterosexual male aged 20-80 can try to compete for the same pool of desireable 18-30 year old females.
And social norms aren't pressuring against this. No, this isn't limited to celebrities, those are just the ones that get attention.
Every single 20-something woman taken off the market by an older man is one less available for the young men. Which by definition will decrease their chances of finding one.
Stats bear out that women are significantly more likely to be dating or married to a "much" older man than a man is a much older woman.
And young men can see these headlines and realize what it means for them.
Then of course there's my point that women are using corporations as a substitute for husbands
So men have to compete with megacorps, too.
faceh
11mo ago
If you're living in a city the number of male suitors is going to be large as well.
So it seems likely that the males are going to be in a state of hypercompetition until they get lucky enough to pull an eligible woman. And many, many won't get so lucky.
And the harder the males compete, the less worthwhile the actual reward is, which will lead some to "drop out."
The stats on males without relationships seem to bear this out.
Great.
But not my point. I can filter my dates by going on them, even if the ratio of crazy/not crazy is unfavorable.
I'm asking for a quantification of how many women out there are actually likely to pass the filter.
And, to really drive the point home, are there enough of them for most guys who want marriage and kids to have them, or do we have to acknowledge that the pie is too small for them all to get a slice, and thus we're actually in a state of heavy competition for a limited resource?
faceh
11mo ago
It would be very helpful if you could quantify this risk, though, because as mentioned the consequences for misreading her are severe.
How heavily must a guy filter?
faceh
11mo ago
Yeah.
There's not nearly enough pressure on women on the apps to just HURRY UP AND PICK SOMEONE or go look elsewhere. The ones who stick around, even if they're not crazy, are basically grazing like herd animals, wandering from one patch of grass to another and eschewing any real decision.
Your complaints can also apply to guys, mind. If a guy has been on the apps for a long time, gone on dates, and is still swiping, there's gotta be something about him that is keeping him from successfully entering a relationship.
But yeah, seems like getting 'lucky' on the apps is just that. Luck. You have to manage to catch a lady who is inexperienced and naively entering the arena, hasn't been picked up by a Chad, hasn't been scared off by the waves of creeps, and hasn't gotten mild PTSD from a series of bad outcomes.
And most guys are lowkey aware of this, so they're all on the lookout for the fresh faces to jump on ASAP before they're spoiled. Which ultimately worsens the "overwhelming wave of creeps" issue.
Hell of a collective action problem to solve. Not that the appmakers want anyone to solve it.
faceh
11mo ago
They're all just risk factors that should be considered.
You want to make the case that guys should marry and have kids, show them the odds they're facing.
faceh
11mo ago
I believe the graph, but there's still those managing to do achieve something like the traditional life trajectory.
My younger brother got married last year, and is expecting a kid in about a month. He doesn't own a home yet but he has got everything else going for him.
I've run numbers in the aggregate. I'm not standing by them as anything other than a starting point:
About 40% are obese. We've already thinned things out (heh) significantly right there. Maybe Ozempic will save the day.
19% are single moms in the U.S. and Canada. Although I imagine that changes drastically based on race, because I wouldn't have believed that number on first glance.
Around 5-7% are LGBT... although that's much higher for Gen Z women.
Somewhere around 25-27% have had mental illness diagnoses (not counting the severity). Might be 30%+ for the 18-35 year olds that we're talking about)
Around 50%(!) have had 5 or more sex partners. 5 is an arbitrary cutoff, and I CATEGORICALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THE NUMBERS on this type of survey, but again, not an encouraging sign. Difficult to find hard data on how many have been strippers, or prostitutes, or sugar babies, or had Onlyfans pages.
If you want more reliable data take a look at STD rates by gender. Or don't. Its not a fun read. (This one IS hugely disparate based on race, to be fair).
EDIT: to add on, women have more student debt on average, and are less likely to pay it back. So now these women are adding financial burdens to any man who takes them.
And finally, drumroll please, somewhere around 40% of young women are left/democrat leaning. That's before you examine unmarried women specifically. Something close to 70% of single women are probably on the left, politically. Go ahead young man, take a swim in that pond, I'm sure it'll be fine. “Plenty of fish in the sea,” but barely any that are safe to eat.
So we're likely looking at a scarily small % of single women who are relatively chaste, mentally stable, straight, and politically 'moderate', AND also not grossly overweight. And this is what any guy trying to intentionally date and find a relationship is encountering: slim pickings.
And that's before we get into a guy trying to find a match in looks or intelligence.
And as I said in a different comment, women just aren't bringing much to the table to counter the risks, when divorce is still prevalent and doesn't favor the males.
I haven't done the analysis to figure out how these various stats interact (i.e. obviously there will be crossover, so you can't just treat all of these like independent factors), but my gut feeling is it won't help.
And keep in mind, almost by definition the most marriageable ones will get picked up early and removed from the pool and stay out of the pool (people capable of maintaining stable relationships tend to stay in stable relationships. Surprise!). So selection effects would suggest that you're far more likely to encounter the dregs when you're actively searching.
And what makes it particularly bleak is running the numbers on the number of single males in the U.S., and consider how they're ALL chasing the same pool of women, almost regardless of the guy's age. A 50 year old can still have a fling with a 25 year old.
I would guess that what is actually GEOGRAPHICALLY AVAILABLE to a given man will vary too. SF may be a particularly unique circumstance compared to anywhere else. But the type of male you're competing against will also probably be top 1% too.
So yeah, MY read on the situation inevitably leads to the blackpill.
I want people to get married and have kids, but I feel like I can't, in good faith, tell guys to just bite the bullet and marry someone as quickly as possible when there's a veritable minefield out there.
As someone with no technical background, the 'obvious' play seems to be hooking up models with different specialty training and abilities to each other in a way that they can talk to each other natively and without too much latency. Each model can be a different 'lobe' of an overall more intelligent brain.
Which is of course somewhat similar to how the human cognitive system works.
Maybe ChatGPT is the 'narrative' module that coordinates everything. "Oh, you're asking for solutions to a complex math problem, better send that over to the higher maths module. I'll let you know what answer it produces." or "Ah this question pertains to reading an X-ray and rendering medical opinions, better shoot that over to the model trained on millions of patient records and actual doctors giving feedback."
I dunno, really seems like they haven't picked all the low hanging fruit just yet.
You ask me, the more relevant psych study is the Asch Conformity Experiments.
Those have also held up better to replication.
Check out how the results change when you add in a fellow dissenter.
Hence, Elon being a very visible source of open dissent could trigger a lot of others to cease conforming.
More options
Context Copy link