@gaygroyper100pct's banner p

gaygroyper100pct


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 14 17:51:48 UTC

				

User ID: 1855

gaygroyper100pct


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 14 17:51:48 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1855

The idea of using a hook-up/dating app for finding friends is... bizarre to me, to say the least, but well maybe it happens. I can see how maybe it's a thing in the gay community, but I still find it bizarre.

I am told by straight friends that they do this too. Many women seek social interactions on tinder with the lure of possible sex to rope guys in.

I also know of one very hot but socially awkward straight guy who does this. Step 1: display abs and do hookup. Step 2: friends with benefits. Step 3: some of the friends with benefits become genuine friendships. Or maybe he's just buff nerd bodybuilder with a harem, I can't tell.

If 15 year old straight boys had a large population of pretty adult women who would probably fuck them if they could plausibly pretend to be 18, I guarantee that most of them would lie, cheat and steal to do so. Denial of these facts is denying basic observed male sexuality.

And of course this is a who/whom issue. Milo got cancelled for openly discussing his own experiences with this. Dan Savage did not. Now the media is defending Roth for the same.

I will also suggest - based on my own personal experience - that useful insights can be gained by reading old greek literature. In the locale I lived as a teenager, gay sex was illegal until 2018. In my view I benefitted from a relationship with a considerably older man - he was a bit of a mentor and taught me quite a bit about bodybuilding, sex and navigating non-PMC Indian life as a homosexual. This seems to have been common and accepted by the Greeks - it's a part of gay relations that I don't think has much of a straight analogue.

By "non-PMC Indian life", I mean that the experience of a civil service guy in what is now Telangana will be quite different from that of a techbro in Bangalore.

I also think Roth is just wrong. Provided there is a culture where older bodybuilder + teenage twink relations are treated as necessarily being a mentor/mentee type relation, they are definitely superior to two teenagers smelling each other's farts. However my general impression of gay culture in the US is that there's absolutely no way this culture could be built. It fundamentally conflicts with the leftist "anything that sounds bad is good" culture that has fully colonized gay America.

First of all, the architectural style is Anglo-Indian. It's influenced by the British but with many local adaptations. If these buildings were in London they would look out of place.

In any case, I don't see why it can't be both. Victoria Terminus is a functioning train station that was build for the long term. It's not anything like what gets built by people solely focused on resource extraction - e.g. a logging camp or oil well. It indicates a long term investment in infra and human capital as opposed to simply a desire to snatch and grab.

You're also glossing over a non-trivial chunk of what British Colonialism involved: the idea that it was Britain's duty to educate and improve the places they colonized. Literacy worked for Britain, why not Bengal? If a negro sets foot in London he becomes free, so why is he not equally free in Dahomey? (Note: literal argument used by imperial abolitionists.) And given proper education an Indian can of course become as competent a soldier or administrator as a Britain - it is the duty of the colonialists to provide this opportunity.

That's the ideal, at least. You can read Charles Napier's biography to hear it expounded upon in detail, as well as a bunch of complaints about how it's not being lived up to. The British were not universally as awesome as Napier, of course.

As for the China example, I do not identify as American so perhaps the example is inapt. However, suppose hypothetically that China was a) far more advanced than the US and b) made a long term investment in transmitting some of that advancement to the US (even while imposing a China-style political system). I would consider that an investment, albeit one I perhaps resented or opposed for other reasons.

Note also that this stuff was not necessarily unwelcome to many Indians. Various princely states were closely allied with the British and more progressive ones treated Britain as a source of knowledge; for example, the Nizam of Hyderabad built Osmania University with assistance from the British. It became more British (e.g. language changed from Urdu to English) after India conquered Hyderabad in 1948.

I wish I had a good answer for this. A lot of Indian Literature runs into a problem where the only ones who are interested in translating it to English are English speaking white people or practically-white Indians. So you run into a Heisenberg's uncertainty moment, where the act of translating it makes it lose what made it special in the first place.

He should probably read Half Girlfriend by Chetan Bhagat.

::cringes in NRI::

It's about how English plays into modern class roles, quite distinct from caste. Chetan Bhagat is also the only famous person I've seen who is willing to discuss this.

The 6 words after the word "discoverable" in the comment above clarify this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverability

I admit, I am unfamiliar with the particular style of hats from 1962 so I'll have to take your word for it. What kind of hats did black exurban working class people wear? Or were there no exurban black people in the midwest?

Also, is it impossible to have anthropomorphic children's characters that are simply not coded as anything? Is it impossible for Baby Shark to simply have no attributable human ethnicity? Would the Berenstain bears no longer be white if they were nude and hatless?

Nope. Please read more carefully.

tl;dr; you refuse to provide a clear principle by which I can determine whether it's locals enlisting outsiders or outsiders enlisting locals. This makes me question your good faith.

You said so yourself: "So basically, the theory is that an alliance between colonialists and domestic factions will result in political domination."

If colonialism is political domination at a level as low as that of the Nizam of Hyderabad or British Bengal, then Democrats and their Mexican allies are far past that point. I note you again refuse to state a clear principle. Odd.

I do agree that American Republicans want more control over my life than the British did, they are irrelevant to this conversation since they don't plan to make it happen by bringing in foreigners to help them.

You are also grossly misrepresenting their positions.

They want to say who you can marry,

No Republican has ever proposed a law saying I can't declare a man to be my husband, put him in my will and make him my medical proxy. They just said he can't get my social security benefits when I die.

or who you can sleep with,

This is not a mainstream Republican position and has not been for many years.

or whether you can have an abortion, etc, etc.

This last bit is true. The British also wanted control over whether I could burn a widow or keep slaves.

India has been having famines since at least as far back as Sanskrit existed. It's in the Purana. There were plenty of famines under the Mughals and other empires too, e.g. this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_famine_of_1630%E2%80%931632

In any case, I am merely disputing the claim that the British were not invested in the long term success of India. They clearly were, and on long timescales. I wish my region had rulers with the effectiveness and foresight of the EIC instead of our current NIMBY with globohomo characteristics.

I am not claiming to have clear econometric proof that the British were better than other empires which might plausibly have ruled India. (Though I am fairly convinced that the Mughals were terrible.) Perhaps India would have been better off had the Marathas or the Bengalis driven the British out and taken over, or perhaps not. I don't know.

This seems to be a new definition of colonialism: colonialism is not determined by any actions or properties of the colonizers, but instead by the actions of their descendants?

In any case, the idea of "Indian culture" is meaningless in the 1526-1760 period. The Marathas and the Mughals today fall under the "Indian" umbrella, but at the time most of their empires were foreign subjugation by a distant ruler - it's just that prior to 1948, "foreign" might include Aurangabad or Poona.

It is far from clear to me that the Mughals were better than the British (or worse). Nearly all the research is too politicized to be trustworthy; leftist academics tend to support the pro-Mughal/anti-Britain position and western sources tend to defer to them. By "leftist" I of course mean what English language Indian newspapers describe as "left", i.e. generally aligned with Congress party and opposed to "right wing" Hindu nationalism.

I've seen some esoteric and well disguised academic work suggesting they were dramatically more extractive than others (most notably "Taxation under the Mughals") and the visual artifacts that remain are consistent with this - just compare the opulence of Mughal tombs to those of Maratha or Bengali palaces. The beauty of Taj Mahal and Bibi Ka Maqbara are the product of taxes paid by lacs of poor peasants.

In contrast, think about British artifacts that persist. The biggest of these are Bombay (about 20% of India's GDP) and EIR/some other companies (today known as Indian Railways). In terms of specific structures they are quite visible today - e.g. an iconic train station which tourists refer to as "Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus", various universities, bridges and museums.

At least based on what I can see, the British certainly seemed to have invested more into building India up than the Mughals did. I visited the Taj once in my life. I've taken trains built by the British more times than I can count.

As I have brought up in the quoted post, a logically straightforward workaround is to have blocking only prevent new replies in the future; the existence of a reply can override the blocking feature,

This really doesn't solve the problem I described at all. The conversation I'd like to have:

Party A: "blah blah lies"

Party B: "A is lying "

Party C: "B, can you clarify that a bit? I'm uncertain about X."

Party B: "Clarifying statement"

You've now prevented this from happening.

And then, trollish behavior should be treated accordingly, no matter what form it takes, and someone blocking anyone who disagrees with them is surely leaving evidence in e.g. the number of blocked users.

This is only accessible to someone with programmatic access to the DB and the time to run a statistical analysis to identify such things.

Let's see the cost-benefit analysis here.

The only cost I see is that when you bail on a conversation, others are allowed to continue it which might make you feel (self-)excluded. That seems like a negligible cost in my view.

I agree that CFAR/MIRI are weird and perhaps hold beliefs that differ from yours. But that's true of many folks. Did you know Muslims believe a powerful being is going to torture me (or perhaps a simulated me?) forever after I die because I do gay sex and didn't visit Mecca?

What would have been necessary to reach this threshold on the specific topic I chose, according to you?

Their names are "papa bear", "mama bear", "brother bear" and "sister bear". "Berenstain" is the name of the authors, not the bears, but Dr. Seuss (who assisted with the creation of the series) described them as "Berenstain bears" later to distinguish from other bear books after they became popular. I do not understand how you've determined they are Eurasian brown bears (which range from central Europe to Japan) instead of North American brown or grizzly bears (which was my assumption).

One possible way I can interpret this argument: any character, unless explicitly characterized as non-white, is assumed white and anthropomorphic characters of no particular ethnicity are impossible? E.g., baby shark is white (not Korean?!?) since it's a yellow shark of indeterminate gender who sings a 3 word song.

Bombay, Ceylon, Siam, Persia

You're actually mixing up a lot of different things. Bombay was never renamed - it's transliteration into Latin characters was changed to better reflect it's pronunciation in Indian English. It's always been मुंबई in Marathi and Hindi. (They mostly share an alphabet.)

Florence is simply the original Latin name of a Roman city, and Firenze is what the name of the city drifted to as the local language evolved from Latin to Italian.

Persia was an actual name change; basically the Parsis were (and still are) the dominant ethnic group of the larger region that is now Iran but were originally from a smaller area called Pars. They formed an empire and conquered other ethnic groups/regions (Kurdistan, Balochistan) that - to this day - wish to escape Persian rule (or at least some do). The name change to Iran was meant to be more inclusive. Also, both the official Wikipedia page and most quora questions very carefully forget to mention that shortly after the Shah's 1935 declaration that Persia is "Land of the Aryans", Hitler declared them to be "pure Aryan" in 1936 and forged a close alliance with them.

(Amusing observation: every Persian female I've met in the US purports to be ultra woke socialist leftist, but will revert back to a sneering 1488-style biodeterminist at the idea of Kurdish or Baloch self-determination.)

Siam was also a real renaming - from the Kingdom of Siam to Thailand, the latter of which has the double meaning "Land of the Free" (never colonized) and "Land of the Tai [ethnic group]".

It's also a matter of getting through the interview. One current trend is to put the "diversity questions" (read: ideology test) as part of the interview process even if the job itself might not have anything to do with it. Once you get in you can often just do your job + click through ideology powerpoints (with a mandatory "you clicked too fast, please interact with the powerpoint for 14 minutes before we'll let you take the test").

And unfortunately, even at some companies not fully captured, it's still best to hide your power level. Recall that the OP will be a fresh non-college grad with minimal skills to start. 1 fanatic on a 5 person team + manager not paying close attention = good chance of a bad peer review.

How do you propose to turn political twitter into an amount of money remotely proportional to the risk it poses to sports&celebs twitter?

I cannot reveal the anecdata on which I've based this without being either super vague or alternately revealing details which are likely traceable to a small set of people. The tl;dr; is that someone I trust was briefly involved in a situation of this sort on the periphery, hated it tremendously, but described the process to me.

Feel free to dismiss it as you see fit.

I'm confused by don't shit where you eat. Isn't tinder, by definition, randos and not where you eat?

Out of curiosity, what is it you believe is awful about my hot nerdy friend's game? Women get the hookup with glorious glutes guy they wanted. Maybe a friendship develops, maybe not. But it seems like a good shot at everyone getting something of value.

colonialism (or colonial-ish actions) necessarily being Actually A Good Thing.

That's not what we're discussing.

Scroll up a bit: https://www.themotte.org/post/221/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/39886?context=8#context

It was proposed that a distinction between colonialism and immigration is immigrants are "are invested in the success of their new home country". But if you take British India as a central example of colonialism, this distinction doesn't actually distinguish.

If you disagree, name another English language book that covers the particular topic of English language and modern Indian class roles. I can't think of much; most English writers do not generally want to acknowledge it.

I didn't recommend it for the plot. I wouldn't recommend twilight for the plot either, but if someone wanted to understand western female empowerment-by-infantilization, it's a perfectly fine place to start.

To quote the comment you keep refusing to read: "someone not actively seeking them"

If you want a concrete persona for such a user, consider Joe Sportsguy who has logged on to twitter to engage with memes and discussions about any of the current topics of twitter's "Trending" tab. At the moment in the USA, 17 of the top 20 topics are sports, 1 is pro wrestling, and the remaining 2 are sports mislabeled as "business and finance". He occasionally sees other topics in his feed - #wafflehousefights or #blacklivesmatter - and they enter his consciousness. His view of the non-sports world is not based on actual statistics of the world, merely on an average of the things that enter his consciousness via various feeds and media.

Incidentally, this is also why the pressure campaign against Joe Rogan happened. Most of Rogan's podcast is bodybuilding, long distance running and stand up comedians. But in between that mainstream parasocial content there's a bit of stuff the establishment wants to suppress.

So look at the trending page to see what's actually getting engagement. As of right now, "For you", logged out/incognito/USA VPN, the only non-sports topics are #alphamalestruggles and SpaceDandy. On Trending there's McCarthy (tagged politics) and a bunch of sports.

I agree that the content of sports topics is much less concentrated - a bunch of sports fans sharing Ronaldo memes instead of a single tweet by Ronaldo getting 1000 replies. (And a similar pattern for waffle house wendy.)

I don't know why you say, "It's not clear what "reddit was motivated" means"

No, I'm making the claim that individuals in media are motivated to hide facts that hinder the narrative.

I avoid the claim "reddit was motivated" because reddit is an organization with multiple individuals (e.g. jannies, AEO, advertising directors, data scientists), and a common leftist dissembling tactic is gloss over the specific individuals doing a thing and instead demand proof that the organization as a whole does a thing. But of course, you only really need the jannies and AEO in most cases.

I am not sure about this specific one. I don't think that we disagree on much - we certainly seem to agree that we'll see more of these with twitter not putting their thumb on the scale.

Why would, or, rather, should the memes matter more than the actual facts of what happened?

I do not think the memes should matter. Here's what would happen in my ideal world.

  1. NYTimes publishes stuff about George Floyd.

  2. Fox News publishes actual statistics on unarmed black men killed by cops (~20/year).

  3. Other media realizes the NY Times is trying to play to their emotions, publishes a few statistics explainers.

  4. Everyone realizes that George Floyd is a fluke and this is a truly minor problem we can ignore.

But that is not the real world. In the real world memes matter, narratives matter, and Musk has the ability to let memes spread (as well as statistics supporting them) when the rest of the media is suppressing them.

employees triggered the rowdy patrons to go on the assault.

Great. Now how many cases can you find of drunk Indian or Chinese ladies being "triggered...to go on the assault"?

Just an anecdote, but the last time I saw an Indian lady being "triggered" by staff, she very aggressively narrated the bad reviews she was typing into her phone while ordering her boyfriend to film the encounter.