@iprayiam3's banner p




3 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 March 16 23:58:39 UTC


User ID: 2267



3 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 March 16 23:58:39 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2267

This is the first time I've heard of it and I hang out in rat spaces like theMotte, which are the only places ive ever ever ever heard anything about Hananai. My theory is as simple as this, I think your information bubble has led you to vastly over-estimate Hananai name recognition / brand awareness especially among the age demographics likely to buy books.

I think you're searching too hard for a reason, when your null hypothesis should be that he doesn't make the list and try to test the theory of why he would

I think there's a possibility for another 'oops Trump' where the left goes along with beclowining the Republicans by giving legitimacy to a Gaetz that he then uses down the line.

The D's support recalling McCarthy presumably because it seems like an easy win to make the Republicans look bad, cause self-inflicted chaos and ultimately not end up any worse. But the side cost is legitimizing a Gaetz win.

Gaetz doesn't have leverage now in getting a new speaker elected. But he did just successfully flex power. If the Dem's don't think Gaetz in the future is a problem, whatver, but by joining him in a recall vote, he makes himself more legitimate in future congresses with different make-up.

Paging @2rafa, but I share a similar meta-hurdle with her that prevents me from getting too worked up about these cases, or at least tempers my emotional reaction to this kind of injustice.

I can objectively agree with you about the apparent stretching of judicial reasonability, the fear of impossible to defend against, the growing assumption of guilt until proven innocent, and the clear threat of these ideological kangaroocifixions creeping into other aspects of crime-and-justice that might actually threaten me. And I can agree about the campus-rape crisis from a few years back, and more recently Me-Too, etc.

Nothing that follows, dismisses the abstract principled disagreement with these judicial outcomes.

However, I can only laugh at the ideological blindspot from the 'liberal' crowd at these kinds of outrage-at-sex-scandal-outrage. The Motte is the same population, intimately familiar with the I never thought the leopard would eat my face meme, no?

These solution here is not to hook-up, not to have causal sex, not to get drunk and fuck people you're not married to. This is all a bunch of liberals pissed that we couldn't stop the ride somewhere between 1/2 and 9/10ths down the slope. Boo-hoo.

Maybe the progressive's impulse that there's something wrong with a lecherous 31 year old celebrity fucking a 16 year old, their inclination to beleive the legitimacy of her later feelings that she was prey-on and harmed, or their belief that going to a party and fucking drunk people, whether or not you are drunk is an excerise in poor judgement, aren't wrong. Maybe the progressive's judicial response is warped and fucked up, but maybe it's because the people who came before them tore down all the scaffolding and vandalized all the blueprints for a functional paradigm, and those same people are all outraged that those who came after aren't happy standing exposed shivering in the wreckage and be told all about their fReEdOm.

From where I stand, everything MeToo is people trying to put a roof back over their head, while the same people who tore down their original house criticise them for not enjoying the fresh air, and the people who built the original house are too busy tell them they're rebuilding it wrong, instead of telling the wreckers to fuck off.

Well said. Completely agree

I found it very off-putting, annyoing, and uninteresting.

Based on the image, I was expecting this article to debunk literal 'special sauces' as a marketing scam, and perhaps provide some easy at home copycat recipes. Disappointed.

Content aside, this is awful awful writing and, as I've heard this held up as an example of good rat-adj fanfic, it really speaks volumes negatively.

There's no accounting for taste and all, but this, much like the few lines I stomached of HPMOR, really shows that aesthetics and poetry can't be tossed out just because you're spewing 'points'.

No, I think you're misdirecting your towel application. Nobody actively notices clean baseboards. They maybe notice messy baseboards. I think the towel principle relies on a conspicous element that implies the rest, not some inconspicous, subtlety.

Just world theory has nothing to do with my skepticism.

Ok link me an example of that.

Consider how "incel" went from a morally neutral descriptor to a moral condemnation

I can't consider it because I've never seen it except in these scenarios where i'm assured it's true by its detractors. I especially haven't seen this in real life.

romantically unsuccessful men are about as low on the totem of sympathy as you can get.

Again, Ive never seen this. Get better friends people. Romantically unsuccessful men are to the contrary some of the most sympathetically talked about people I know. Even where it's not sympathetic and just pathetic, that's not the same as immoral.

Doing it on the meta level is pretty funny, I have to admit. 10/10

If you're contorting my comment into moral repudiation of someone for specifically being poorly undatable, I think we've found the disconnect.

This looks like nothing more than a victimhood mentality looking for a bully.

Even if it were somehow morally (I'm not) maligning the OP it's not for being single or unlucky in love.

If a Jewish guy stands up in a movie theater and shouts, 'AntiSemites are trying to silence me!!", His point isn't proven when people shush him.

Similarly, if you come in and say, 'how come I'm morally maligned for being undatable!", I'm not proving your point by repudiating that claim.

I've never heard anyone suggest that it was a moral failing. That sounds like a completely made up strawman to victim oneself against.

Obviously the reverse causality makes sense: bad people should be less datable. But i e never even heard anyone suggest this should is an is as it's plainly not real.

Where are you getting this moral failing narrative from? You need to justify the premise, because it sounds like extrapolated wallowing or self-loathing.

I don't think he's uncharismatic. Good grifters and great salesmen are charasmatic But he's a salesman not a showman (like trump) and he's clearly a pushy fast talking one at that.

Yeah he's smart and well spoken on podcasts, but his combative look is not good. Though maybe his early Trump impression is resonating. It's hard for me to say... In other news wtf is Pence or Christie's goal here?

I get that several on the stage are going for the 'hope everyone in front of them drops dead" strategy, but these two are basically just here to telegraph how out of touch they are with the party.

So far his debate performance is reinforcing my negative view of him. Great ideas but way too much slick, fast talking car salesman suspicious overeagerness.

this has been by far the most boring election season we've had since I started watching in 2008.

What in the world are you talking about? We have a guy out on bail vs a guy at death's door, who's fending off credible corruption allegations. anything could happen. You talked 'tension' in 2020? This blows that out of the water

Biden is running as an incumbent with no credible challengers. That only leaves the Republican side, which isn't much better.

I predict there's a very high combined chance that it is not Biden vs. Trump by the time we get to election night.

I'll echo what others have said, in that I suspect you are self-congratulating here. My experience has been religious folks very much identifying the religious features of woke-values.

Is it because they recognize the conflict of like-kind epistemic demands or is it because they are more likely to be on the right and see the progressives as a mirror from the left? Not sure.

Overall, i think it is not necessarily being religious or even on the right that makes one recognize wokism as a proto-religion, but overinvestment in idealized liberalism that makes one miss it. Part of this is because progressivism intentionally very much uses the langauge of frank liberalism to hide from the social and often legal barriers to forced ideological commitments. I don't personally care about the sociological implications of wokism being like a religion nearly as much as the socio-legal gerrymandering of what counts as 'neutral human decency' and what counts as imposed ideology.

Take for example the idea of using preferred pronouns. The liberal understands it as a acknowledgement of liberal desire to define oneself autonomously and sees undermining it as on a spectrum from a competing right to liberal self-expression or an affront to secular decency all the way to an invalidation of the other person's freedom. Meanwhile the religious person recognizes it as expression of an ontologolical truth in line with "Muhammad is the true prophet" or John 3:16, and understands it on those terms.

I guess that dichotomy works, but it seems over-necessary. It seems to me more like the rational vs. bizarro choice, poltical sensibilities aside. Consider these scenarios:

  1. A local high school is unhappy with the prom planning decisions made by the responsible faculty.

    Option A: Force the responsible faculty to attend the prom as guests with their spouses as their own 'date' night

    Option B: Give the student council some decision making power in prom planning

  2. The town council has a committee to plan road expansions that will affect a local neighborhood, and there have been some complaints.

    Option A: Force the town council to move to that neighborhood.

    Option B: Hold a public forum with input from the neighborhood members / have a representative join the committe.

  3. You and your friends are planning on dinner and drinks and debating where to go. Some folks plan to eat at home.

    Option A: Force everyone to eat at the restaurant chosen.

    Option B: Don't count the folks eating at home in the vote for where to go.

I guess you could frame all of these as Socialist vs Libertarian, but it looks more to me like obvious path vs. comically absurd.

But Freddie's approach actually makes total sense as an attempt to force people to have skin in the game.

There a lot to respond to here but this sentiment just seems backwards to me. Isn't the goal not to get people who have decision making power to have artificial skin in the game, but to put people with genuine skin in the game into a position of decision making?

I'll start by saying I'm no philosopher. But as you describe since, these can all collapse into eachother (in postive or negative formulation), I don't see why you couldn't have five. I'm going to flippantly call these all different faces of "The Axiom", some starting point of the good that's self-justifying in some way.

That said, I was personally thinking of group interest as essentially in terms of self-interest. Where I was going with self-interest was "this moral / value proposition" isn't based on some extrinsic good, but on what outcome I prefer. So if one thinks that said given moral proposition isn't based on some theistic derivation, isn't arbitrary, isn't derived from some evo-psych or naturalistic attraction, then it's motivated self-interest.

That said, again, I see no reason, this couldn't be expanded out as a fifth face.

The red-flag works on two levels. At the object level, you cannot be sure that @Amadan specifically and his specific apple arrangement will remain purely channeled as he describes without any leaks.

On a broader level you are regularlizing and normalizing a fundamentally very unstable system. Providing open channels for to regularly interact with adults in two-way exchanges and providing, while normalizing adults requesting erotic-adjacent material from the former group, and destygmatizing then entire frame work around eprsonal kink shame, is basically asking for abuse all over the place.

One of the biggest concepts of conservatism vs liberalism is maintainance of the broad social value of institutional infrastructure and moral framework. When you erode that because isolated instances don't cause harm, you ignore that the only way to allow those isolated "harmless" incidents was to either open the same exact gate that does allow the harm or to be coupled with an extreme totalitarian surveillance against any harm.

Essentially you can't have safe, high trust neighborhoods, and no locks, and no social reprecussions for trespassers. You can only pick two. But the trespasser then points to harmless trespassing and uses something somethign "moral disgust" as a frame for why proscribing trespassing is arbirary.

You have a fence, a chesterton's fence. And some people believe they should be able to harmlessly pass through the fence. It is in fact an affront to their freedom that they cannot. Of course there are people who would do harm if they could pass the fence. So your choices are to 1. keep the fence, 2. remove the fence and accept, address, or police the harm on the other side of it, or 3. Put a high security gate in the fence.

Any version of 3 that still let's harm through is just a flavor of 2.

One might, in an appeal to liberty suggest that 2 is the only righteous solution. OK, make that argument, though I vehemently disagree. But we cannot frame 1 as simple disgust, aesthetics or moral dogmatism.

Some people, conservatives and progressives, prefer to live in a society with strong hegemonic barriers against harm whilest allowing a different kind of freedom and security inside the society dependent on that scaffolding.

On another level, this is probably your 'moral disgust' level. Regardless of whether @Amadan 's example would ever harm someone, what he is doing in the hypothetical is disordered. And is further involving a minor in their disordered act and there should be the highest reasonable obstacles from him doing so. Different definitions of reasonable are going to be socially navigated (you'll have burka's in one culture and open decadence coupled with a Terms of Service click through in another). I don't think reducing this social proscription to disgust or aversion tells the whole picture, remotely.

This isn't the first time I'm seeing this 'moral disgust / aesthetics' dismissal in this kind of space, and it's nothing more than the intersection between a strawman, question begging, and isolated demand for rigor.

Are you interested in following the causal logic of an outcomes and effects argument? Then ask that plainly. Are you interested in hearing someone defend the issue deontologically? Then ask that plainly Are you're really intereted in someone's basic beliefs in their moral framework? Then why conveniently begin the discussion, dismissively, with an issue you disagree with.

All moral arguments will ultimately fall into essentially 1 of 4 categories, beneath the level of basic beleifs: theological / deist, arbitrary nihilism, aesthetic, or motivated self interest.

Even if you are Mr. Consequentialist, you eventually have to argue 'why' the good outcome deserves the term 'good', and you have one of the four options to pick from above. And all four of these can arguably collapse into the others (or lack of other).

"Ha! Your perception of good and bad is based on 'aesthetics'!" Isn't quite the trump one might thing it is.

Well he's 100% not Christian. As I said, I actually respect that he's made it clear (papered over with a lot of politician speak about values) in a few recent interviews. It was more than I expected and much more than trumpa ever been clear about religion. But at the same time Trump's lack of smooth talking on the issue has certain authenticity in itself.

Vikek did his job here with me though, as my issue with his Hinduism is measurably lower than it was before watching that interview. Still has a long way to go to convince me of his whole package though

I was going to criticize Vikek for starting his list of truths with was that was so blatantly framed to obfuscate nuance between what he means and what his target audience would mean by the same exact phrasing.

However, Vivek does appear to embrace the opportunity to dig into that more deeply and honestly, even if filled with too much political grandstanding.


My view toward VR has increased slightly. I still find him too 'clever' and polished a little too over-done that I have worries his earnesty is rather calculated performance for his identified niche.

This is one of those scenarios where it's easy to see a solution, but it lacks critical mass, much like walkable areas. You can't just decide to do it and hope the infastructure catches up.

If 60% of the houses in my neighborhood had stay-at-home moms in it with kids, and maybe a walkable park / swimclub within it, then you've lowered the barrier tremendously. Most women can find at least a few other people among dozens who they can get along with and their kids can play together. When 5-10% of the houses have this it's the same as not existing unless you win a lottery. Most importantly in the 60%+, you ahve the added diversity of the fact that the neighborhood with a lot of different priorities and levels of commitment to find your nitch amongst but likely all within a similar socio-economic class

On the other hand, intentional communities can only half-way bridge this. You will end up with a very particular selection effect that will almost necessarily require a much bigger dedication to the community and much deeper in-crowd vibes with a particular temperment and expectation. It's the difference between playing pick-up games with your neighbors and joining a club team.

In the absence of organic, SAHM friendly societies and neighborhoods, going at it alone and joining a Benedict Option style commune are two distantly inferior options. The families of GenX defected at too high a rate and broke the option.