justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
No, not good outcome. But in general males are more impulsive, in humans and lab animals. Thats more direct. Murder was a proxy, but its multifactorial. My point being men around the world and across time seem perennially unable to control their behavior when it comes to murder (for the subset of murders that are heat of the moment, impassioned, impulsive, etc). This is because the sexes are inherently different, yet we still prioritize the individual and their choices. We don't call into question men's right to vote.
Women are more likely to be "scammed" of sex, where men are more likely to be scammed out of money. Of course men aren't spinning yarn about how they're really not responsible for their own free choices in romance scams, or divorce rape, etc. Women arguing that Pavlovich wasn't responsible are insane (as far as I understand the details).
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
Of course the sexes are unequal. This is undeniable. But I have yet to hear any argument why basic rights should differ. What is being proposed here is an anathema to classical liberalism. Sure, people are free to debate the cultural inequality of agency or roles between men an women, so long as they're treated equally under the law. If it wants to fit into classically liberalism, the individual takes precedent over group based rights.
Women demonstrate more agency than men when it comes to getting romance or finance scammed, abusing drugs and alcohol, or murdering people. Of course, it doesn't follow that we should take the vote away form men, or consider them children. Men are full adults, and are responsible for their choices. So is Pavlovich.
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
Most of my critique revolves around extending a single instance of an unreliable narrator into viewing women as children, and questioning their right to vote. This is an insane extrapolation of the data, and wouldn't be accepted as a fundamental policy or philosophical argument.
Lots of people have been agitating to nationalize the credit card industry for this exact reason.
I know, and the govt heavily regulates lending anyhow, but less now than ever in terms of max ARP.
My point being that even the most egregious instances of usuary (ie pay day loans) do not portend the end of lending. Nationalizing the credit industry seems less fringe and hairbrained than not treating women as adults. However, neither are practiced anywhere worth living.
I'm sure there is bias in the law as practiced, and men and women suffer unfounded disparate impact, but AFAIK the laws theoretically apply equally wherever possible. Given men's propensity to fall for romance, finance, and gabling scams, its odd that I've never seen it argued that we should view all men as hapless children, and restrict their rights. A maximally insane take would be restricting unrelated rights like driving or, I dunno, voting.
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
People choose to take on too much frivolous debt and destroy their lives. Is the whole lending project dead? Should the media no longer write op-eds about payday loans with a 400% ARP? The average person no longer seems to be convinced that this is just a cultural problem which will go away.
That Pavlovich bird does not a summer make. There are global differences in median male and female traits, but I see no reason to treat them differently under the laws of a free society. Globally, men are vastly more violent, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, get into gambling debt, fall victim to romance and finance scams. We somehow manage to treat them like adults. I've never even heard it argued that we should do otherwise which is weird.
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
Might be obvious but take women glasses shopping with you. People look great in glasses but I have no fashion sense.
Some online direct sellers have crazy cheap glasses. Great for backups around the house. Warby Parker is great IMO but I don't think they're in Europe. Best style, cost, quality ratio by my Rx is very simple.
I bought some back-up pairs on trips to Morocco and Turkey. Kinda fun way to kill an afternoon, meet real people while travelling, get a functional keepsake, and also great cost to quality ratio.
Contacts are 100% worth figuring out ASAP. Infinitely better for some situations. Don't delay or be afraid. Its easy. Could mean you don't need Rx sunglasses. Maui Jim has highest clarity glass lenses if you want Rx sunglasses for driving, golf, the beach, etc. The style is not for everyone but the clarity of their glass lenses in insane.
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
Any chance you take take all this info to a doctor? What was the cause of your stunted growth and approx how old are you now?
There is lots of low to no risk stuff you can do with training to increase tendon CSA. You can modify your current routine to keep volume/ stimulus the same while avoiding pain (ie more isometrics, plyometrics, different movements, less weight but slower reps, etc). But growing bones systemically sounds quite hazardous.
I had tendinosis in both wrists from an RSI while living in Mexico for a few months. I bought pharma HGH otc and gave myself 2IU per day for 3 months (I would/should have gone longer but I moved). I trained quite a bit. My wrists only hurt form typing. Outside of fantastic sleep, I didn't notice much. N of 1 and no control. My tendinosis did not resolve for several months after my last HGH shot.
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Been in a similar situation. It was nerves. PDE 5 inhibitors are extremely well tolerated and possibly safter for general health than not taking them. When I'm in great shape my boners and morning wood are awesome, even at 41. But for new encounters, I love Cialis. Takes my mind off things, which relaxes me in the bedroom. Women prefer it (though I've never mentioned it, they do mention noticing how turned on I must be, which is a turn on for them) Great erections, no headaches or sinus trouble. I have 20 mg tabs and break it into rough thirds.
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Humas seem wired for such entrapment. It pattern matches pretty well to various cults, especially those that grew out of EST Training and its numerous offshoots. A charismatic visionary puts a new skin on old ideas, finds seekers, cordons them off, messes with their brain chemistry (though drugs, fasting, sleep deprivation, conflict, sex) Intragroup adherence is amplified though group activities, financial and relationship ties (which are sometimes totalizing). This pattern pervades Scientology, EST, The Landmark Institute, Osho, original Bikram Yoga, the Peoples Temple, Nexium; probably some companies, families, and churches. Landmark (which grew out of EST), appears to have found a stable payoff matrix. Good for them. As a rule of thumb, if you're invited to The Esalen Institute, you're 1% more likely to be joining a cult. If you hear the word ayahuasca weekly, 2%. If you're suddenly contemplating whether water has a memory, the importance of Ley lines, or past life regression, 50%. If half your discretionary incomes goes to this new group, 200%. When the leader is fucking your wife, you're probably in a cult.
What are your broad thoughts on testosterone? I've long been curious for various reasons. It seems to me like a reasonable tradeoff to a healthy, ageing person, but I haven't looked into it too much.
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Unfortunately old comment but over the years no woman has ever mentioned carrying protection. Hundreds if not thousands of women over decades in major American cities. I've dated a dozen or so. I don't recall the idea even being mentioned, though it probably has. I moved out of the US in 2019. Crime has an absurd socioeconomic divide. My crime bubble is probably 5% of the modal white American. I grew up in a small, isolated town of decent prosperity. I'm 40ish and have never been the victim of anything other than petty crime, and even that rare. Same with my friends in all places AFAIKT. Its one data point, but its an honest perspective. So rarely have I seen crime that it is not something I think about. I'm positive it exists and am happy to pay for competent policing everywhere. Criminal (In)Justice was a good read on the geography of crime. Without any forethought, I have live where crime isn't. And now I shall knock on wood.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
If you feel consigned to your home after sunset, you're more likely to need psychiatric medication than moving boxes. On average, people are moving to cities, and aren't afraid of the dark. I've never known a city dwelling woman to carry any means of protection. Fertility rates have remained about 10% lower in large metro areas than rural areas for over a decade. Not being able to imagine something 10% less frequent is caused by a broken imagination.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
This is fascinating. I would have remained blind to it otherwise, so thanks. I wonder how many other religious people feel this way. I have learned to put conscious effort into empathizing with people taking their religion as literally true. It explains so much, and has changed me for the better. However, I never considered that religious beliefs themselves would be, seem, feel, etc. like they were not a conscious choice.
For example, I prefer exclusively women over men when it comes to having sex. No argument exists which could convince me to sexually prefer men (any more than there is a convincing argument that I prefer eating poo over ice-cream). I'm just not wired to prefer those things. However, I could be convinced to become a Christian or Muslim or Flat Earther or 9/11 truther, or whatever. My non-theism remains a choice. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something or this is all semantics, hinging on free will or something.
Are deeply held religious beliefs experienced the same way as be deeply held beliefs like murdering random people is wrong, or the Sun is driven by fusion, or the govt shouldn't tax unrealized gains, or the US is a great country, etc. How are religious beliefs experienced differently?
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Indeed. To take an easy case, I have to constantly admonish secular people have to such empathy and magnanimity towards religious people. Many secular people consider religious folk mentally diseased and morally defective. This is not meant to be insulting. I just take ethics seriously. It would be easy for me decide that all religious people are intellectually and morally deranged; a lost cause. They routinely claim certainty about something I know they are not certain. Almost always they were indoctrinated about what to believe, and then not to question it. Case closed, right?
But that's not the whole story. I know that religion does so much good for so many people. I know what spiritual yearning and salvation feels like. Order. Comfort. Community. Humility that this world is much bigger than we can even begin to understand. To realize that the purpose life - no matter who is controlling it - is to love whoever is around to be loved. To realize that one friend is all one needs in order to be well supplied with friendship. Imaginary friends should count, too.
So yeah, I think being religious means something is mentally wrong with you. But don't let what I have written tell on me. I - the author of this post - actually, sincerely, earnestly, unsarcastically and unironically, have empathy for religious people.
But this isn't about religion.
This is about empathy. Not pity. Not sympathy. And certainly not about condoning actions one finds immoral. Empathy isn't best derived from an analogous personal experience. Thoughts can overcome emotion. As a straight guy, I too find depictions of men blowing and butt fucking one another to be inherently gross. According to John Haidt, this is fairly normal as when some straight men are show such images, areas in brain related to disgust become active. However, I have the analogous feelings of love and lust to fall back on. When a gay person says "I want that too" my emotions are easily overcome. When it comes to trans related issues I'm more at a loss. I have hated myself in one way or another, but never in a way that altering my outward appearance would be useful. I'm quite open to experience, so when a trans person tells me they want to be trans on their own time, I have to felt sense or moral or ethical implication, and am willing to make reasonable accommodations in kind. However, when trans activists make a religion out of woke, I can delineate what and is or is not a reasonable accommodation in kind. Importantly, I can still have empathy for the terminally woke. It probably is genuinely distressing to think the Cass Report is bigoted pseudoscience, or that there is some sort of trans genocide, as is often hysterically claimed. Empathy has a role to play in destroying bad ideas.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Another case of why having principles sucks. The state offered him a sweetheart deal and then reneged. The worst person you know was a darling, but then a victim, of the state. The former doesn't inveigh on the latter as it would enshrine a terrible precedent.
his career is effectively over.
This would be interesting to bet on. It amazes me how people can eek out public careers for decades despite being vile. How many millions would tune in to a reality TV show featuring Smollett, now or in the future? We know he's shameless.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
This mirrors issues in Bill Bishops 2009 The Big Sort - Why the Clustering of Like-Minded American is Tearing Us Apart. Worth a read or re-read. Its been visible online for as long as I can remember. Outrage and polarization maximize quarterly metrics. In the long run, people mostly want to hear news that confirms their priors.
Twitter (assuming its a business) has the lead and should allow seamless experience filters: default, left wing, right wing, no mod, heavy mod, institutional truth, conspiracy truth, puppies, etc. It wont solve the problem of information siloing, but it would keep people on platform while maintaining neutrality.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
The election doesn't effect the argument not to agitate against Swift. If it was a bad idea prior, its a bad idea now.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Take away the subsidy and let ABC, NBC, or CBS bid on the broadband. Use the money to pay down debt.
Thats an entirely different argument. If thats where the goalposts are, then Reason types would be on board, as it isn't about one man labeling something "fake news". The context is very different from what is being proposed team Trump which sneaks in viewpoint discrimination under the guise of free speech.
If he is actually consistent of free speech, then there wont be objections by reason types.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
I think it'll be a continuation of the polarization arc, guided by the incentives of profitable content. Obama was a Marxist Kenyan and we got the Tea Party. Trump was Hitler and we got Wokeist nonsense. Election conspiracies and QAnon notwithstanding, I think Jan 6th was peak derangement. Biden was more honestly criticized than either Trump or Obama because it simply wasn't profitable to publish election conspiracies for 4 years. Bidens brain really was mush. He really was hiding. The border really did get worse. Crime really was being minimized. Trotting out ye olde "this president controls gas prices" chestnut was practically quaint.
Conservatives are dominating media. The MAGA narrative and style really are popular. Liberals will have to find or wait for a narrative and delivery that actually resonates. People are sick of race and trans obsession and a style of condescension. Harping on these issues isn't nearly as profitable as it was in 2016. For the last four years it was hard to get rich running ads on dem narratives. It was much easier to get rich harping on US foreign expenditures, inflation, the plight of the working man, the plight of men, crime, and just straight up duking on dem talking points. The anti-Trump machine is comparatively weak right now. It'll have to pivot or die as the well that pays the bills is running dry. Orange man bad will still work to a degree, but nothing like in 2016.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
My response is silent on the subsidy. I'm asking who decides what is "fake news", or whether speech "undermines the public?". Trump says his regime should determine that, in accordance wit his whims. The Reason article points out why this might be a bad idea as far as the 1A is concerned.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Because of the 1A. Fox News and OAN should be allowed to broadcast their opinions. The regime shouldn't be in the business of telling them what they can and cannot say. Trump is arguably a public figure, although some people are saying he is a Marxist born in Kenya. Big if true.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
If 1.5ppm causes 2-5 points of IQ loss, how much does 1000ppm in toothpaste cause?
You're claiming this is a huge scandal on the level of leaded gasoline. Given what the report found, that seems hysterical.
2-5 IQ points are very important. Getting fluoride via toothpaste is superior solution.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Belief precedes action by necessity. This will boil down to a debate about determinism, but other objections to the assertion made are irrelevant.
Homogenous Japan doesn't feel compelled to attack itself - and hadn't for 250 years - but they became enthrall to attacking their nearest neighbors for a period, then they got nuked, and then they formed warm relations the formerly enemy distant genome.
My point is that John Walker Lindh chose to fight because of idiotic Iron Age beliefs. No advanced social mechanism was necessary. High IQ might help to build better systems for producing beneficial beliefs, but its not dispositive, and doesn't preclude the intrusion of bad ideas. Adopt a low IQ tribe-baby, raise him in the west, and I don't think they'd grow up with a burning desire to return home and fight the Afro-McCoy's.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Knowing the reason we fight is pretty much just genetics is a downer.
Isn't this backwards? The two genetically similar groups fight each other for tribal reasons. The US nukes Japan and within a decade both are cooperating to get rich as hell, improving the lives genetically distinct populations. I'm a realist when it comes to genetics, but en masse we seem to fight often because of the ideas we have.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Doesn't the actual article imply that this could only possibly effect 0.6% of water systems in the US? And even then only to children and pregnant women. And even then the cause is not government addition of fluoride, but rather government failure to remove fluoride below the separately arrived at EPA number?
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
But yeah, I think putting literally any medication in the water supply is foolish.
You have to count the hits and the misses. Lets just concede that fluoride in drinking water was or is now a mistake. There is still chlorine/chloramine. Also gov't mandates and/or influence in the food supply: iodine, vit D, niacin, folate, iron, thiamine, riboflavin etc.
Interestingly, the gov't got I think niacin temporarily wrong, assuming the cause of pellagra was a corn heavy diet, delaying the addition of niacin. Which is fine I guess as extreme caution with the food supply is probably a good idea.
I probably agree with you a lot here. But it would be laughable to argue that these outliers at the margins are a serious reason to question if men are adults.
More options
Context Copy link