octopus_eats_platypus
No bio...
User ID: 334
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I think failed second-sons might also tell themselves that growth mindset is false, but that doesn't make it true. Sometimes the grapes really are sour.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Ultimately heavyweights, in my opinion. When I watch a match I'm not just watching two guys wail on each other, I want to watch the best two guys wail on each other. Young, healthy, fit, strong, etc. I don't hate the versions of sports with less competitive people, but if I'm watching something ideally I want to see peak human performance.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Every woman I've ever met who claimed this has been young without exception. I think it's just a filter you pass through as a woman - you're young, reasonably attractive, men want to impress you and using force on you that might make you feel unsafe or even inferior is verboten, even in a situation like sports where you might expect it. If you're middle class or higher, men using any sort of force is socially unacceptable so you can pass your entire life without realising how much stronger men are.
Eventually you hit the filter - hopefully in the 'my brother/cousin/friend showed me how easily he can manhandle me while wrestling' and nothing worse, and you realise the truth. I have a lot of sympathy for women who believe this and then discover it. I can't imagine finding out that you're almost completely vulnerable half of society is a pleasant feeling.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
While I find the subject a little outside of my wheelhouse and not interesting enough to spend time and effort to decipher, "guy obsesses over something for a long time and writes a lot about it" is pretty much the core of what made /r/themotte fun to be in. While writing twenty (!) essays in a row on the topic is definitely weird, it's not as though Alexandros is chasing Scott around or constantly emailing him (to my knowledge). And, well, that sort of weird is almost what this space is for.
If someone here dedicated themselves to a massive personal research project to disprove statements that they figured to be harmful from someone they saw to be an influential public figure and wrote essay after essay on it I think the reception would be somewhat less cold if the figure weren't Scott.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I think the question needs to be backed up. Dating platforms are like nightclubs - getting women to sign on is the hard part. Once you get women to your club, the men come and they spend money on the women. Likewise if you could guarantee that every single woman in the world would get on and look at your iteration of Tinder, it would be a multi-billion dollar app even if you require men verify themselves by writing their username on their dicks and sending photos in before getting online.
The network effects here are huge and real, getting people onto your dating app is hard. It's the Facebook problem all over again, except this time you need to convince women to come get hit on by men. You might be able to do that with BillionaireDating.com or your new trendy SixFootAndOver app, but absent that sort of filtering that's a tough call to begin with. Starting a new dating app isn't just like opening a nightclub where you can trend some loss leaders, spend more on live music, etc, and try and burn some cash to get people coming to where you are.
Still, just like any fine drinking establishment you either need a niche or a hook (Bumble - guys can't message you weirdo shit initially, Grindr - should be obvious) that's strong enough to get people off the default option. Once you've done that you can be a local institution and coast, but initially you need to wow people and move them to your nightclub for more than one rare step in the bar crawl.
Men are already predominant on dating apps. There's no dancing on Tinder, no girls out for a night of fun that doesn't plan on meeting men but still might if they're a good-looking good dancer. Roughly 2/3s-3/4s of everyone on a dating app is a man. Fantastic if you're gay or a woman, but for single straight guys this is a difficult environment. So if you're a guy you might have a Hinge, Tinder, OkCupid, Match.com, etc, etc, account because why not? Why not try Conservadate? Why not hit up O'Malleys? Yeah, I know it's an Irish pub, but there is that one cute girl there who plays in the band there occasionally. This place sucks anyway, let's go somewhere else. We can always come back.
Why would single conservative women move to the new nightclub? They already have plenty of conservative men around them as men are more conservative than women in every age bracket. They're already in a good spot. The drinks are already free, the DJ is pumping out some great beats. And you want them to go and move over to Thiel's new weird club? Why? What do they have to gain? Men are buying them drinks, they're dancing, having fun, and your query is 'why not go to the new empty club that nobody but a bunch of weird dudes are in?
Sure, two-thirds of single women who voted didn't vote Trump. That's got to be a factor, in the sense that you've lost two-thirds of your market already. Polarization and the like are real, and anyone who demands to date solely on political factors is much more likely to end up alone, but... I think the answer isn't 'women hate conservative men', it's 'Thiel couldn't even move the conservative women over'.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Is that expensive where you are? I pay 16 US cents per kWh and I stay on top of good bargains over here in Australia.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I think most people here see things like the chilling effects of speech, involvement in wars, trans issues, etc, etc, as things that aren't comedy and involve real people. I appreciate that when it's you it feels different, that discussing your issue as opposed to a faraway one feels real and horrible.
Still, 'an entirely subjective discussion based on nothing concrete that will impact real people in real and horrible ways' is far more far-reaching than you'd think, and there are large numbers of people who have their lives impacted by issues that seem like silly culture-war bullshit. I'm sorry it's causing you misery, and for what it's worth I hope you don't feel compelled to keep answering if it's going to cause you pain.
Has anyone else noticed how, well, schlubby other men in their 30s are?
I'm not particularly fit, nor was I exceptionally handsome in my 20s. But the amount of guys who are halfway to bald, wear a ratty t-shirt everywhere and have a beer belly you could sit an actual beer on is astounding. All of these things are controllable (there are those will who go bald completely even with the total minoxidil/rollers/finasteride, but those are smaller numbers than those who just don't bother), and yet the number of fat, underdressed, balding middle-class white-collar professional guys in their 30s - compared to the same for women - seems absurdly high.
I was attractive in my 20s because I hit the gym a lot. A nice face and a ripped body made it easy to meet women. Post a motorcycle accident big weights are risky for me, so I swim or use an exercise bike instead, keeping myself reasonably trim and fit. I use hair loss products which have slowed my hair loss to a crawl and restored some of what I initially lost, returning me to a 'slightly high widow's peak' situation. I spend a few hundred bucks a year to ensure my wardrobe is updated and I look okay when I leave the house.
I'm not looking for accolades, as I don't feel like I do much beyond the absolute bare minimum, but I'm curious if my experiences are more 'my corner of Australia' or whether they're more universal. It definitely feels like beyond the whole 'wall' meme for women, men are the ones hitting unattractiveness faster. Not intrinsically, but because they're doing nothing to slow or mitigate the signs of aging. I definitely feel like your average 35-year old man is less attractive than a 45-year old who has worked to keep his hair and stay in good shape.
Does this track with anyone else?
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Land value doesn't stem from what's built on it but rather what surrounds it. You might uglify your own house to reduce your taxes, but the majority of that loss in land value (and hence reduction in tax) will go to people around you. There's a big collective action problem that would need to be solved for that to take place.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I just didn't finish it. Maybe it drastically improved after the first few episodes, but those were so painfully cringe-inducing I just couldn't continue. Nice that they had a go at making it, I suppose.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I downvoted because it seems like a gross denial of reality.
"I can't see why a political leader who had every chance to flee his country while his city was being attacked and live in comfort at the head of a government-in-exile as opposed to staying and risking very real death might be heroic" seems like someone deliberately failing to understand something very obvious.
Imagine if I came in and said "I'm unsure why abortions are considered evil by some people.". The answer is very obvious, oft-repeated and you have to work very hard to avoid hearing it. The same is true for Zelensky not fleeing Ukraine.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Yes, in hindsight decisions always look low-risk because the the other outcome didn't happen. I'm not a Zelensky stan (and in all honesty I don't care that much about the war in Ukraine despite being very surprised by the sheer Russian inability to win), but I'm not claiming he's considered heroic because of what he did today.
Staying in your country when the West is offering peaceful and safe asylum at the point where your enemies are bombarding the city you're living in and nobody (and if you personally called the course of this war back in February I apologise, but you'd be just about the only one) thinks you have any real chance of victory is brave. By the standards of modern politicians I'd say heroic. Perhaps Zelensky somehow knew they'd push the Russians back, but considering he apparently didn't even believe they were going to invade I find that unlikely. Staying and fighting in what everyone - including likely Zelensky - thought was a doomed effort to repel the Russians and save his country is genuinely admirable, and even if you disagree I don't see how you don't get that other people consider him heroic.
The fact that Ukraine went from 'doomed' to 'holding out exceptionally well and pushing the Russians back in a major counter-offensive' is true, but how could he have known that?
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Savages in the hills last for decades, but the important thing is that Zelensky isn't one of the savages! He's one of the important people Russia would very much like to get their hands on. The obvious parallel is Saddam Hussein. America wanted Saddam dead and got it, even though the insurgency went in a completely different direction. That insurgencies last for decades doesn't mean the state does. Iraq took less than a month to be knocked out, Saddam went into hiding and was captured a couple of months later.
Again, right now all the things you're saying seem obvious because they're being said with the benefit of hindsight. Of course the Ukrainians would hold the line (no matter that virtually nobody believed this six months ago), and of course the Russians wouldn't be able to land a knockout blow, but given that the entire world seemed blindsided by this, why should have it been obvious to Zelensky that it was true? It's one thing to assume someone will notice the very obvious, but if everyone misses it, perhaps it wasn't as obvious as all that?
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Given that the entire world seemed blindsided by this, why should have it been obvious to Zelensky that it was true? It's one thing to assume someone will notice the very obvious, but if almost everyone misses it (and congratulations on being a lone voice of truth in the wilderness, I'd love to see what you said about this prior to the war), perhaps it wasn't as obvious as all that?
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
learning pre-task
I can't find a good explanation of pre and pre-past learning anywhere, and wanted to confirm my intuitions here. Does this mean "if you take nicotine pre-task you'll have enhanced learning, and if you take it post-task you'll still get some small benefits to remembering what you did?"
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
As someone who's suffered from dry-eye as my wife turns on the AC quite heavily at night, eyedrops can help. I found Systane eyedrops to mitigate the first few hours of dry eye when sleeping, which for me mitigates the entire thing. 8 hours of dry AC on my eyes (we sleep fairly close to the unit) versus 3-4 means it goes from an issue to a non-issue.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Karl Marx had the advantage of positioning his potential society as an inherent outcome of impersonal forces. He believed it would be a good society, but the inherent virtue of the average prole had nothing to do with it. To Marx - and to Marxists I've known - his own personal virtue or even his own personal dedication to labouring had nothing to do with the truth-value of his ideology because Marxism (qua Marx, not, uh, the new kind) doesn't demand personal virtue as a prerequisite to its outcomes.
Modern conservatives often do, which is why the "homophobic Republican politician fucks men" headline is so particularly juicy.
I think there's a difficulty to preaching "we should do X" and then not doing X, whether it's conservatives living in what they should consider sin or socialists in mansions. It's why I find it difficult to take either ideology seriously much of the time.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I think it's fair to say there's no anti-left mod bias, but it's certainly a very right-coded space in terms of the culture war.
I think part of what makes it seem more leftist in polls than it actually is is the fact that there are quite a few older former leftists who believe in things like socialised healthcare, a cradle-to-grave welfare state, etc, etc, but have cultural views formed in the 90s or 00s and consequently oppose modern identitarianism very, very strongly.
That's roughly where I identify, but the thing about the Motte is that it's a cultural war space, not a policy discussion space. I suspect on policy issues the membership skews a fair bit more left. We definitely have some very strong libertarians who are all for as few taxes and as few government services as possible, but I think there's a reasonably large population of 'I like my healthcare free, just like my speech' Mottizens who would argue for single-payer healthcare, higher welfare payments, etc, etc. Of course, the reality I might be fired from my job for refusing to call someone 'ze' (thankfully not in our office as of yet, but we've had a helpful instructional email from corporate HQ over in the US about neopronouns from a middle-aged white HR lady) is also something I'm very much against, so if we only ever talk about the latter I find myself in the same place as reactionaries in opposing it.
If this was a forum about how to deal with monopolies or on the virtues of re-zoning low-density areas in the inner city I think I'd find myself very strongly on the other side of the debate much more often. It's just that we don't really talk about those things here.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I had pretty mainstream thought on Covid all the way through, so I can give you an example of my thought processes.
From what I remember, the logic (over here) went like so:
1 - We're going to get a vaccine soon, so we're going to do lockdowns and hold out until then. They suck, but we can contain the virus with lockdowns because it's virtually not in Australia.
2 - Once we get the vaccine and everyone takes it, Covid will be over and we'll return to normal life. This sucks, but it is a temporary suck that we will swiftly overcome. During this terrible time everyone needs to band together and accept the shittiness.
I'm not sure I would've supported lockdowns knowing what we know now about the virus. People were talking about a 2% fatality rate (so, what, seven million people dead in the US, 500k or so here) which is much, much larger than what we ended up with. I weighed half a million dead in my mind against a temporary restriction on my civil liberties and thought 'okay, this is the sort of situation where I can accept restricted civil liberties'.
I'm not so sure I would've accepted it in almost any other country in the world. The United States didn't have a choice to not have Covid in its borders, Australia did.
We moved on to getting the vaccine. I think at the time the claim was that vaccines stopped Covid spreading. If the option was 'zero Covid, but you have to get vaccinated' or 'Covid kills ~100,000 people (Australia, so I'm reducing the US numbers tenfold) but we don't enforce vaccines' I am in fact okay with a vaccine mandate. Mostly I'm not okay with mandating stuff like that, and as soon as it turned out that no, we weren't vaccinating ourselves back to a no-Covid world, I changed course pretty rapidly.
Vaccine mandates lagged popular opinion here - they were popular because we thought vaccine mandates would make this all go away. Lockdowns were popular because we thought they were the precursor to getting the vaccine, and, again, making Covid disappear like a bad dream. Your average person doesn't support lockdowns or vaccine mandates now, but that's because they've been proven ineffectual. China is still locking down over Covid and can't seem to accept the reality of the situation.
I think '2% of the population will die if we don't do this thing' is a good reason to consider the temporary suspension of civil liberties, and I think I'm very much a normie in that sense.
On a personal level, has anyone else noticed just how much Covid broke people's brains?
I don't mean this in a cruel or offensive way, but the usual way things go is that people simply don't care about the thing that happened a year or two ago. We move on, we change focus, and we find new things to be offended or enraged (or perhaps happy) about.
I know a couple of people who would likely be avid users of r/MasksforAll, and a higher number of people who are perpetually incensed about vaccines and vaccine mandates. Oddly enough lockdowns are a huge thing here (I have never met a single person angry about lockdowns in real life, but here the number of people persistently furious about lockdowns is pretty large), but in my personal life there are still people utterly incensed that other people are no longer taking safety measures - I wear a mask on the train nowadays after A/B testing it in Excel for the better part of a year and finding I was drastically more likely to get a cold when not masking, but not anywhere else.
Ordinarily even the most politically vehement people I know really do shut up about politics, but two of my friends will no longer shut up about Covid. We catch up for a phone call (we live a few thousand kilometres apart each), and it invariably turns back to vaccines or Covid and so on. One of my aunts is frustrated that she can't get people to reliably mask when catching up with her (she's not immunocompromised or anything along those lines, and she's in her late 40s) without asking them beforehand.
I feel like being, well, a normie throughout this has inoculated me to these feelings. I never really got mad at people not wearing masks or taking vaccines (largely because by that point it was pretty clear Covid was far less dangerous than initially thought), except to note that the people who generally didn't mask back when mask mandates were a thing tended to be the sort of people who committed publically antisocial behaviour to begin with (playing loud music on the train, harrassing people for smokes, etc). Likewise, the more worried people seemed similar to me - I was happy to take a RAT test or whatever to see someone if it assuaged their anxiety.
It's not everyone, and the majority of people seem to have returned to normal. I guess this is a culture war issue in general which is why I'm posting here, but I can't help but feel a large number of people will be relitigating Covid for years, whether it's their anger at authoritarian monsters trying to destroy their lives and enforce the injection of experimental biological matter into their veins, or their fury at antisocial plague rats who were unwilling to take even the slightest measure to try and keep people safe.
I'm not trying to judge these people or look down on them, we all have our issues and our pain points. I'm not going to pretend I don't have mine. But it just strikes me as noticeable that there's a substantial chunk of the population now seemingly stuck on Covid issues.
Does this gel with anyone else?
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
I've had to restrict my diet for health reasons over the last six months.
I eat soaked oats with fruit, brown rice with vegetables and eggs, and vegetable soup with occasionally a little meat. This isn't a particularly amazing diet, but it serves to keep the symptoms under control.
Over this time, I've also lost 5 kilos. It's not a huge amount of weight, but my diet isn't particularly varied. I think simply restricting yourself from eating a large variety of foods is enough to get weight loss going.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
That was part of what triggered it. It wasn't just my personal life, but a bunch of people here (largely around lockdowns, though, which I haven't really heard concerns about in my personal circles) as well! But I figured the 'what broke your brain personally' question was worth following up with 'have you noticed this in your friend circles', especially because this is not exactly a normal place. Mottizens being angry about an issue doesn't necessary translate to much salience in the public at large.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
Possibly. I grew up as poor white trash and my high school friends largely reflect that, worked in a factory and my blue-collar friends (the two I keep in touch with) reflect that as well, and then uni to a bog-standard office career - so plenty of white-collar colleagues and a couple of friends as well. All that means I think my bubble is hopefully a little more diverse in opinion than that of most people. It could be in part that I'm Australian - the response was largely bipartisan because for quite a long time lockdowns meant 'no Covid' instead of 'we still have Covid but you also can't go out to eat'.
There are plenty of people I know who are still mad about the pandemic response, but it all seems to be vaccine-centered. Though the 'Australian' bubble is very difficult to pop, it's not as if I can go out and meet new Americans in real life on a regular basis.
It's also why I'm asking, though! Maybe my friends weren't representative and most everyone was fine and had moved on. Maybe everyone was mad about lockdowns and didn't care about vaccines. I certainly didn't know, so I thought it was worth raising.
octopus_eats_platypus
1yr ago
This is a really excellent post. One of my favorite things is 'someone articulating something you've long felt but haven't had the correct words to communicate that insight', and this is exactly that. Reported as a quality contribution as well, thank you.
I won't talk on why this caused a potential crash (it's to do with the policy causing a rapid change in the price of government bonds, and I don't really interact with bond markets in my day-to-day), but I can talk about the economic side of things.
The Econ 101 stuff here is that essentially in an anemic economic environment, governments are expected to stimulate demand via tax cuts or spending increases. This environment has been very easy on political parties of both sides, because it just requires borrowing more money (less concering in a low interest-rate environment) to fund your program of choice - or tax cut of choice.
For the last fifteen or so years, the paradigm has been 'we need more demand, right-wing governments cut taxes to try and get more, left-wing governments spend more'.
Now we're in the other side of the macroeconomic cycle - low unemployment and high inflation, and the last time we had inflation this high was around 1990. Governments I suspect simply do not have an institutional culture that tells them to cut back on spending, delay or cancel tax cuts, etc, in this situation. It's been too long.
I don't think the currency would've been worthless, but a good example of what this sort of decision-making would look elsewhen would've been a government drastically cutting spending a little ways in to the Global Financial Crisis and the recession that came with it. That sort of decision would've sent shocks into markets not just because it was a bad decision, but also because the bad decision showed an immense lack of judgement.
More options
Context Copy link