quiet_NaN
2d ago
I do not think this should be a criminal matter. There is plenty of fucked-up shit which is enough to lose you custody of your kids without landing you in jail.
If the reporting is accurate, then I would expect family court to completely cut her from her kids. If that was not enough to act as an disincentive, sending her to prison would not have made a difference either.
From my reading of the text, the main problem was that she was doing this in secret. Once she was discovered, the repercussions (divorce, loss of custody) were likely swift to follow. I do not think that another society would have dealt much better with this. Even in Saudi Arabia, though there might be norms where a husband is checking his wive's phone, she might have another phone for sexting convicts.
As a wise mullah once said: "What is the cure for such disorders? Beatings."
This is bullshit. Especially as the beatings would likely be administered by the husband with no judicial oversight. I mean, sure, if the husband had beaten his wife for no reason on the general principle that she should live in terror of him, it would have been very likely that she would not have picked up her hobby of sexting convicts. But this is like suggesting that cobalt bombs are a good way to stop wildfires in California: while technically correct, the cure would be worse than the disease.
not sticking your dick in crazy.
If people only have sex with people proven sane beyond all reasonable doubt, humanity would die out in a few generations. From the reaction of the husband, it seems that he was surprised by her behavior. We do not have the context to say if he should have seen this coming, and what his other options for a spouse were when he decided to marry and have kids.
quiet_NaN
17hr ago
The primary dividing line between members of this group is the degree to which Jews should be blamed for societies various ills.
Sounds unpleasant. Personally, I came to believe that some HBD claims are true by reading Scott Alexander on the Ashkenazi intelligence hypothesis. "HBD explains why there are many Jewish Nobel laureates without having to resort to conspiracies" is actually a major selling point for me. (Of course, I would also prefer if the left would give up to insist that any inequality of outcome was due to unfairness and in return people would shut up about HBD until we can CRISPR everyone.)
quiet_NaN
22hr ago
Relevant mod comment. If you want to say "these are the views of the Trump administration", then say "these are the views of the Trump administration".
Also, what do you mean by the adjective "racialist"? WN defines it as:
A believer or advocate of racialism, the ideology of racial nationalism.
(UK, dated) A racist.
Is "online racialist Right" an endonym? Who are these people? Do they want a white ethnostate in the US? Are they HBD-believers who want to restrict immigration based on what they see as genetic group differences? Did you just want to call them straightforward racist, but knew that this would generate a backslash, so you picked a rare word which strongly implies racism without saying the r-word outright?
On the object level, I think I share most of your opinions about Trump's immigration policy, which I detest. But I do not think you are doing a good job of accurately representing the beliefs of the Right, which is a prerequisite to honestly criticizing them.
I don't think that the Right has a great answer to what will happen to the fruit prices once the migrants who are willing to pick them in shitty conditions for low wages because they can feed their family in their country of origin with these wages are all deported. I think that a significant fraction of the MAGA base imagine that Trump, being a stable genius deal-maker, will simply pull the US into a golden age of prosperity and nobody will worry about fruit prices. The more realistic Trump voters might concede that prices of fruits might skyrocket if the pickers are US citizens earning a competitive wage, but simply see this as a price worth paying to kick the illegal immigrants out. Your framing which includes White druggies kicking their habit getting of their asses and start to pick fruits seems to me to be a minority viewpoint on the Right, to put it charitably.
quiet_NaN
23hr ago
I agree that fronting the supply to drug dealers is logical.
I was working from the assumption that the victim was a mere consumer though, and extending credit to drug consumers seems extremely bad business. The reason I assumed that the reporting mentioned a claim of a debt of only 2.5kEuro. While I do not know what margin a street dealer operates on (probably more than 10% and less than 50%), 2500 Euro does not sound like a lot of supply for a dealer.
My best estimate is that the murderer was a street level drug dealer, and the victim convinced him to spot him a few 100 Euros worth of drugs which he was totally going to sell to his friends (but instead used up himself) and the claim of 2500 Euro include a loan shark level interest rate.
quiet_NaN
20hr ago
The truth is "American don't want to do those jobs for those wages" and that is what this is (and has always been) about, wages.The Plantation owners don't want to pay the help, and once again the Democrats (who have always been the Party of the Plantation Owners)
I do not think that the democrats are the party of plantation owners these days.
Most D voters are living in urban centers, not on rural plantations. They care about cities, LGBT, social justice and so on. By contrast, I would imagine that most plantations and orchards are in rural states. Any rural states which vote reliably for the GOP -- which I imagine are quite a lot of them might simply not be worth catering to by the Dems on a federal level.
Also, if it was true, then it would have made sense for Trump to go after the illegal immigrants working on farms first, thereby depriving his political enemies of resources. What he did is the opposite: he explicitly spared the farm workers. This suggests to me that he needs the farm and plantation owners, who likely voted for him at least partly.
quiet_NaN
1d ago
There is a crazy amount of stupid on both the victim's and the murderer's part.
First off, why would anyone buy drugs in the physical world when darknet marketplaces exist.
Then, what kind of moron decides to buy drugs on credit, or extend credit to their druggie customers. If you want to play loan shark, perhaps don't start with a transaction which will put you in prison if discovered.
And if you have to use violence to collect debts, then recognize that while it is advantageous for you if your customers/victims see you as a violent madman, there is an art to playing that role (I suppose). You might get away with breaking a few fingers here and there (especially if your victims are reluctant to go to the police), but the amount of murder you can get away with is very likely zero.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
This may make minor news because Musk is in trouble, on the other hand all the people who really, really hate him have their pants on fire like Europeans, von der Leyen is getting impeached, they're actually scared of Russia / China so it might just blow over, the grid is getting worse and is going to keep getting worse due to Green energy mandates.
I really dislike this paragraph. You are making claims at an amazing rate and do not provide evidence for any of them except for a broken link.
First off, I think that the group who "really, really hate[s]" Musk the most are the US SJ crowd, which coined "Swasticar" and all that. There may be evidence that they are liars, but you are not providing any. EU officials might not like US social media, and might like X even less than facebook given the kind of speech it will host, but to my knowledge this does not extend to cracking down on Musk's other ventures. Setting Teslas on fire seemed to be a US thing, not a EU thing (it would violate our emission limits).
While it is true that some fringe parties managed to get a vote of no confidence (which is different from impeachment) against von der Leyen in place, it seems highly unlikely that it will pass.
With regard to Europeans being scared of Russia, I think it depends a lot on the individual country, but is generally untrue. Russia is in no position to attack NATO, even if Putin managed to convince Trump to bail on article 5. I would be scared of Russia if I were Moldova, but most Europeans are not in that situation.
China is likely trying to achieve world domination, and Europeans would much prefer the US as a hegemon, lack of commitment to free trade aside. Their path to world domination involves sending temu junk to Europe rather than tanks though, so I would call the EU wary rather than scared.
The grid may or may not be getting worse, but living in Germany, I can tell you that I have no complaints about power outages. Looking at the uptime of my Pi, I can tell you that we did not have any power failures for the last 200 days at least. Sure, this may be because we buy cheap French nuclear, and sure, if I was running a chemical plant I would not like the energy prices, but stories of the grid failing are exaggerated.
quiet_NaN
20hr ago
Because they're not paying the tariffs.
The tariffs would be paid in the end substantially by the US customers in any case, if for no other reason than the manufacturers being unlikely to have the profit margin to just pay for them.
Also, tariff evasion should be an expected consequence of having tariffs. To be fair, I think for most of the goods imported from China, enforcement is plausible.
Catching one container with cocaine in a harbor which processes hundred thousands of them is hard. Catching a container whose goods are priced to low on the customs declaration is easy if a significant fractions of the containers are undervalued. You just need to set up financial incentives which make it expensive to get caught (perhaps set up requirement that any importer needs to own a defined amount of seize-able assets per container they want to bring through customs per day), and your customs officers will pay for themselves.
quiet_NaN
3d ago
While I think a 1 week ban might be a bit excessive for that post alone, I can not say that this was a high quality post.
Your whole first meandering paragraph reads like a strawman to me. If you really described "new narrative on the Online Right", you could have linked and quoted them directly. Then I would know that I am looking at a weakman instead of a strawman at least.
Then you treat HBD (including scare quotes) as a synonym for white supremacy. Guatemalans are ethnically a mixture of Hispanic and Mayan ancestry. I do not know a lot about Latin America, but I think the Mayans had one of the well known pre-European empires, and probably had less of a link between violence and reproductive success than the Aztec. At least provide a link to some self-professed HBD proponent claiming that Guatemala is a ""third-world s***hole"" due to their genetic makeup.
Your post was bad for reasons which are totally orthogonal to you being anti-HBD. If you had started
Anyone remember that whole "Trump's tariffs will destroy the economy" thing?
and then proceeded to present a strawman of free trade proponents, that would likely have netted you less downvotes, but it would have been just as bad.
It is well known that this is a forum where the majority of people are witches, which means that they get away with being snarky sometimes when they really should not. Sure, being extra-snarky, getting -39 downvotes (but also 12 upvotes) and a ban is very theatrical, but not constructive. Instead, I would prefer if you reported comments stating pro-witch opinions which were inflammatory and poorly sourced.
quiet_NaN
1d ago
Back to my main point: people covered in tattoos and/or piercings are the human equivalent of aposematism, change my mind.
It depends a lot on the coverage and the gender and stature of the person in question, I would say.
But for a big dude who gives off danger vibes, tattoos seem to serve to enhance that vibe -- especially clearly visible tattoos, like on hands or head, which signal I do not have or plan to ever have a job where looking respectable is required.
Depending on the local culture, I suppose that investing in that level of signaling might reek a bit of desperation. The ex special forces guy probably will not get a face tattoo so the locals take him serious, while a youth with aspirations towards becoming a violent criminal might. Of course, as a non-fighter, I recognize that I am much more likely to be stabbed by some fuckwit youth who is playing the tough guy than by an experienced fighter who has managed to avoid a life sentence so far.
quiet_NaN
3d ago
Polite respectful mutual dialogue.
But only for some opinions, because others are an "immense pain in the ass".
Can you link to a few examples to people getting banned for "libtard" opinions?
In my experience, most mod action is over tone, not opinions. I think posters could get away with calls for child rape and cannibalism if they carefully explained their reasoning. On the other hand, a one-line reply expressing a mainstream opinion in a snarky way, e.g. calling Biden a senile fool or Trump an egomaniac moron will likely draw the ire of the mods.
quiet_NaN
5d ago
I am not saying that this is impossible, but why cover up losses of the Bin Laden raid, even from a helicopter crash? Between the White House, the chain of command and the intelligence agencies, there were probably about a hundred people in the loop. I have a hard time imagining Obama saying "I will not have this day of triumph be overshadowed by some fucking technical failure. Make the bodies go away, I don't care how." This would be a textbook case of the coverup being worse than the crime. Just announce that some people died in the raid and classify the details for a decade.
Likewise, if I imagine a general being killed by Russian ballistic missiles, in most cases the body will not be in a state where you can put him in his quarters and pretend it was a natural death. So your theory would need an epicycle like "he died from a heart attack when a missile hit nearby", which would be a lot less plausible.
Or take the ships. Hundreds of sailors will very much be aware if the ship was hit by a rocket. A missile hit likely looks very distinct from an engine failure on satellite photos. Then you need to find a civilian ship to stage the collision. The mundane explanation is at least plausible: Navy vessels generally run without transponders, so sometimes they collide with ships, and due to the Suez canal there are a ton of merchant vessels in the red sea.
For special forces killed during some off-the-book op, I can almost see it. But even then, the straight and narrow would seem preferable. X was killed in action in that month during a classified operation, more details in half a century. Covering this up as a training accident would be complicated. If they were killed in infantry combat, you will need to make sure that the bodies burn in the crash. You will also need to find a plausible helicopter pilot whose body you can add to the pile. Presumably you don't want to murder them for it? You will waste a ton of taxpayer money on blowing up the helicopter, and you need the cooperation of the deceased soldiers comrades who should preferably confirm your story of them being hale before departing from their base for their training exercise. These soldiers will probably not be very sympathetic to you desecrating servicemen corpses to cover some minor international embarrassment.
quiet_NaN
19hr ago
I think it really depends on how much pain it is to stockpile the goods in question.
For example, assume that when Trump announced his tariffs, market observers agreed that the price of Tamagotchis in the US would increase by 100%. Obviously, this would lead to people starting to hoard Tamagotchis, which in turn would cause the stores to increase the prices on their existing stockpiles, on which they had not paid any tariffs. When a few months later, the next container ship arrives, the prices will stay high even though supply might be far higher than demand, as the owners are just sitting on their supply and waiting for demand to materialize, knowing that more shipments of the goods will not be coming soon.
Now imagine the same situation for bananas. Even anticipating a price hike, customers will not buy their four-year supply of bananas while they are still affordable. While the banana-delivering ships which set sail in the pre-tariff era are still on the ocean, the supermarket price of bananas should mostly stay stable -- some importer is making a loss on them, but still not as much of a loss as if they left them to rot.
Of course, the banana importers will anticipate higher prices and thus lower demands and therefore order a lot less bananas. Unless they are mistaken about the shape of the demand curve, this will lead to a price hike roughly when the ships with the smaller orders come into port.
My estimate is that different factors affect how well you can stockpile a certain trade good. Food will rot. Any resource needs to be stored, many of them in a dry place. Fossil fuels have to be protected from going up in flames or escaping into the atmosphere or the ground, sometimes. Electronics become obsolete, eventually. Consumer taste and fashion changes, who knows if in two years anyone will still be interested in cheap Chinese "Alligator Alcatraz" merchandise.
quiet_NaN
20hr ago
I do not know much about international trading contracts either, but I assume that most Chinese companies would not guarantee delivery to your porch at a fixed price. I would guess that in most cases, it is the importer who will have to cough up the unexpected tariffs.
quiet_NaN
5d ago
I think it is worse than that. This more seems like something designed as a coven from the very start.
Strict racial segregation in the US is not in overton window of the mainstream. Sure, caring about the socioeconomic/ethnic composition of your neighborhood is mainstream (and the line between good old racism and valid concerns about BLM riots or violent crime is at least blurry), but this is on the level of "I don't even want a black doctor in my community".
If you are willing to move to Bumpfuck, Nowhere, I imagine there are a ton of possible destinations which are low crime, low ethnic tensions. It takes a special person to pick the one which prides itself on being free of Blacks (and presumably Jews). Most likely, that person is a Neo-Nazi.
Everyone remotely mainstream might prefer a neighborhood where the overwhelming majority is White (and I guess there are plenty of rural communities where this is the case), but they will very much not want to live in Neo-Nazi Central any more than they would move to Corpsefucker Valley. Since WW2, being a Neo-Nazi has been low class. If I learn that X is a Neo-Nazi, my probability estimate of "X has a violent criminal past" and "X is in a gang" will skyrocket -- much more than it would if I learned that X was Black.
To be fair, there are also indirect effects to consider. Even if for some reason, you are fine with your kids going to a school where a majority of the children are raised on White supremacy, if you run any public-facing business catering to the mainstream, it will not survive the cancel mob. The wokes are not very big on nuance, after all. Telling them about your complicated philosophical arguments for an ethnically homogeneous community and how these are distinct from supremacist ideology will not stop them.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
The CW angle is that Trump and Doge downsized the National Weather Service. This made sense ideologically -- meteorologists are basically climate researchers, and thus likely to be more worried about climate change than immigrants, plus college-educated pronoun-bearers. And I am sure that some of the NWS people were installed there by previous administrations for political reasons (which I happen to be sympathize with). But separating the wheat from the chaff would require a scalpel, not the chainsaw of doge.
Anyhow, in this case, the Guardian reports that NWS cuts did not contribute to the tragedy:
Despite funding cuts and widespread staffing shortages implemented by the Trump administration, NWS forecasters in both the local San Angelo office and at the NWS national specialty center responsible for excessive rainfall provided a series of watches and warnings in the days and hours leading up to Friday’s flooding disaster.
The forecast office in San Angelo has two current vacancies – typical for the pre-Trump era and fewer than the current average staff shortage across the NWS – and has not been experiencing any lapses in weather balloon data collection that have plagued some other offices.
[...] In a final escalation, the NWS office in San Angelo issued a flash flood emergency about an hour before the water started rapidly rising beyond flood stage at the closest US Geological Survey river monitoring gauge.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
I will register the unpopular minority opinion that I dislike the TikTok ban.
Fundamentally, it goes against the ideal of a marketplace of ideas. Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. and all that.
Worried about TikTok promoting harmful behavior? Set up a general framework which video platforms liable (e.g. once they have been notified). Worrying about kids getting addicted to short videos? Ban short video platforms generally.
Plenty of countries ban or restrict foreign-produced or foreign-owned media. The Chinese can not read the Guardian. Russia severely regulates any NGOs which come within a mile of foreign funds. No Netflix for North Korea. And so forth.
In my mind, restricting foreign media is a sign of weakness. If North Korea gave its subjects access to Hollywood TV and CNN, their own propaganda would indeed look stale by comparison, so they ban foreign media not mainly because it has the better arguments (though of course it has), but because they could not match its visual appeal.
The US is both a champion of the marketplace of ideas and a dominant global cultural force (two facts which might be related, somehow). Netflix exists in 190 countries. Hollywood productions probably reach the majority of the world population, spreading Western ideas around the globe.
If that country says "actually, the most popular mobile app being foreign-owned is a, flips through excuse calendar NATIONAL SECURITY RISK, so sell it to a US company or we will ban it" is absolutely pathetic.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like short video apps particularly, but I also do not think they are intrinsically more harmful than Skinner box games. TikTok was clearly targeted because it allowed China (through recommendation algorithms) to decide what political speech Generation TikTok would be exposed to. Telling a generation "you are not allowed to use your favorite app because Red China might expose you to wrongthink" is pretty fucked up. If TikTok is a direct unfiltered channel into the viewers mind unlike all the media formats which we encountered before, then it should either be banned or be placed under the control of the US ministry of rightthink, not just sold to some random US firm which might not be that much more trustworthy.
And yes, I also hate the precedent this sets for free exchange of information, because the West just lost the moral high ground. Any tinpot dictator can say "Sure, I ban X/Bluesky/Meta/Google, but you see, I consider a dominant foreign media app a NATIONAL SECURITY RISK, just like the Americans do."
quiet_NaN
5d ago
Even if your claims of anti-white racism were true (the FAA hiring scandal is clearly an instance, and affirmative action can reasonably be described as both anti-Asian and anti-White, but that does not clear the "all levels of society" bar for me), I do not see how segregation would be the natural consequence.
The Black's response to facing racial discrimination was the civil rights movement, which was way more effective than any attempt to build a black-only community in the US or elsewhere would have been.
Even if you could convince the PMC that they were getting a Bad Deal wrt race in the coastal cities and that they should build their own White-only coastal cities in the middle of Arkansas with blackjack and hookers, I am not holding my breath for these cities to decide national elections. I would rather embark on a campaign of meritocracy and how racial discrimination is not cool even if it targets Whites or Asians.
At the moment, most people openly advocating for racial segregation are Neo-Nazis. I think I speak for the vast majority of Whites, HBD-pilled or otherwise, when I say I would much rather have a randomly selected Black person as a neighbor than a Neo-Nazi for purely selfish Bayesian reasons.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
The NWS got the estimate of severity wrong for which they are being blamed by Texan GOP officials.
Is there any evidence that someone falsified the model output, decided to round 1.6mm/minute to 1mm/min or something like that?
If the complaint is simply that the model turned out not to match reality, that does not seem to be a remotely fair complaint. The job of the NWS to provide an estimate and an error bar. What is an appropriate response given a certain best estimate of a disaster probability is a political decision.
This feels like a bereft spouse yelling at a doctor "But you said there was an 85% chance he would survive the operation, so we thought it was safe. Why did you lie to us!"
I agree with the rest of your comment.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
I think that this is related to an inflation of alerts. For the forecasters, the incentives are to always warn, no matter if it is "there may be ice on the road, drive carefully" or "a hurricane will flood 90% of the area covered by this cell tower in minutes".
Basically, I would be fine with being woken up by an alert which has a 10% chance to save my life. For a typical user, this will perhaps happen once in their lifetime, probably less. However, I do not care about weather alerts which may kill a handful of people in an area of a few 100k. Send me a text if you must, but if I die due to ice on the road because I did not bother to check my phone in the morning, that will be on me.
But as the incentives are structured in a way to always exaggerate alerts, you run in the "boy who cried wolf" problem -- nobody wants a phone which wakes them up whenever a weather event which might theoretically kill someone happens in their general area.
Of course, the outcome this would excuse is if you had a bunch of people who drowned after randomly deciding to camp at the river bank. What happened here was instead that the organizers of a summer camp for kids dropped the ball. A level of care which might be tolerable when you are out drinking and fishing with your buddies is not necessarily tolerable when running an organized event. Of course, for all I know, the safety concern level of the organizers was above average. "Site specific disaster kills your charges" is an exceedingly rare outcome, and was probably not even on the radar of most camp organizers a week ago.
quiet_NaN
8d ago
States are made out of individual humans which make their decisions, not some abstract grand strategy player. For example, 9/11 was only a papercut for the US, something on the level of an animal killing a villager in Age of Empires, perhaps. But it still ended up shaping a decade of US politics, because people care more about this kind of things than deaths from traffic.
Getting nuked would be like 9/11, but worse. Normally, this is the place where I would say that there is no way Netanyahu would survive this politically, but given him doing just fine after the Hamas attacks suggests I do not have a working model of Israeli politics.
Politicians pay attention to tail risks, and try to avoid them. For a conventional Iran, the 1% most unfavorable outcome for Israel of an Israeli airstrike is that Iranian rockets fired in retaliation kill a couple of hundred Israeli. For a nuclear Iran, the 1% outcome is that they nuke a few Israeli cities, killing tens or hundreds of thousands.
The other thing to remember is that there is an escalation ladder even once the nukes start flying. For example, a nuclear Iran might nuke an Israeli airbase in retaliation to a conventional bombing. In this situation, Israel would not get a pass for whatever retaliation they might visit on Iran. Glassing Tehran would not be an option, at most they could nuke an Iranian base. Even if things get to the point where cities are nuked, Israel might get away with killing 10x as many Iranians as they kill Israelis, but not with 100x. If they glass all of the Iranian cities, they will get the same repercussions than if they had nuked them without provocation, so whatever considerations are keeping them from nuking Iran right now would still be the same.
Finally, we can use past prisoner exchanges to get an idea of how much citizens and enemies weight in the Israeli utility function (to the degree that it is coherent). The exchange rate peaked in 2011 at 1027 Arabs per Israeli, but has cratered since Hamas has taken their hostages. But I imagine that killing 2M Iranians for 100k Israeli, while being a favorable exchange rate given both population sizes, would not be seen as favorable by Israel.
quiet_NaN
21d ago
There were two main dynamics to the state of geopolitical affairs that let WW1 be WW1.
Another reason for WW1 is that for millennia, being belligerent was a net positive to states in most cases. I mean, obviously having a war was always net negative (unless the alternative was starvation, perhaps), but in earlier times, it had at least been a good deal for the elites (and arguably even some of the commoners, though not the commoners finding themselves in the path of an army) on the winning side. The militant nationalism of the 1800s was a consequence of that.
But by 1910, the underlying reality had changed, because weapon systems had gotten a lot more deadly and railroad logistics limited the land gains made from offensive operations, leading to the trench stalemates. Suddenly being belligerent was maladaptive. Few politicians or populations would have been enthusiastic about starting WW1 if they had known the meat grinder it would become. Instead, they were enthusiastic -- finally a chance to kick some hated foreigner's butt again, like in the good old times. Instead they got Verdun.
When WW2 started, there was a lot less enthusiasm all around, because most participants were not looking forward to more industrialized warfare.
From the substack:
Second, consider that men’s psychological profile includes scoring higher on all dark triad traits – psychopathy, machiavellianism, and narcissism. These traits are distinguished by a lack of empathy and remorse, and a tendency towards deception and manipulation to achieve one’s aims.
While this is probably true in some statistical sense, I would argue that this is mainly selection bias. Dark triad traits are (I think) hot in men.
Now consider the dating marketplace and all the ways it privileges men’s psychological profile at the expense of women’s – the way he’s issued clearance to bottle-feed all of his desires, and the way she’s compelled to smother all of hers.
[...] All in all, the average woman is psychologically abused in the dating market.
As a man who dropped out of the dating market because the only relationships I might get are with women who are too neurotic to be net positive, and who is not going to organize his life around maximizing his SMV, let me say booo-fucking-hoooo.
The sex ratios in the sub-50 age brackets are balanced, so for every chad who manages to string five women along, there are four men who are not getting any. Society is not going to listen to them whine about that very much, because at the end of the day, nobody is entitled to sex. I find porn can substitute for sex and video gaming can substitute for the social interactions of having a relationship. It is not perfect, but so much better than being in a bad relationship.
I think that for evolutionary reasons, being sexually successful is hot in men. I am not kinkshaming anyone, if you are into men who can find a date and get laid every weekend, by all means go for it.
But just as low SMV men are not entitled to sex, women are not entitled to having a chad go exclusive with them. For evolutionary reasons again, most men have some inclination to take the harem route. The hot men who are inclined to a monogamous relationship likely are in a monogamous relationship, so the hot men in the dating market are mostly not interested in that.
Put frankly, if a woman prefers to date the hottest men who are willing to invest a few hours on dating for having sex with her, then she is actively selecting for men who have no incentive to go exclusive with her. If hookups are all she wants, that is fine, but if she is interested in an exclusive relationship, I would advise she lowers her SMV standards and compensate by requiring a longer runway before she engages in sex, thus making pursuing her more costly for men who are just looking for casual sex.
Also, there is no shame in being without a partner. IMO, anyone who can not function without being in a sexual relationship is definitely not relationship material. Looking at the romantic market and saying "the incentives are badly aligned, I am not going to try to participate in this" is something which women can do just as much as men. Just substitute porn with ao4 or something.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Just noticing and then going tit-for-tat. There are some occasions where going tit-for-tat is a good move. I do not think that this is one of them.
Take tariffs. Tit-for-tat is fine, because you can make it explicit that your tariffs are retaliatory.
Contrast with terrorism. If members from group A blow up random members from group B, then there are generally responses which are much more efficient to stop these incidents than members from group B starting to blow up random members from group A (unless you are in Somalia or something -- and even then targeting the murderers would likely be strictly preferable). In fact, retaliation would be likely to increase the rate of incidents.
If Whites start to (more) openly discriminate against non-Whites, then of course the wokes will whine how unfair and racist that is and how the government should put its hands on the scales even more.
Now, if a Republican state was saying "as long as the federal government is openly preferring minority-owned businesses, we will openly prefer any businesses which do not qualify for preferential treatment from the feds", that would be a limited tit-for-tat, like retaliatory tariffs. Sure, the wokes would also whine how incredibly racist that is, but a smarter member of the public would recognize that the goal was to have a level playing field, not to establish the fourth Reich.
Realizing if you don't, you have no future.
Rumors of white genocide have been exaggerated, European-origin DNA will be common in the US population for the foreseeable future. For all the efforts to achieve equality of outcomes, the odds of a white person to make it big are still better than for a black person, which is possibly HBD-related. In the contemporary US, Whites might get a -2 racial malus to both sympathy and government handouts, but that does not make White characters unplayable.
Plenty of groups get treated unfairly, and in most cases, making their victimhood a core part of their identity is actively harmful. Women and men, straights and queers, all sorts of ethnicities, can legitimately claim that sometimes, they are treated unfairly. And that sucks and they should push for a better society, but in most cases they should play the game with the cards they have been dealt, rather than embracing their victimhood.
Telling the multi-ethnic society "your game is so rigged against us, we will not play" and going to raise chickens in some rural white-only community, or emigrating to Hungary does not seem an appropriate response to the present level of disadvantage.
The insane thing is that they imagined that cop killing would be a step towards defeating ICE. That firmly places them in the bottom political intelligence percentile of the broader SJ movement.
It should obvious to anyone that the US in 2025 is not China ca. 1930. It is very much not like there are millions of wokes just waiting for a signal to put down their pumpkin spice lattes and pick up their assault weapons and wage a civil war against the USG. They don't have the guns, they don't have the training, they don't have the stomach and I would argue that most of them do not have the ideological radicalism which enabled Mao's troops to win through atrocities. Sure, they might cheer on Hamas, but they would likely shy away from Hamas-level violence in the US. The slogan of the BLM riots was "defund the police", which misguided as it is, is notably different from "shoot the pigs".
It is obvious that the less violent resistance to ICE seen in California is a much less suicidal way to express their dissatisfaction with Trump's policies. If this is successful in affecting policy remains to be seen, the way I see it, Trump can use the publicity to highlight how he keeps his campaign promises, and he does not really care how much it will cost to continue the deportations despite widespread disruptions, it is not like he is fiscally responsible or anything.
But escalating to a firefight with the feds is terminally stupid.
Also, the group managed to have an excellent gender balance for a terrorist cell (four cis-women, two trans-women, four men, presumably cis), but their racial composition is Problematic. One of the women might be Asian, but all the rest is White. Let us hope that they were not shooting Black cops from their position of privilege.
Also, why post a picture of one of the guy's Mexican wife? That guy just tried to murder cops, he could be in a polycule with bearded North Koreans and it would not be relevant. Put the picture of his wife in once she is wanted or charged with anything.
More options
Context Copy link