ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
"Can't you see how fortunate you are? You have worn yourself out through ceaseless striving, you have filled your muscles with pain and anguish. And what have you achieved but to bring yourself one day nearer to the end of your days?"
I'm probably out to lunch.
User ID: 4030
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
2d ago
Glad to hear it's worked well for you! Have you found Graphene has any usability issues? How is the messaging app? That's what I'm most concerned about - my friends and family have group chats requiring MMS and RCS, and I'm unsure if the stock app supports anything more than SMS.
Also, what distro are you using? I'm still determining which one I should install. I enjoy occasional gaming, so I've been eyeing up CachyOS (an Arch fork) but I'm unsure of its privacy features.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
2d ago
Our culture really does lack catharsis, and I think it similarly lacks opportunities for ritualistic cleansing. Experiences of purity and dirtiness are probably the least explored aspects of secular life. Poor memories of men do not only conjure up anger in many women, but feelings of revulsion, dirtiness, and sin, much of which are introjected onto themselves. I'm reminded of the ancient practice of scapegoating, and can't help but think that something similar is happening here, the factual badness of the actual Cornell event notwithstanding.
I think I can't offer much about the future other than speculation. The following seem possible to me:
- Micro-price adjustments in all consumer goods, purchased both online and in-store to maximize profit.
- Micro-price adjustments in insurance of all kinds, healthcare products, etc.
- Increaased scrutiny on all behaviors, impacting eligibility for certain goods, services, and relationships, creating a social-credit style system. Potential for psychological/ideological apartheid based on one's digital footprint.
- Ideological manipulation via AI generated advertisements. If AI knows I read anarchist literature, per se, they could engineer an ad campaign specifically designed to appeal to my priors.
- Granular geo-tracking to learn habits, routines, and interrelations.
- Potentially bad-faith manipulation of personal relationships. If AI learns one of my friends is a ne'er-do-well, a sufficiently motivated AI agent could take steps to isolate me from them or convince me they are bad, etc.
I recognize that some of these scenarios are far-fetched, and I do not think they are all equally likely. I also generally have a commitment to interpersonal authenticity and analogue relationships, so I'm ideologically opposed to online surveillance. No one should have extensive information on me, precisely because I can't predict how they will use it.
I also think that if we reach AGI, all bets are off and it is nigh-impossible to determine how AI will use our data. I can't say I really trust the leading AI companies to handle our data responsibly. I don't know precisely what AI will cook, but I don't want to provide any of the ingredients.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
2d ago
I've never been one to follow AI capabilities all too closely - I knew they've been rapidly improving but the particulars have never interested me beyond the headlines. However, with the rise of AI agents like ChatGPT Dot, the increasing integration of AI systems in consumer operating systems, and the growing prevalence of surveillance infrastructure, I'm coming to the conclusion that things are going to get very bad, very quickly.
Essentially, I've developed a belief that everyone is going to be surveilled to the maximum extent possible, and that surveillance is going to be used in all the conventionally dystopian ways. Advanced advertising, thought policing, price discrimination via social credit systems, etc. The usual rebuttal to this is, "well, you should have nothing to hide." I can understand the instinct toward this: who would care to closely watch the data of an ordinary person like myself? The key difference is that capable AI agents remove the labor bottleneck, so we can be monitored 24/7 without requiring a person to tediously comb through hours of data.
I've begun preparations to completely detach my life from big tech, switching to Linux, GrapheneOS on mobile, and taking whatever steps I can to anonymize my data. While AI models might not be capable of this surveillance right now, I want to get ahead of it so by the time they are capable, I've already become as much of a ghost as possible. Am I overreacting? How have you all prepared for the upcoming data revolution?
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
5d ago
I think any kneejerk bias against rape victims as suckers and losers gets immediately short-circuited by the fact that Acton was raped by her father as a child. Chauvanistic Protestant boomers who wouldn't flinch if a prostitute got raped have a much shorter leash when it comes to crimes against children. I know you're being a little sarcastic, but if Ramaswamy or his campaign really believe that "I like people who weren't captured"-style anti-victim politics will work in a case of child rape, they are deeply miscalibrated to the views of the electorate.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
6d ago
Wow, I didn't realize they doubled down that hard. I can't think of a worse ad to dump millions of dollars into.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
6d ago
I agree, though I think this is just the beginning. They got caught this time. Now the strategy is out in the open. I suspect that eventually the volume of deepfakes will get so large that it will eventually overwhelm our capacity to filter and verify information. A gish-gallop of slop.
I'm inclined to make a stupid analogy: the Tush Push. This is a play in football pioneered by Nick Sirianni when he was coaching the Indianapolis Colts. In it, the quarterback is physically shoved forward by one or two large linemen, in hopes of overpowering players in front of them. It's been criticized as stupid, brutish, and anti-football. It had been long-theorized but never executed successfully. Early attempts on the Colts had limited utility, ultimately failing to make much of an impact. Despite these failures, the failed attempts caught league attention, and everyone stood by waiting to see if this strategy became viable.
Then come the Philadelphia Eagles. With the team's specific player composition, body sizes, and overall acumen for the play, it became incredibly powerful. Success rates climbed over 90%, and suddenly the NFL had a completely new play-style on its hands. The Tush Push became the talk of the 2022 season. More notably, everyone tried copying it. They wanted a slice of the pie. To be specific, they waited for it to be successful before they co-opted it.
I think we're going to see something similar with AI in politics. We're in the early days, and politicians are still testing the waters. What will people trust? What can they get away with? I think Trump's incessant use of AI memes on Truth Social is a loud manifestation of this limit-testing, and this Somalli politician is another. At this point, most use of AI in politics has been a failure or at least an object of mockery. The models have only recently become competent enough to make convincing fakes for the non-boomer population. However, once limited success is seen I suspect that like with the adoption of the Tush Push, we're going to see an explosion of AI use.
Ramasawmy just cannot help himself. He's shown time and time again that he's willing to poke the bear in ways that most politicians have the savvy to avoid. Controversy aside, I did not find this ad convincing. My reaction wasn't "Acton must be a real slimeball for her own mother to speak against her!" Instead, it was immediately apparent to me that this was a perennial family conflict that had been weaponized for the sake of the election, and it looks desperate. I'm not one of those "respectability politics" people, but this is a conspicuously low blow.
It doesn't help that Acton's mother doesn't mention what Acton is a liar about. I don't think it would be a very effective ad to say, "My daughter is a liar - she said she was raped when she was twelve, but she wasn't!" It seems Ramaswamy's camp forgot about the Streisand effect: in trying to avoid addressing the allegations they've just made Acton look more sympathetic and strong, especially to her increasingly mobilized Democratic base.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
7d ago
I don't think it's a matter of literally having prestige or being prestigious. Rather, living in the suburbs of a metro area at least allows someone to fantasize about or imagine the possibility of getting prestige. If you live, say, in Long Island, NY and work as an insurance agent, you're close enough to the city that you can slip in and engage with the aspirational culture there. Being a bedroom musician, for example, in a suburb of New York has a very different prognosis from being a bedroom musician in Huntsville, AK.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
8d ago
Youth today think that's "copium" and seem to want to fight for control of the places and positions that matter.
I think the Gen Z preoccupation with "staying in the fight" is also downstream of the proliferation of min-maxxer/striver culture. Leaving the rat-race isn't just a loser thing to do, it's effectively prescribing that you will remain a loser indefinitely. There may be some prestige in going your own way and blazing a trail, but it quickly wears off when faced with the prospect of never achieving much of anything, never advancing much of anything, and never being much of a "somebody" at all.
As to whether or not it's ideal to try and be "somebody," that remains to be seen.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
10d ago
Trump personally signed the legislation just last month and his move came just two days before a deadline set in the law itself for its implementation.
Trump said Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.”
Beyond any commentary about Europe's role in the world order, the interesting to me is how immediate of a backtrack this is. I can't interpret this as anything other than a cynical Hail Mary to lower fuel prices before the midterms.
I think you underestimate how many people enjoy the annoying and dumb. There is a certain strain of mass-media lover who would not find the Digger preamble sickeningly overwrought and cartoonish. It struck me as very Colbert-coded. For us, the terminally online politiker, it's over-the-top, but I think Digger strikes the right balance for most people. The only problem is most people aren't planning to see it.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
13d ago
Certainly, I could physically attend mass. As far as sacrilegious-ness goes, most people point to the Eucharist and note that non-believers are not to accept it. That's one thing, but there are many other parts of the mass that include professions of faith and prayer that I would essentially be lying about if I participated in. Ultimately, I could attend and sit quietly in the back with no trouble, but I'd rather be able to participate fully someplace.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
13d ago
I've been trying to get in touch with my spiritual side lately. As I consider myself an agnostic (ex-Catholic), this is proving to be more difficult than imagined. There are a number of "secular community" groups, pseudo-churches like UU's, and hobby groups, but they just don't do it for me. I have some optimism about attending a Quaker meeting, but I have yet to make my way to one. I know many of you maintain spiritual practice of some kind. Any suggestions for venues I can seek this connection? I want a place I can go to regularly where the sole purpose is to reflect on what is important in life, remind me to act virtuously, and exist alongside others. I suppose I could just go to mass and LARP, but that's sacrilegious and I'd rather exist in a space where I can be authentic in my beliefs.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
21d ago
Sure, technological developments will not de facto equalize sex distributions among all careers. As you say, men are likely to remain the predominant sex working in drone technology, for example, due to many psychosocial factors. However, the fact that particular women are now allowed to work in aerospace engineering and are recognized as being capable of it, even if you believe the median woman is too female-brained for the field, is a tremendous advance.
If we are living in a society where tech fails, we will obviously re-organize how society is run. Thankfully, we are not in that world, and our women do not need to live doomed, constrained lives.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
21d ago
Right...? I'm not sure if we're disagreeing here, lol. That's basically a huge chunk of The Second Sex.
I suppose we differ in that I don't think it's an unresolvable contradiction. There is a technological component to feminism. The division of labor in a primitive, undeveloped economy cannot as easily support women's equality due to the vast amount of resources required to meditate the "biological functions" you identify, breeding, fighting, feeding, and so on. Luckily, in our society, male bodies do not necessarily fight (drones and guns do) and male bodies do not necessarily work (computers and robot arms do). There's nuance to be had, but largely, maleness as a biological necessity for certain social functions has become fungible. Thus, women can make choices that are counter to their historical roles. If it wasn't already clear, I believe this is an overall positive development for human liberty and self-actualization. At this point, the only non-fungible biological difference between men and women that retains its original importance is that of the womb, and transhumanists are seeking to "equalize" that eventually, as well.
After that, they just "got lucky" and who cares what's up with her, she can take care of herself, she's got equal rights.
This is, by far, the biggest problem with pop-feminism right now. We are living in a culture that has transformed rapidly. In a matter of two or three generations, our entire sexual and gender ethic has been revolutionized. There are still many vestiges of the old guard, including communities that maintain "old-school" sexual standards wholesale. The spectre of chivalry remains, and it's a difficult thing to part with. Women read stories about esteemed ladies and depraved sexcapades in equal measure. Women want both, and I don't blame them. It's hard to part with things.
The more sophisticated feminists have rectified this contradiction long ago - women and men ought to be socio-legally "equal", but they are not running identical scripts. The natural asymmetry of men and women in aggregate, both physiologically and throughout history, suggests that treating the parties with a hint of différance remains prudent. However, a message like that, with nuance, is quite challenging to transmit across the culture. When men hear feminist refrains, it's usually in the form of quick slogans, brief seminars, and the highly reductive: "men and women are equal, full stop." You could call this "naive feminism." In practice, this amounts to men treating women like they treat men. This can be functional in some contexts, but not in others, especially in the romantic/sexual realm, where the influences of past interpellation remain strong.
Case in point: imagine if the participants in this situation were all men. It might have still produced university attention, but it would have been nary a blip in the media landscape - just a drug-fueled gay orgy. Gay men are sexually forward, adventurous, and relatively unpretentious/unprecious about their bodies. However, there was a woman involved at Cornell. The frat brothers should have known better than to treat her like a man. Whether they like it or not, women's sexuality, for a myriad reasons, still has a precious quality to it that we have not culturally disposed of in its entirety. Rape or not, they took an extreme risk by indulging their depravity. I (flippantly) agree with the @georgioz below - the boys should be lashed in the street. That would be far more efficient than the circus we have right now, and probably satisfy most parties. ESH.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
26d ago
Well played, everyone. Glad I could contribute to The Motte's September Genderslop™ Special.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
28d ago
Sure, I did my best but judging by other responses, it leaves a bit to be desired.
I'll add that I don't believe in a libertine blank-slatism where all relationship types are created equal. I will assume that you believe marriage or stable monogamy are ideal for human flourishing? I don't disagree. I just think that the excesses of a state in which traditional marriage is enforced or even encouraged are less tolerable than the excesses of a state that is permissive of individual relationship choice. I do not believe experimenting with casual sex or premarital sex generally in your 20s, as a man or woman, is an inherently detrimental event, so long as it is done within reason. I do not believe that matters of the heart ought to be addressed with market-style approaches, wherein we examine the "price" that "women" "set" on "men." It's far too broad a level of analysis to be personally useful. Call me ignorant if you wish, but I think this is a situation in which ignorance is adaptive.
You could argue that marriage is unfairly pilloried these days to our societal detriment, which is fair, but a different conversation.
+1, fair elaborations. I'm not claiming that the current dynamic is perfect, just t
Do you think it's a reasonable request to be made to average single men or women to upend their entire lives just to supposedly increase their personal chances of finding a suitable partner?
I suppose I was speaking a bit harshly in my haste to respond. My ultimate point is that changing one's voluntary associations is likely to have a far greater impact on one's romantic satisfaction than paying much mind to aggregate female behaviors. "Moving" in the sense of physical relocation is one way to do that, and perhaps the most dramatic way to do so. To those unwilling to move, there are still many ways to change one's voluntary associations.
You're correct that in many cases, it is unreasonable for one to move and it's a highly personal decision. However, for the motivated partner-seeker, taking concerted steps to engage with more potential mates, up to and including moving, is hardly upending one's life - it's choosing the life that one wants. Under the age of 30, it pays to be flexible.
Now, there may be some dissatisfaction that such a suggestion is even necessary these days. Again, I don't think this is "women's" fault any more than it is the fault of cultural balkanization in the U.S., and women often find themselves in similar demographic quicksand that they have to escape by moving, too. For example, many young heterosexual women bemoan the fact that NYC has a highly skewed male-female ratio, making dating much harder.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
28d ago
Yes, full-blown forceful rape to completion is a different beast. The SA in this situation was exactly the dubious sort where drugs were involved, so the bar fight comparison was apt.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
28d ago
See my reply to ThisIsSin.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, but the doctor is out
28d ago
... Yes, it absolutely fucking does.
That is completely acceptable and is reasonable as an individual preference. I am not so stupid as to suggest that no one cares about promiscuity when thinking about family formation and long-term relationships - read me charitably here, please. I'm not trying to moralize: every person's icks and turn-offs are acceptable in my books. I'll admit it wasn't a very well written sentence. I'll clarify:
It's a matter of prevalence. I imagine there are far more women who are turned off by the median man than there are men who are turned off by the median woman. Of course, there are women with stratospheric body counts, and for those hoping for virgins, any number above 0 is too high. Still, I am doubtful most men would throw a fit that their girlfriend wants to have a career or slept with 4 or 5 people. These women are not "skipping the bill" for most men - the bill has simply changed as attitudes have shifted, and perhaps your attitude has not shifted with the majority. That is completely fine.
Truthfully, this idea is not a lynchpin of my views if you still find yourself in opposition. What follows is more important and definitive to me.
... [the] rest of the post [is] just a word-for-word transposition for why the dead weight loss in a market that a cartel inherently creates (the cartel here is "all women" and the product is "family") is morally justified.
If one is a family-minded traditionalist, it's fair to say that one's values have decreased in influence over the years. That's certainly upsetting if one wants to preserve that way of life. That said, these values haven't decreased in frequency just among women. This is a society-wide change, with plenty of men along for the ride. The idea that there is some grand war in incentives between women, as a class, and men, as a class, is precisely the mindset that I think is fallacious.
If you honestly think that "all women" are in a sort of cartel where they determine the cost of entry for "family formation" or engage in "resource siphoning," I'm not sure we will ever see eye to eye. Cartels coordinate. Certainly, social movements have developed since the 50s, feminism among them, but I don't believe that the outcomes of feminism were a coordinated effort to create intractable dating standards for men. I have not observed any sort of unity in female behavior. Instead, I think there are loose federations of women with their own sets of values, who coordinate to the extent that their values change concomitantly. Perhaps you find some of these federations virulently offensive to your preferred way of life. My suggestion remains the same: disassociate from the federations of women you find disagreeable, and associate with the federations of women that you find agreeable. Otherwise, it just is an utter waste of time to talk about "the women." It's a floating signifier, so broad as to be practically useless on an individual level.
I really don't believe you are as free of resentment as you claim to be.
I'm not sure where you're deriving resentment from my comment. I think it's fairly lucid, even if you disagree with it.
I'm using "reactionary-reactionary" as repetition for emphasis. Like how on the schoolyard people used to say "like-like" when they mean you have a crush on someone, that sort of thing. And yes, I was referring to the first article.
...I would be curious to see how you frame them, if you've got the time and energy to make it legible to folks like me who probably share many of those assumptions.
What else is The Motte for than writing a treatise on gender relations on a weeknight? Unfortunately, I attempted to write this reply and found that I was unable to do it sufficiently. I've been sitting at my computer for an hour and am simply not satisfied with the argument I've constructed because it effectively requires me to describe my worldview from first principles. This is proving to be a task too great for right now. I'll give you a bit, but it's not my best work. Feel free to ask me to clarify as necessary.
The nugget I can share is this: paying attention to the behaviors of "women" and "men" as a whole, when examining the dating world, is an incredible fool's errand and bound to produce resentment. I have a lot of respect for the courtship woes that swathes of modern men have experienced. Certainly, we can examine studies on hypergamy and track fertility rates and bemoan the state of the world when the latest ragebait Hinge exchange populates our Reddit feeds. However, that does not mean that anger is the appropriate response, nor do I think it necessitates wholesale societal revolution or a RETVRN of some kind. The pessimism that these authors radiate is entirely voluntary.
Let's say you are a conservative, marriage-oriented 25-year-old man. It behooves you to not give a shit about what the median woman is doing. It is incredibly easy to view the bad behavior of many women online, the vapidity, the promiscuity, the double-standards and essentialism and the blah blah blah. You can sneer 24/7, if you so choose. But you shouldn't. You likely aren't going to date those women. You absolutely won't marry those women. If you think modern woman is dooming herself to romantic suicide borne out of the sexual revolution, you can think that. But you wouldn't marry her anyway, so why sneer? Turn your gaze elsewhere.
Fundamentally, this is a multiculturalism and visibility problem. Past people had minimal exposure to dating norms outside of their community. The gentry did not pay attention to how the peasants were dating, and yet we insist on examining "men" and "women" as a whole. The women who get riled up at comments from traditionally minded men, too, are playing this game of vicarious imagistic anger. But she wouldn't date or marry him, either. We're driving ourselves crazy by looking at people who hardly exist in our dating sphere in the first place, with entirely different values and goals. The reality is that dating norms are so much more granular than that.
For the man struggling, the solution is to find your tribe as quickly as possible and be social within it. Find people, institutions, and places that give you the best odds to meet people with the same norms as you. Living in a coastal city and think the women are too feminist? Move. Having a hard time meeting religious people? Move. No luck on dating apps due to demographic asymmetries? Move. Dating and marriage, on the experiential level, have so little to do with the aggregate behaviors of the sexes, and everything to do with how one spends their time and the people they surround themselves with.
In the past, perhaps it didn't take as much effort to find your community, so I suppose there is some justified anger there. However, this appears to me a much more economic problem, borne out of our increased social atomization a la Putnam's Bowling Alone. Perhaps there used to be greater numbers of dateable women in one place. Interconnected economic networks result in more transience, less community, and more variance in local values, making it harder to find a mate that aligns with you. I just don't think "feminism" is the appropriate target. For every man that decries feminism, there is another man who finds the modern, liberated woman attractive. For every woman that decries traditional marriage, there is another woman who remains committed to those values. We can get into the fine-grained demographic data about how values are shifting between the genders, and so on, but again: what's the point? Know your place, surround yourself with people with similar values, and work hard at putting yourself out there. You will have a much better success rate than if you direct your attention toward those whose lifestyle you disavow in the first place.
I'll add:
People from a less enlightened age would consider a person who endlessly obsesses about their looks, the latest pair of Jimmy Choo's and who Brad is dating now, pretty superficial.
This made me laugh. If anything, modern woman is less concerned with her looks than women in eras past. If anything, modern woman is less parasitically materialistic than women in eras past. If anything, modern woman is less of a gossip-vulture and has far broader interests than women in eras past. In eras gone by, when marriage was an economic institution above all else, women had so few opportunities to be interesting. Yes, perhaps the life of the historical homemaker was, in a sense, honorable, which hedges against accusations of shallowness. But her primary purpose was to be a womb, a pretty thing, and a domestic servant. Now, marriage is about romantic love - an extremely contemporary development. Consummate, equitable love is much harder to achieve with women who don't have lives of their own. We take for granted the extent to which feminism has encouraged increasing numbers of women to have dynamic personal lives, a developed intellect, and the inner richness necessary to be an equal partner. I cannot deny that there have been some unsavory excesses produced by the sexual revolution, and vapid, unscrupulous women exist. I just harshly question the hypothesis that if not for feminism, we'd be better off.
Feminism excuses women who aren't as well-suited for marriage because feminism is broadly about giving women more paths forward in life than dependency on a man. It's practically tautological. Further, women suddenly getting careers, delaying childbirth, or even having more sex doesn't make them fundamentally unattractive, even if it alters their trajectory vis a vis marriage. In contrast, the ways men are dropping the ball - gambling, porn, anger, laziness, isolation - are extremely unattractive. I don't think it's a double standard for precisely this reason, even if there is some sociological analysis to be made about how these behaviors affect marriage. I'll save that for another post. My hands hurt from typing. Cheers.
There is no reliable way to "fix" someone with violent tendencies of this nature. Therapy and meds work, as do positive life experiences and other holistic measures, but it's far from an exact science. Even round-the-clock intensive care over several months is no guarantee - I once crossed paths with a man who had received such care only to find out he murdered someone afterward. The psychiatric facility was not found to be liable, because it was well-documented that they did everything they could within the capabilities of modern mental health care.
In an isolated world without any negative externalities, ThomasdelVasto's suggestion to pump people with antipsychotics is legitimately effective. They are quite good at mellowing people out in such a way that they're not going to be able to do much wrong, especially commit violent crimes. However, there are significant ethical concerns involved in doing so, and there is not enough social will to just blast potentially problematic people with mind-numbing substances if they display traces of violent behavior. We could do it, but no one wants to. At significant doses, they're effectively a chemical lobotomy.
More options
Context Copy link