samiam
27d ago
"Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.". Likewise the suspension of Habeas Corpus under Lincoln.
samiam
29d ago
See my sister post.
samiam
29d ago
I think the difference is a semantic one. Whether this post is a “joke”, a “celebration”, or what not, it’s definitely a (submarine) endorsement of the assassination attempt.
There is probably a name for this specific rhetorical gambit, where someone says something imprecisely and their interlocutor interprets it in the most dumbass literal fashion possible and pretends to believe that is how they meant it and play gotcha, but it's very tiresome.
It’s a version of the “straw man” fallacy. The “straw man” here is that he’s pretending I said “it’s a problem when people start killing people under any circumstance”, even after I clarified to him I didn’t mean that, and even after multiple other posters told this poster his interpretation of my words is incorrect.
So using a fallacious rhetorical gotcha appears to be him trying to dunk on someone he sees as a political opponent. Or maybe he’s just really stubborn and unwilling to admit he thought he read something that wasn’t actually there.
The point I am making is this: Once we condone political violence, whether it’s the assassination of Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk, or the multiple attempts to assassinate Trump, we are going down a very dark road which, if we continue down, will result in a lot of innocent people being killed and the possible dismantling of our political systems which have been working very well for well over two centuries.
samiam
29d ago
I will not respond to you further until you answer this question someone else has already asked you:
Are you taking as a given that Democrats think of the opposition party the same way that right-wingers think of a hostile foreign nation that has been calling for Death to America for 50 years?
samiam
29d ago
the parent poster specifically said "celebrating the deaths of people they don’t like"
It’s clear looking at the context of that posting that I meant “Trump”. As I said elsewhere in this thread, Trump was democratically elected in 2024 by the majority of the voters. This is a far cry from the leaders of the authoritarian regime in Iran, who have killed thousands of peaceful protesters in Iran. In other words, it’s a false equivalence.
samiam
29d ago
the parent poster's criterion for being "lost completely" was "celebrating the deaths of people they don't like", not "celebrating the deaths of democratically elected leaders" or "celebrating the deaths of objectively good people" or even "celebrating the deaths of their countrymen"
Since you asked for clarification: “they don’t like” clearly means “Trump” here, since it was Trump who this person was trying to kill. Trump is a democratically elected leader; he is president because, in 2024, the majority of the voters wanted him to be president again. Trump has not killed thousands of protesters; even if the two people killed in anti-ICE protests was somehow killed because of Trump, that is nowhere near the 30,000 or so people massacred in Iran for protesting this year. There is a world of difference between not liking someone because of their politics and committing mass murder of peaceful protesters and other crimes against humanity.
For the record, I am opposed to the war in Iran for the same reason I opposed the second war in Iraq (in retrospect, Desert Storm was needed to stop Hussein from terrorizing the entire Middle East) and the war in Afghanistan: It would seem that people in Middle Eastern countries want to have oppressive authoritarian regimes. It’s telling that 2011’s “Arab Spring” did not result in sustained free democratic countries.
samiam
30d ago
As an aside, Amaden, the main points brought up by the crowd that believe in 80/20 (some form of the false notion that 80% of the women sleep with 20% of the men) have been extensively studied and refuted by one Maximus.
What both him and I have found, after looking closely at the research, is that about 20% of the men have 80% of the female sex partner count, but, likewise, about 25% of the women have 80% of the male sex partner count.
There is no polygyny. It’s just that the most promiscuous men tend to attract the promiscuous women.
On a personal note, I know I have a lot of recovery, because I’m no longer attracting only ultra promiscuous women. They’re still around in my life, as platonic friends, but that as far as it goes now that I have a very good girlfriend.
As of 2023, 60% of young men reported they were single. That number. 34% of young women reported being single. WHO ARE THE WOMEN DATING if not those young men?
Maximus goes in to it with some detail
The most likely explanations:
- Age gaps: Slightly older men tend to get together with slightly younger women
- The 2022 Pew Study was an outlier; most studies of this nature show a smaller singleness gap
About 60% of female sexual partnerships are with the 10% most promiscuous men. I have to interpret "most promiscuous" as "most attractive," because very, very few men are able to be promiscuous without being hot. Likewise, this looks VERY suggestive of a broader 80/20 rule in place.
Nope. Maximus explains it better than me.
According to the 2022 NSFG data:
- 9.76% of men have 52.6% of lifetime female sex partners. This is pretty close to 10/60, however...
- 11.18% of women have 50.0% of lifetime male sex partners
So, it’s not that 10% of men are with 50% (60%?) of the women. It’s more like 10% of the men sleep with a bunch of women, but those 10% of men are all sleeping with the same 12% or so of women. It’s not that they are “Chad”; there’s little correlation between attractiveness and promiscuity, it’s that they are promiscuous, and usually have other addiction patterns and attract similarly addicted women.
Indeed, there was a reply to that tweet claiming 60/10 making the same point.
Edit I have read the source paper.
It makes the following claim:
We have around twice as many female as male ancestors, as most men did not prevail in their intrasexual competition over women, and were thus deprived of becoming our ancestors (References: Kruger, Fisher and Wright 2014; Wilder, Mobasher and Hammer 2004)
However, Kruger et. al. 2014 makes no such claim. The Kruger paper make the opposite claim that the source paper makes: It says that it’s violent patriarchal societies that cause polygyny (i.e. one man many women), not female choice. The paper does not compare the number of male to female ancestors at all.
The second reference, Wilder et. al. 2004, makes the claim that the time to the last female ancestor is twice as long as the time to the last male ancestor, which is a very different claim than the one that two females historically reproduced for every man. The actual figures are that about 1.3 more women than men historically reproduced.
So, here, we see the paper trying to make the same point some guys make online (that women only want sex with very few men), but it makes one claim based on two papers which make no such claim.
It then goes on, citing Harper 2017 for evidence of increasing polygyny in modern society. The problem with Harper 2017 is that its data has not been replicated in more recent surveys.
Point being, the linked paper either completely misreads other papers or uses dubious research to force a narrative of a few men monopolizing all of the women.
(The paper then talks about dating apps, a popular boogeyman with guys who argue for modern polygyny, but dating apps do not affect the sexual marketplace that much.)
Edit 2
Mads Larsen is well known for believing 80/20; if his name is on a paper, it’s a big red flag that the claims in the paper are very suspect.
samiam
30d ago
Naturally, they are celebrating the assassination attempt on Reddit. The leftists completely lost me once they started celebrating the deaths of people they don’t like; they obviously want society to break down completely.
samiam
1mo ago
It finally got some attention. On the New York Times it was buried, placed under the fold, and the headline is deceptive: “Justice Dept. Charges Prominent Civil Rights Group With Financial Crimes”.
It’s very telling that the mainstream left-wing media is completely ignoring this story as I type these words.
I have little compassion for the SPLC. They were one of the first people to accuse RooshV of starting a hate group in an era when RooshV’s forum was one of the few online spaces where men could feel supported, in an era that was so “woke” and man-hating that Al Franken’s career was ruined for putting his hands above a woman’s breasts in a picture which was obviously intended to be a joke.
The problem the SPLC and similar institutions which call out men for being “misogynistic” is that they have become leftists who look the other way, ignoring the widespread misandry coming from the left.
samiam
1mo ago
I don’t think those women were thinking men were mostly ugly. I think what happened is that women don’t build attraction from just looks the way men do.
In terms of replication, the results are generally not the gap we saw in that old OkCupid chart but, yes, there is a gap.
Misandry was normalized in the 2010s in really ugly ways:
- RooshV was banned from England for proposing an International Meetup Day for men
- Scott Aaronson was raked over the coals for saying “being a nerdy male might not make me ‘privileged’”
Even here in the 2020s, a lot of these misandrists, as just one example, age gap shame, but explicitly (or implicitly) say it’s only an issue when the man is older:
- This age gap shamer attacking Toby Maguire (50) for dating a 20-year-old woman says it’s OK when the woman is older
- Jessica pin age gap shamed here (even blocking me for posting stats showing her data was unreliable) then turns around and celebrates older women getting together with younger men.
Point being, people say idiotic provocative crap online for engagement.
samiam
1mo ago
it is probably because of being on the internet in the 2010s
The big difference between 2010s manosphere content and 2020s manosphere content is that there was a lot more optimism in the 2010s. 2010s RedPill content, yes, believed myths like 80/20 and AF/BB (i.e. the myth that only a few men get to be sexually active with a lot of women) but they also showed men how to sleep with a lot of women, and believed any man could achieve that with hard work. This was, of course, degeneracy, but there was an optimism I don’t see these days.
My biggest frustration is how this content is designed to have the most misogynist and negative view of women possible, believe myths simply because they make women look bad and make men angry with women, e.g. If I had a nickel every time that dishonest version of the 2009 OkCupid chart was reposted, I would be very rich.
This flamebait results in engagement, so it goes viral, but it isn’t healthy because it results in men hating women unreasonably. (There’s also misandry online, but that’s another discussion for another day)
My general impression is that Europe doesn’t respect free speech the way we do in the United States. For example, in England, one RooshV was banned from entering England (even for getting on a connecting flight) because he expressed views the leaders of England disagreed with.
I think a strong case that a lot of the online censorship (e.g. not allowing people to have frank discussions about Trans rights—and, yes it’s Reddit’s trans rights discussion censorship which drove The Motte to have their own website instead of remaining on Reddit) we saw in the late 2010s and early 2020s was partly a result of EU overreach. Indeed, Twitter/X doesn’t censor the way most other major social media platforms do, and they were hit with a huge fine from the EU late last year, and I feel the EU unfairly targeted Twitter/X because that platform allows people to express views which get people banned on other platforms.
For one, I’m glad this site is here to allow frank discussions. Yeah, it can be right-learning, but considering a lot of mainstream right-wing views are straight up suppressed and silenced on other platforms, it’s no surprise right wing people flock to the relatively few platforms which allow frank open discussion.
I’m saying all this as a classic liberal.
samiam
3mo ago
People who give advice on Reddit
I know, and I don’t have a link on me, that there’s a survey out there showing that Reddit has really gont downhill over the last decade: A decade ago, people were saying that people should try and work out issues in a relationship, but now most Reddit posters tell someone to end the relationship as soon as there are problems.
Reddit is full of lies and hatred. It’s always been a shithole for drug addicts and other really unpleasant people, and it’s gotten a lot worst post-Woke-culture.
samiam
3mo ago
My thought really quickly: LLMs are very good at tasks based on understanding of language, such as translation and copy editing the writings of someone not literate enough to write in proper English—and no, I don’t need LLMs to write good English (I also have had an em-dash on my customized keyboard mapping for well over a decade).
However, I know multiple people who use LLMs to get relationship advice or other services best left to a therapist, and this example of how they can’t correctly answer a question about whether to drive or walk to a car wash is a good example which I can use to show people they can’t ask a LLM whether to go out with someone/stay together with someone or give them a lot of space, because while LLMs speak languages well, they can’t do other tasks.
Another example: There’s a story going around that a Chess world champion played a LLM at Chess, and not only won, but won without losing a single piece. Naturally, AI can play Chess well enough to defeat him, but the technology used is something called “NNUE” (a different AI tech) along with alpha-beta pruning, not an LLM.
As an aside, a Chess engine strong enough to defeat world champions is fun to play with, because I can ask it questions like “Looking at all 20 of White’s legal first moves, which move makes the game as balanced as possible, giving White and Black equal winning chances?” and it will give me an answer like “1. a3” (the exact answer depends on how deep we search, but 1. a3 comes up at 21-ply and 35-ply deep searches). There’s even a version of this Chess engine which can play a lot of Chess Variants, so I can ask it questions like “given a larger board with two new pieces, one that moves like a knight or bishop, another that moves like a knight or rook, and given a particular opening setup, which White move gives him the most winning chances, and how much of an advantage does White have in this opening setup? What about an opening move to give both White and Black equal winning chances?”
OK, let’s look at an example of something posted on X from a troll farm in Africa:
https://archive.ph/20260127123745/https://x.com/Chizitere_xyz/status/2015879947659645361
(I blocked them for being in a troll farm, and I could tell it was troll farm content just by looking at it)
Your impression?
Edit: Another troll farm post
https://archive.ph/20260128064238/https://x.com/meishato/status/2016321283693412834
(The notion that women do all of the domestic labor in partnerships is a myth; see this article and if you think IfStudies are too biased, this study shows that men do more work in partnerships when we take in to account paid labor)
Edit: The troll farms also post hot take replies to get engagement. See https://archive.ph/20260130134610/https://x.com/ohreallly170464/status/2016975167738491090
samiam
4mo ago
Keep in mind that every time someone smokes weed in the United States, they are still engaging in an illegal act (yes, it’s legal in many states, but still illegal at the federal level). Every time one goes over 55 (or 65, or as much as 80) on the freeway, they are engaging in an illegal act.
There are a lot of things people do in their day to day lives which are illegal, but enforcement is selective.
For years, decades, we have allowed “illegals” to come here, we have allowed them to work here, heck big portions of our economy depend on their “illegal” labor (let me tell you, house maintenance has been a lot cheaper for me because I’m English-Spanish bilingual). It’s something we have permitted because it has benefited us as a nation.
Trump coming down this hard in “illegals” is unprecedented, and while there is a lot I dislike about the Blue Tribe, I can see why they’re so up in arms about ICE’s raids.
samiam
4mo ago
The problem is this: On the Internet, we don’t know if it’s organic disagreement or people in troll farms. Indeed, a lot of the really controversial stuff posted on X (Twitter) we know for a fact comes from a troll farm (a lot of that content trying to go viral is posted from India, Nigeria, or Southeast Asia, all three places with a lot of troll farms), since X lets us know the country someone posts from.
So, yes, it’s sometimes organic disagreement, but it’s sometimes troll farms.
samiam
4mo ago
I don’t think the grandparent is saying that drug overdose + positional asphyxiation leads to death. I think he is saying that drug overdoses lead to death, whether or not the person is subject to positional asphyxiation during his drug overdose.
samiam
4mo ago
Have an awkward date, then she might badmouth you on tea app to every woman around. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-30/one-of-the-most-popular-apps-in-the-us-is-fuelling-a-gender-war/105706068
It’s my understanding that the Tea app was removed from the Apple store. Has that changed?
Yes, and based on women’s porn preferences, we have solid scientific studies backing up that claim.
More options
Context Copy link