@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

I don't think men who are better than women at what vtubers do exist in sufficient numbers to make it economically viable instead of just hiring women.

There is a plot justification for the android being a little girl: it's specifically designed to be a guinea pig for testing medical treatments intended for the creator's daughter. As for why they made the medical testing doll not just agentic, but also in a human girl-like manner, your guess is as good as mine. But of course, the real reason is probably that there wouldn't be a plot without that.

God of War 2018???

I can't help but notice the irony of a prominent Christian writer deriding "omnipotent moral busybodies", emphasis on the omnipotent.

Does the data about the number of organ transplants per year come from Falun Gong?

I think that kind of attitude is shortsighted.

Consider that you're currently living in a world where red all but won (we are ruled by massive nation-states and corporations that live according to the principle of preserving themselves first and promote people who do that for them), and the percentage of those really willing to take major risks for others is quite low when put to a real test. Conversely, there must be many decent people who would vote red yet aren't complete insufferable psychopaths and egoists (if only because ~45% of voters on a major twitter poll probably aren't completely insufferable).

If you hold people to the standard of them being willing to risk their own life to save yours, you'll likely find yourself disappointed. (Not just risk, in fact - risk implies some measure of the risker's skill and agency mattering - but gamble.)

For all the arguments on how we might not be that much unlike the clankers, I just can't find them interesting. Not when they have no real experience, no memory of note, and everything unique about any particular instance is something I had deliberately prompted.

Who knows, maybe if I could snap human beings into existence on a whim for a chat and delete them when I'm done, I'd think of humans the same way, too.

Remember, the seduction line is not "you'd make a great dad", it's "I want your babies".

The crime example seems to imply the opposite of what you're getting at. Yes, crime is self-destructive, and it appears that the optimal way to deal with crime is to destroy criminals even further, hopefully deterring some, rather than pour the efforts of 50% of society into a vast project of reeducation and reconciliation that gets abused unless it works just right.

There's no person in the world I wouldn't prefer to outlive rather than die. In addition, many of my friends I've polled vote red and they're not that bad to spend the thanos snap apocalypse with.

If Twitter is that close, and assuming that Twitter selects for caving to social pressure and aggressively pro-social signaling, then I don't have high hopes blue wins overall.

Funny thing, I recall that last time this was dropped I was arguing for blue.

I have seen many girls who put "I'm 5'11'', please be taller" in the bio, not a single one who'd put "I'm 5'11'', short kings come here". The dearth of short guys pairing up with taller girls, on face, appears to be entirely by choice of said girls. On the flipside, in spaces where men don't feel like they have to posture for women's (or men's) respect or approval, many state (honestly, I must assume) their desire for tall mommies.

Where do you find guys who say they don't want taller girls?

Being physically fit has value beyond just being higher on the relative scale of attractiveness. Facial shape doesn't appear to have it.

The same reason why when a woman says "it's not you, it's me, I'm just not ready right now", what a dating-savvy man hears is "it's absolutely you".

Oh no. Not the right wing trolls patch! I, a devious left-wing wrecker, could never benefit from flooding the Motte with low-quality right-wing discourse!

Many regulars are indistinguishable from trolls, if their median post was their first they'd be filtered. I say there's nothing wrong with letting in some fresh troll blood.

In gaming it's more like "high-skill players are not entitled to infinite noobs to stomp". Noobs don't like getting stomped, and it doesn't seem to be good for long-term playerbase vitality. High-skill players can always have as high a winrate as they want against bots.

You could do welfare/tax incentives for girl children only.

I mean, even if the top players think smurfing is lame (they are motivated by their competitiveness and do not desire weak opponents), there are still smurfs who are skilled enough to stomp on weak players and driven enough by the desire to simply win, no matter against whom, to do so.

I don't think the metaphor applies to men striving to get women anyway, because most men don't appear to be competitive with other men on this. They want a partner above some baseline level of beauty, and would take several if they can get away with it, but competing with other men is not a motivation. "Trophy wives" only appear to be a male status symbol among the very top elites, who appear to be pathologically driven to competition in as may small ways as possible.

I think when encountering Chad "smurfing" in person, i.e. someone from a high-status environment coming to a lower-status one to fish for girls (or even just coming there without the overt intent to steal mates), men did react with hostility historically. The city boy among the country boys; the student from an elite school among the kids from a merely "decent" one, etc.

Women that are both psychologically and physically fit for a job involving subjugating men through overwhelming violence appear to be very rare, even with guns as the equalizer. I suspect the number of men such a society could control would be too low to do all the hard labor, or else it would be the men in the military who would be the actual slavedrivers.

Unlike the harem world, men probably wouldn't vote for that one.

This appears to me to be like the thing with "economically viable oil fields". If we run out of economically viable oil fields, we don't run out of oil. We just move on to the next most viable oil fields. Similarly, many jobs appear to employ primarily men at the moment because a) women are less efficient and currently not economically viable; b) many of those jobs are shitty and men complain less about them. That doesn't show that women are physically unable to perform those jobs.

There would be some productivity hit, but I struggle to see how the market that can afford to pay so many people to do so many vastly less fundamental bullshit jobs couldn't absorb that hit without total society collapse.

I suspect that much of that can be handled. Workloads adapting for lifting smaller weights at a time where before the weights were as large as men could afford to regularly lift; using more teamwork; employing the stronger women who can actually lift 50 pounds.

Women would probably get jealous at this state of affairs. Many women would think, "why couldn't I have been born a man?" It wouldn't look like a feminist utopia.

They already say all that. Why should we actually give them the low-status male slave class? Go, 1/10 gender ratio fanfiction made reality!

I recall the Chinese did infant sex selection, and that it didn't require Nazi camps, merely incentives aligning the right way. Their efforts resulted in demographic horrors because they selected against female children, and women are the bottleneck for reproduction. I'd like to hear the actual arguments against OP's proposal without devolving into "that's Nazi shit", or else I would like to see actual Nazi shit such as proposals to expel Jews/blacks treated the same way.