urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
No bio...
User ID: 226
Hm, I’m wondering if this is highly regional, or maybe generational. The Christians I know take offense at swear words and would be likely to describe them as minor sins. In my household, you got a stern talking to if you said “shit.”
I have also never met anyone who has said a racial slur of any kind unironically in my presence. I think I’m from the region and social class that is least likely to use profanity.
If you know any lesbians and are under the age of 30, you're likely to run into at least a few lesbians who flirt with transitioning or transition. I had one friend from high school who had a bunch of dating struggles as a lesbian (I'm not sure dating women is easy for anyone), and then started flirting with pronoun changes. A not-entirely-small portition of these end up starting to date men after transitioning, too, becoming convinced that in doing so they would be engaging in the gayest, queerest, most countercultural form of sex. Of course, I'm talking about PIV intercourse.
(T is a hellava drug.)
I've also heard of, though never met, "FTM femboys," who as far as I can tell are women who transition to men who dress as women, which is again a bizarre way to arrive at basically heterosexuality. I realize that the femboy thing is distinct from femnininity proper -- try calling a trans woman a femboy and see how it goes -- but at some point the irony and the flip flopping just goes so far that I can't even entertain the logic.
Finally, at least one Crimson headline writer and one cartoonist have suggested that I am anti-Semitic. I regard anti-Semitism, like all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry, as a crime against humanity and whoever calls me an anti-Semite will face a libel suit.
Public writers who threaten critics with a libel suit (especially for an evaluative claim like “is an anti-Semite”) always rub me the wrong way. It just seems pathetic, like running to teacher because someone called you a doo-doo face. The cost of having a following for your thoughts is that someone’s going to misinterpret them. If you can’t take that heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I also feel like it’s a lack of humility — if you’re offering up a radical take on race, someone’s going to find serious issue with that. Maybe they’re misinterpreting you. But the cost of a radical reinterpretation is that the people who rely on the mainstream one will find it intensely offensive. Of course you’re going to get called nasty things! You can wear that as a badge of honor, or shriek about it. Only one of those makes you look like a person with the intellectual humility required to actively argue for a radical take.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Aren’t the user viewpoint focuses supposed to be based on nomination?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
What liturgical book is that from?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
At the end of the day, romantic drive (in the storge sense)
I don't know that storge really describes what I'm getting at when I talk about romantic drive, but that word has been used in all sorts of contexts to mean so many different things, so I don't know.
I find it hard to meaningfully distinguish "companionate love" from "passionate love." I can understand the difference between infatuation (which often involves an impossible idealization) and a deeper intimacy based on truth, but I see a great overlap between the concept of eros and the more companionate romantic love you're describing as storge. In particular, I've been in relationships where the passion increases over time, rather than decreases -- and also where lots of things that are described as characteristic of infatuation (like "'Desire for "complete union,' permanency") also grow over time.
But infatuation is also fun! Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, it has led men and women off cliffs into the great dark beyond. But many great and valuable things begin with a little risk. When I fell in love with a woman for the first time, it was one of the most intense experiences of my life, and I've only ever been able to describe it in spiritual terms, both then and now.
Would you say that you've felt limerance before and believed on that basis that it's dangerous, or is your cynicism about eros based mostly on observing others who've experienced it?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
This is a really excellent post. Identifying what you actually want is extremely important with dating — a big problem is that people are just passively moving through the world, hoping for something to happen, without much direction or purpose. So they end up learning very late what they’re looking for, long past the point where that’s simple to get.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I suppose I can't really relate personally, in the sense that my libido is quite low and I don't have a lot of interest in casual dating or sex.
Do you have a strong romantic drive, or is the concept of marriage for you mostly a material alliance for childrearing? If you lean mostly towards the latter, I think that would absolutely contribute to your feeling that marriage in the modern concept has little to offer.
Also not a fan of casual sex, but my libido is moderate to high. I just enjoy sex with an intimate partner in a romantic context a lot more than casual trysts. I can’t have a tryst without catching feelings — not overwhelming passion or anything, I’m not insane, but I end up wanting to make a connection. I’m probably in the top 10% of men in terms of… romance orientation? Physical affection? Romanticalness? So the incentive for me to date is strong, even if I never wanted to marry, even if I never wanted kids. So long as there’s a woman out there with sweet eyes and a warm smile, I’m going to want to look deeply into them and smile back.
The core problem seems to be that the assumption is that the man is trying to immediately sleep with the woman and dump her after. So a man who’s persistent isn’t expressing how inexhaustible his passion for this particular woman is, he’s trying to wear her down so he can pump her and dump her.
Or at least that’s the fear, which leads to feelings of disgust at persistence. All it takes are a few experiences of being used and discarded to make someone put up massive guardrails. Heck, men feel terrible at being rejected and it’s easy for that to become resentment and contempt. Men (not all of them!) are perfectly willing to lie to score, and that’s a kind of rejection, too. A woman I was in love with once offered a friends with benefits arrangement when I told her how I felt about her. I felt terrible.
Dating in the courtship model only works when people can trust each other; when they’re worthy of trust. That’s broken down.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
they believe that Jesus and the archangel Michael are the same thing
This is actually common in old school Protestantism; if I recall correctly, both Luther and Calvin flirted with the idea. The concept is that “Who is like God” indicates that Michael is like God, I.e. consubstantial with God, I.e. Jesus. It’s also true that the “angel of the Lord” in the OT is often identified with Christ in most Christian traditions, so the idea of “Jesus is an angel and God” isn’t that far fetched.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
tindr
A nitpick, but it’s tinder, with an e. Grindr dropped the e — I guess because “grinder” sounds more like a meat processing tool than a dating app. (Not that dating apps don’t grind people up inside!)
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I strongly believe the “gung ho liturgy go hard fasting is hard everyone must follow rules originally followed by monks” energy of Orthodoxy, which attracts the competitive male converts to it, is also the greatest problem for the Orthodox Church. The “standard” practice is incredibly high — and in service of an incredibly high goal, total union with God. Literally to “have everything that God has.”
I often feel like the Orthodox Church sets up people to fail. All the models of faith that the Orthodox Church offers in modern times are very hard to approach, and many are claimed to literally work miracles. The impression I get is that the goal for the laity is to be a monk. Even the supposed basics involve going vegan for half the year.
And yes, I know the objection: ask your priest! The rules can be changed! Economia!
Gee, thanks. I always wanted to be a charity case, a special exception, because I don’t want to be moaning on the floor of the parish hall on Easter Sunday because I was finally able to eat a cheeseburger. This also understandably raises questions of moral inconsistency and clerical power.
My earlier post about the Orthodox Church, the AAQC one — I guess what I was trying to get across in that rambling diversion was that it’s really hard for me, and people I love, to imagine actually living an Orthodox lifestyle.
Every ex-orthodox rant post I’ve ever read boils down to that — the demands of the Orthodox faith are incredibly high. Perhaps that’s what God asks of people. But perhaps not.
I believe the Western approach, of mandating a low minimum and permitting more intense asceticism as spiritual directors and the Spirit himself guides, is a more human and fruitful approach. It sets up people to succeed, not to fail. And it remains open to sanctity in lay life, in a way I think E. Orthodoxy struggles to do.
Just some disorganized thoughts. But my general posture towards Orthodoxy is this — they can have all the theological points they want, but I have to find the way where I can actually follow Christ. And I’m not convinced the Eastern Orthodox Church is that place.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Well, would you have gone out with him?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
pull through a double spot to be facing out. Some people call it “getaway parking,” others deride it as “ghetto.”
Where I'm from, this is a pretty universal practice. I've never heard it criticized. Typically it's called "getting a pull through spot."
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I see, I had only ever heard about the parental abuse, not the abuse from extended family.
That seems to demonstrate @HereAndGone’s point — she’s dealt with the abuse by making it not about sex but about autonomy, and so I can see how a strong view that does take sexual transgression as corrupting would be incredibly hard to bear.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
"shemales" up on PornHub.
PornHub got with the program, the category is called "trans" now.
Though I don't think transwomen are particularly happy about it either way.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Was she sexually abused? I'm not very familiar with her story. But I thought it was more non-sexual beatings and things like that, at its worst. That's obviously terrible, but I'm not sure it would have the same psychic impact on views of sexuality as being the victim of sexual assault as a child. Does someone more familiar with her story know enough to indicate this?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
The nun fetish is more about the taboo transgression than any sort of resentment about unavailability. If they were just random women who pledged in a non-spiritual manner not to have sex, there wouldn't be the same type of fetish about it. Like the incest stuff that's taken over the world for some reason.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Was "getting matches with available people you find attractive" not an option?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
What the hell is a "fluffler"?
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
It's understandably hard to find someone who will swear "for better or worse" if they fear "for better or else" in return.
At some point, it just seems strange that you'd even want a marriage after developing such a firm opposition to lifelong vows, based on experience with many failed marriages. Why not just have a succession of long-term relationships? Isn't that what your worldview would suggest is the healthy model for relationships? Her post quite evidently states her belief that there is no real continuity of obligation between the past and the present:
But the exclusivity choice was made by their past self, decades ago- a different person, to a different woman, and I can’t help but wonder if they would make that same choice if they knew what they were getting into.
Under those conditions, why get married at all? It's a commitment to a person who -- by her own statement -- disappears, ceases to exist, over time. That's a worldview where marriage doesn't even make sense as an option.
The problem with marriage is increasingly people seem to be treating it as a time-limited commitment: "we'll be together until we decide we don't like it any more, and then divorce." But our legal system is set up based on the older model where marriage is supposed to be truly life-long, and the two really are supposed to have a joint legal identity in a way that makes everything each partner does common property. So, we end up with bitter divorces, vengeful custody disputes, alimony battles.
Not everyone agrees that marriages are made by God to join two together into one flesh -- but without controversy, marriages are made by the state to join two together into one mass of property. The resulting dissolution can only be described as a form of twin-separation surgery, which always leaves damage. What therefore the state has joined together, let not man put asunder.
It really is no wonder to me why so many millennial-and-younger couples are cohabiting, without marrying. They're not in a social and mental context where holding to marriage as a true indissoluble commitment is thinkable, but marriage as it exists on the books imposes costs and consquences that revolve around that kind of commitment.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
I'm used to Rainbow Captalism being a subject of mockery. My coworkers really want it.
I believe the complaint about rainbow capitalism is that the companies talked the talk without walking the walk — it was a fifty stalins criticism. Obviously it is even more upsetting to those critics if even the talk is, uh, walked back.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
7mo ago
Finally, however, I decided to make it a finished comparison, asking o3 instead of 4o (why is the naming so confusing?) to discuss the comment, and, contrary to my expectations, it did way better than Gemini. (4o really is the "overly attached girlfriend" of LLMs.)
The cartographer in the ruins
Both images anchor you in geography — blueprints, globes, cathedral-libraries, islands of light. Why?
The “map / territory” meme-plex. In 2024–25, that phrase saturates the tech-rationalist corner of the internet. Models trained on it learn that serious epistemology → maps, charts, globes. If your chats contain philosophizing about systems and architecture (they do), the latent space practically shouts “cartographer.”
Visual affordances. Maps let an image show both order (grid lines) and chaos (torn parchment) in one frame, mirroring your own “structured but weary” self-description.
Dataset priors. Illustration sites label concept-art with terms like “scholar,” “ancient library,” “blueprint.” That bias nudges any prompt about an introspective thinker toward the same mise-en-scène. In other words, it may be more a reflection of collective internet aesthetics than of you.
So yes, the geography motif has become shorthand for intellectual exploration. It’s less personal biography than cultural archetype.
Relationship vs. Portrait
Gemini’s handshake prompt depicts the relation (“How do you feel about me?”). ChatGPT portrays the subject (“What are you like?”). Both readings are valid; they diverge because:
Prompt-parsing heuristics. Gemini’s RL-fine-tuning seems to weigh interpersonal framing heavily; asking “feel” often yields “we’re partners!” iconography.
Memory & context. Your ChatGPT thread is saturated with mixed humanities/tech content, so it had raw material for a hybrid portrait. Gemini’s lighter context forced a generic, brand-safe answer.
Corporate alignment. A glowing robot-human handshake is basically an internal marketing slide. Whether that’s propaganda or just dataset selection bias is debatable—probably both.
The mysterious late-30s scholar
Age, gender, style details often drift toward the training-set median: Western, 30-ish, mildly rugged. It isn’t “reading” your age; it’s filling gaps with statistically common filler. You are meeting the average intellectual the model has seen, wearing your borrowed face.
That's actually a decent analysis of the differences, with realistic causes.
So... I guess just try both Gemini and ChatGPT and see which glazes you less.
A much better set of citations is Colossians 3:8:
And Ephesians 4:29:
More options
Context Copy link