domain:mattlakeman.org
aqouta
4m ago
I dunno dude, the idea of thinking of a wife as like some kind of utility calculation around chore maxxing or whatever seems like the kind of thing that deranges radical feminists. Our society is structured around you picking one person who is closer to you than anyone else, that swears to you a mutual pact of loyalty and confidence. They aren't like your butler who can quit at any moment and you're expected to congratulate them on getting a better offer. We've added some escape clause but the basic idea is still to death do us part. You pick them and then get to turn off the part of your brain worried about mate selection and the two of your focus on the more important things, the two of you against the world. You can't pay and assistant to have undying loyalty through sickness and in health. Maybe Bezos isn't getting that from his wife, I wouldn't know, but I'm providing that to one person and she's providing it to me.
grognard
Intel Pentium III 450 / Nvidia Riva TNT2 Ultra / Corsair 128MB PC133 / ABIT BH6
25m ago
Meanwhile, right-wing nativist Chuds in my parents' country have decided they think bloodline-based citizenship is the actual menace and are taking steps towards ending it.
What is the reasoning here?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
26m ago
if the position is that all US interests are subordinate to Israeli interests
Israel doesn't own the US government but they have enormous influence especially in foreign policy and anything pertaining to Israel. Occasionally the US tries to do something that actually prioritizes American interests over Israel's, the Israel lobby usually nixes this in the end: the Iran deal for instance. Now the US does have huge leverage over Israel in terms of capabilities. Merely shutting off aid would be catastrophic for their military, who relies on US provided weapons, satellites, communications and USAF for air defence. I've said before that the US could annihilate Israel at will with sanctions alone, the state would quickly disintegrate.
But in terms of mental, political, lobbying power, Israel enjoys a huge advantage. The warrior can easily demolish a succubus in battle but it's irrelevant if she has her charm spell running.
I'm not dogmatic on whether it's arm-twisting or owning hearts and minds, there's a mix of both going on. Nor can I give you a date where it suddenly happened, it's not a switch that was flipped on but a gradual process peaking around the 2000s.
But something, surely, has to be off when you've got big figures like Ted Cruz going on interviews about how the Bible says God will bless those who bless Israel, curse those who curse Israel, how he got into politics aiming to be the biggest defender of Israel. Some of this is Adelson money and other Israel lobby cash/threats, some of it is weird Christianity, nevertheless it's unusual and indicates powerful influence.
You paint a picture of my coworker in your head based on two lines of text. It holds no value to reality beyond whatever delusions you need it to hold in your own mind so that you can express yourself.
I would quibble with this. The picture in my head is the picture you have painted! You are using him as a witness to bolster your argument, but you still haven’t given me any other description of him to change my impression that your witness is weak and unreliable. If he has other laudable qualities that might change that opinion, what are they? Because you make him sound like a loser, and based on that picture you are painting, I am suggesting to you that you shouldn’t listen to losers.
Beyond that, people having issues with marriages is not a thing that exists within the confines of my workplace. There are examples of this all around us. If you want to ignore that fact and pretend my workplace experience is unique or unrepresentative go ahead.
I don’t think I’ve said anything to imply that your coworker or your workplace experience of men griping about their wives is unique or unrepresentative? I have heard plenty of guys who constantly gripe about their wives. These guys are just always very unimpressive.
Look, if you’re going to bring your coworker in as evidence for your case, don’t be mad when a competing lawyer looks to dismantle your witness. That’s the whole point of Internet autistic debate club.
Which brings me to me final point.
I would however argue that you need marriage as proof of commitment for some long term goal, like children. Marriage, I'd argue, is a 'utilitarian' or 'materialist' contract.
To that end, marriage is not of any utility for a billionaire. Bezos doesn't need the utility of marriage to experience any of the love a woman could give him. And I'm not saying that in some 'penis into hole' utilitarian sexual gratification kind of way. Bezos can get the purest love of any man and would never need marriage to deal with any of life's problems because the material problems marriage can help ameliorate will never exist for a billionaire to begin with.
You have an axiom, expressed above and you are arguing in favor of axiom.
A useful analogy here is that we are discussing a box. Your priors, your axiom say that the box must logically be black. But the evidence of your own eyes indicates that the box is white. Rather than reassess your axiom, you insist that something is wrong with the box.
We are discussing marriage. Your axiom says that marriage is a materialist, utilitarian contract that is not of any utility for a billionaire. But the evidence of your own eyes is that very nearly every billionaire on Earth appears to find some kind of utility in it. These are, rationally, men who are smarter, more ruthless, and more charismatic than probably any “wife guy” you’ve ever met. They’ve very likely had any number of utility function thoughts regarding marriage run through their heads, and their revealed preference continues to be for marriage.
I am saying that the box isn’t wrong, your axiom is. There is something more than material utility that billionaires are finding in marriage, because marriage is about more than ameliorating material problems.
P.S. I went back through your older posts to get a sense of your philosophical foundations.
Now, women have already made their choice. And I think their choice was made before you saw any widescale acceptance of black pilled nihilism about life and the lack of value placed on work and pushing yourself. Exhibited by many men in the thread you linked. To that end I think the chain of causality that leads to many of our issues, though certainly not all, lies at the feet of women having the power to make that poor choice.
The last part of that last sentence is (paraphrasing), something that I have said to my wife and we are still married. Men have been getting suckered by women and letting them out of the circle of protection (or abuse) to make poor choices ever since Adam. I (strategically) proselytize this message in real life as much as I can.
I just take a similar or related stance to you from a starting point of non-material axioms. Marriage is a gift from God that lessons the pain of this world, and in a way above materialism, makes two into one. So when the box is white, I’m not surprised. The evidence fits the axiom! Billionaires are finding something materially inexplicable in marriage. The evidence fits the axiom!
Low murder rate, relatively rich. HDI is 'very high' what are you complaining about?
I admit that I didn't define the difference between low and high performance but I do strongly think there's a difference between more or less rich, developed countries and places (like South Africa) where the health minister might declare that HIV vaccines are some kind of imperialist plot, or where raping virgins to cure aids is widespread. You can have bad economic policies but still be high performance, all that means is that your abilities are hampered like taking an exam in a loud room. And accordingly Argentina is still decent and safe, they score OK on the test, could be better. The retarded students though, it doesn't matter if the room is loud or quiet, the results aren't going to be good.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
55m ago
Is the US really losing much by banning them from office? All that would happen is some rioting, which can be quickly and easily put down with a little effort. West Africans are notoriously bad at fighting, disorganized and inaccurate marksmen. Of course it's a totally moot point since as bad as West Africans are at fighting, US whites are even less willing to force the issue.
I already answered this. There's no practical program because you'd need a game-changing event for this to be possible. We may as well theorize about the balance of power between Earth and Mars or how to restore the Bourbon Dynasty to the throne of France. Maybe I think the Bourbons would be amazing for France. But I obviously have no practical idea to make this happen because it's impractical and would require an incredible turn of fortune to be even conceivable.
Really don't understand the point of trying to get these 'damning' confessions of wrongthink out of me.
clo
56m ago
At the end of the day, modern relationship formation is less about the practical benefits as was the case for almost all of human history, and almost entirely about self-esteem and self-actualization; hence the rise of incels [who are bereft of the validation of being desired, not the literal act of sex] and romantasy fiction. How much does it validate me that I have a high status / hot / rich partner willing to have sex and be seen in public with me? Have I now truly found my soulmate, the ideal parent for my children? This is, of course, an impossible standard to meet for the vast majority of people and relationships and hence most people who think this way end up dissatisfied and unhappy - and yet without the illusion of self-actualization what else is there really to gain bonding yourself to someone else with a bond that is not a bond?
This is one of the most devastating and accurate observations I've ever read. It almost deserves its own post. I'm going to think on it a while and maybe lose some sleep - nothing else to add at this point, but chalk another one up for this being another unforeseen payoff of the Century of the Self.
Forty-Bot
57m ago
I'm using the "4chan" one with some custom CSS I found at some point. idk what it does at this point but it works and I'm not changing it.
hanikrummihundursvin
59m ago
You paint a picture of my coworker in your head based on two lines of text. It holds no value to reality beyond whatever delusions you need it to hold in your own mind so that you can express yourself.
To make a long story short: you don't need a marriage to find genuine love and affection. To insinuate the alternative to marriage is prostitutes is inane at best. And if someone has had more than 6 marriages then I'm not sure what the institution of marriage even means in relation to this argument, beyond being some hold over that men gravitate to because they tend to feel affection for inanimate objects and ideas.
On the flipside, there are a lot of losers getting married every day. And they outnumber the winners. Not that this is a terribly relevant thing, as I don't see the relevance in your argument towards anything I've said.
Beyond that, people having issues with marriages is not a thing that exists within the confines of my workplace. There are examples of this all around us. If you want to ignore that fact and pretend my workplace experience is unique or unrepresentative go ahead. But I think most people can understand the utility of having billions of dollars to employ people who can solve most of the problems in your personal life so that you can spend your free time doing something with your loved one that you both like doing, rather than saddling them with household chores or whatever.
That's how I understood it, and I still don't know what's supposed to be so uncivilized about the Iranian government.
More options
Context Copy link