domain:archive.ph
The American Civil War involved a whole lot less "stamping out", and in fact the people on the other side of it formed a cohesive society together, and still resolved the issue at hand quite decisively.
If you tried to do that to a significant majority (around 70% support for first trimester abortion) maybe it is you that would be taken before a firing squad.
Percentages of approval can in fact change over time. And in this case, where I observe that approval being established by overwhelming amounts of propaganda on one side of the issue, deployed by an interlocking social elite that is now teetering on the edge of collapse, I think the odds of a productive conversation are better than you allow.
In any case, opposition to serious, deep-rooted evil always carries risk. Those risks are acceptable. I do not endorse the John Brown method, but you should give some actual thought to what John Brown actually did, and how we regard him today. Likewise, you should consider how small the percentage of Americans were who were actually willing to fight explicitly for abolition, even well into the war.
It might be intellectually incoherent
Nonsense, that is perfectly coherent.
Men, Inc. wants to acquire sex for as little a price as possible (as opposed to Women, Inc., which wants to set the price of sex as high as possible). Everything either one does is downstream from that fundamental fact, which is itself downstream from human biology. (This analysis ignores men that want commitment/women who want sex, but those are statistical outliers and can be safely ignored.)
So we should expect, when men are dominant in society, that we see lots of high-quality sex at affordable prices (so lots of mistresses, sex-pro-quo/workplace sex [historically frustrated by the lack of co-ed workplaces but the prototypical example is the Casting Couch] and secret other families, the 'raise my kids/be exclusive to me while I fuck other women' polyamory, and maximally attractive [as in, 13-16 year old] brides... into marriages that bind them but doesn't protect their interests in any way); when women are dominant in society, we should expect price controls out the ass ('fight for 25', #metoo, 'if she's younger than you it's rape', the 'pay my bills while I fuck other men' polyamory, and marriages that bind men but don't protect their interests in any way).
One might very reasonably say that it's bizarre and inconsistent
Unless Women, Inc. is in control, in which case again, it's perfectly consistent that men be punished [more severely than for most other crimes, including murder] for an act that inherently devalues older women. Young women are competition for old women, you see, so naturally old women would seek to keep them out of the sexual marketplace so they can demand a higher price. It is quite literally just the distaff counterpart to the "state-mandated girlfriend", but that selfishness is tolerated/Women, Inc. can afford that right now, so it continues (contrast men, who are forced to support children born of statutory rape).
There'd need to be a huge, forceful redistribution of political power for this to happen, likewise with largescale cloning or any other effective solution.
Not necessarily; Men, Inc. started ceding power to Women, Inc. in a major way centered around the 1900s. The suffragettes were not a violent movement. What did change was technology that brought the average woman up to the productivity of the average man- the sweatshop is an equalizing force, you see- and why lots of traditionalists get confused about the Sexual Revolution, because it was in a time of economic productivity that didn't solely advance men.
It is worth noting that the Japanese solution you mentioned above addresses both male and female selfishness according to what the balance of power in the society could bear at the time. To deal with Men, Inc. you impose heavy costs on sex (and make sure that having it with more than one woman is unaffordable); to deal with Women, Inc. you suppress their worth outside of sex (and make sure that they don't have a good life outside of a context where they're selling that sex to a man).
ResoluteRaven
19hr ago
The absolute last thing anyone here needs is more blackpills about dating. Yes, the apps suck. Yes, there are people who will always be more attractive than you due to the vagaries of genetics and society. Yes, birth and marriage rates are going down the drain. No one can deny these things; we live them every day and they have been discussed to death here and elsewhere. If you have some new data apart from Tinder screenshots, that would be interesting. If you insist that we must all accept our place at the bottom of the totem pole in our new de facto polygamous society, that could be an interesting line of inquiry too. After all, we have plenty of historical examples for comparison, as well as other analogous traits (e.g. will people respond any differently to being told they belong to a group with below average IQ vs. a group with below average reproductive success?). Just give us something to work with besides "we're cooked, gooners."
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
19hr ago
The conventional wisdom and proper scientific studies will tell you that you can't do it. I'll tell you that you can in certain limited circumstances but that getting on Semiglutide and trying to force yourself to eat more protein to gain muscle feels like a bit of a self-licking ice cream cone. You'd be much better off cycling from trying to build muscle to trying to cut weight. When you try to build muscle while also trying to restrict your appetite to lose weight, there's a risk you aren't going to do either, and you're going to find yourself months from now having achieved neither. I've never tried it with semaglutide, but I speak from experience on the topic. That said, here's my largely woo-woo experience with recomping.
I assume when you're saying you're doing hypertrophy-focused workouts you mean moderate-to-high reps in lots of exercises? Don't do that. Everyone I know who hops on semaglutide, and most people on cuts anyway, lack energy so you don't want to be trying to do long workouts with tons of sets of tons of exercises. You'll wear yourself out and increase the likelihood of injury.
What you want to do if you want to retain muscle and maybe build a little, while losing fat is two things: convince your body that it needs as much muscle as possible, while also convincing your body that it needs to be lighter. Do the former by doing low-rep high-intensity work in the weightroom, do the latter by doing bodyweight exercises.
I'm convinced that the body is "smarter" than we think it is in terms of building muscle or burning fat, in repsonse to the stimuli it gets from the outside world. Your body interprets calorie restriction as famine, food is less available. In that scenario, if you don't need maximum strength, your body is going to discard muscle as unnecessary. But just a few sets of high intensity lifts, and your body is going to assume that it needs that muscle to keep getting food in a famine environment, and will preserve it.
Similarly, if you're doing a lot of pull ups and push ups, climbing, muscle ups, etc your body knows that the resistance it faces is relative to its own weight and wants to reduce the load, or at least not increase it, and responds by leaning out. Exercise science tells us that resistance is resistance, but popular myth will point out that push ups and pull ups lean you out in ways that lifting never does.
This is my wild speculation on the topic at hand.
ABigGuy4U
19hr ago
What “other lands” could possibly explain casting Anya? Mars? Proxima Centauri? I don’t buy it. It’s clearly woke pro extraterrestrial propaganda. They take special glee in ayy-washing films set in ancient Europe. It’s the same reason they cast her The VVitch.
Anya Taylor-Joy's character in The Northman was a slave taken from raids on other lands. The raid the protagonist is taking part in when he finds out about his uncle and then runs off to take revenge is a raid on Garðaríki, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gar%C3%B0ar%C3%ADki
Not Scandinavia.
Also her character is meant to be Olga of Kiev: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_of_Kiev
ABigGuy4U
20hr ago
I did just watch a movie called The Northman
The Northman was ahistorical subversive GARBAGE. I got 15 minutes into that film and it was looking pretty based and redpilled and then ^^^Anya Taylor-Joy^^^ showed up. So now we have to take a historically accurate film set in Scandinavia in the Eighth Century AD on Earth and cram an ayylmao actress into it in the name of “diversity”
—inb4 some onions boy is like “weeell ACKSHUALLY there were ayylmao minority populations living in Scandinavia back then, look at this article from ^^^Barbra Xorlon-Stygggaszzzt^^^ from the history department at ^^^the University of New Mexico, Roswell^^^”
I don’t care. One blurry UFO in one Viking woodcut doesn’t mean we have to take work away from human actresses and give it to ayys. This is human erasure.
Loquat
20hr ago
I got a couple of hours in, and I'm really torn between wanting to see more of the story, and intensely disliking JRPG turn-based combat with quicktime events. (Yes, I set the difficulty to Story mode and win most fights handily, but I still don't enjoy doing them.)
Were the guys that they refused to make introductions for lacking social proof? The guy they've never seen in a relationship before, even if a good guy in other aspects of his life is not a known good party for a relationship, he's an unknown, untested, possibly one that has some red flags that scare women away because increasingly as a man gets older from a woman's (mistaken) point of view it should have happened at organically if there was nothing "off" relationship wise with this guy.
Once a guy has just one relationship that wasn't completely disastrous done, only then have I seen women willing to endorse him.
OliveTapenade
20hr ago
I'm far from convinced of this - if I think about what women of my acquaintance tell me about male attractiveness, and how it syncs up with my own judgements, it certainly doesn't seem as if I'm blind to what they like.
I actually find your argument here a bit odd because it's a well-replicated finding, surely, that women care less about physical attractiveness than men do. Attitude and bearing are worth a lot more than symmetrical facial features. Women do care about appearance, but as far as I'm aware, less intensely than men do.
In this case specifically I wonder more about the algorithm. I don't know how Tinder works specifically, but I've used other dating apps before and most of them have some kind of recommendation function, where the app will suggest particular people to you. In most apps I've seen you can pay money to the app to get yourself bumped higher up the queue. So for all I know, X random man with some ridiculous number of hits is just some guy who got really lucky on the algorithm - who had the Tinder equivalent of going viral on Twitter. But you shouldn't make sweeping generalisations from a weird outlier. It's like seeing someone win the lottery and assuming that it's due to his in-born talent for personal finance. For all you know it's a combination of random chance and buying a lot of tickets.
As I said, I don't know how Tinder works specifically. I understand that Tinder is a casual hook-up app, and I have no interest in that, so I've never used it. (Though that probably also distorts the results and makes them unrepresentative of most people's romantic preferences and experiences.) I'm speculating wildly here, but I suspect no more wildly than you are.
TitaniumButterfly
21hr ago
Oh man, this guy gets to read the second half of Cryptonomicon for the first time.
I'm always in torture arguing with myself about whether it's too soon to read it (yet) again. I think it's been every 3-4 years.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
21hr ago
It might be intellectually incoherent but it worked.
Obviously the modern context presents different challenges. Child mortality is not sky high anymore.
However, our society has huge coercive resources. Economically, citizens are coerced by powerful bureaucracies to fund all kinds of programs, wars, welfare. Socially, policing works via coercion. They don't just educate people on what to do, people are coerced by police wielding guns.
There's no reason to drop coercion entirely with regards to sexual relations when it's present in all other aspects of life. In fact there are extremely strong coercive systems set up for underage sex and other scenarios. One might very reasonably say that it's bizarre and inconsistent to have such harshness allocated for relatively minor problems while civilization-ending, nation-ending decline is met with a limp-wristed 'we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas, bring in more immigrants'. Imperial Japan tried coercion, they restricted female employment, banned abortion and taxed bachelors. There was modest fertility growth in an industrializing, urbanizing society albeit complicated by the war. In 1945 the US changed their constitution to give equal rights to women and Japanese fertility plummeted, never to recover.
https://x.com/SyroJaziran/status/1848973547344928887
This kind of coercion may not be the only solution but it is a solution. There could also be incentives-based solutions. Take the entire pension budget and transfer it to fund parents who raise children to certain standards. 10-15% of GDP should get things happening. But you'd have real political problems doing this, any sufficiently powerful incentive resembles coercion, it would require the same voter-proof political consensus that mass immigration enjoys in many Western countries. There'd need to be a huge, forceful redistribution of political power for this to happen, likewise with largescale cloning or any other effective solution.
anti_dan
21hr ago
A scathing account of someone who the Democrat Party is currently scapegoating for their loss of power by transcribing for those doing the scapegoating is not "good journalism".
urquan
Blessings crown the head of the righteous, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.
21hr ago
I don't think it's sour grapes; my understanding is that HereAndGone identifies as asexual. Asexual people, having known multiple as friends... don't often understand just how little they understand about how sexual attraction works. You can see that in how none of her criticism is actually about attractiveness -- she's judging their personal style and how they come across in a social-presentation manner, not whether they're hot or not.
But also people can be very critical, especially when evaluating people as romantic partners, and especially when doing so as an exercise instead of actually dealing with a real person. Men can be similarly critical of women, if you put them in the right context, or if they won't tell you about the labor dispute at Starbucks. This is a big reason why dating apps enable and drive some of our worst instincts -- people are caricatures and not people.
That being said, the turtleneck is a bit silly and the photos do look overly polished, but standing out by dressing slightly oddly and taking overly polished photos is basically what you have to do. If you're going to be a caricature of yourself, you might as well lean into it.
hydroacetylene
21hr ago
No, there really are lots of quiet, shy, stereotypically feminine women who aren't part of the mainstream dating market because it scares them. They'll venture out into some attempt at dating every once in a while, get scares, and withdraw back to their shells.
hydroacetylene
21hr ago
My advice in general would be for guys to take photos from below
Just generally some easy appearance hacks for guys- take photos from below, have a good haircut, wear clothes that fit, unless you're notably tall wear cowboy boots(comes off as masculine and adds 2"), know thyself with respect to facial hair(Nietzsche moustaches and civil war general chops are out, obviously, but some people benefit from a beard and some don't), stay in shape but don't worry about muscles. Dress a rung or maybe two up on the formality ladder from what the situation technically calls for. Obviously, groom yourself well.
Rov_Scam
22hr ago
It's not that bad. People just like to be dramatic and use questionable statistics to explain away their crappy profiles.
5434a
22hr ago
Arrange an event and invite the people you want to get to know better.
The main ingredients are an easily understood distracting activity or two that promotes interaction (cooking/eating, watching sport on a screen, simple table games, whatever suits you and your group), somewhere to rest and an informal atmosphere.
If you don't want to arrange something yourself look for similar low stakes events around your area and ask if they're thinking about going, then if they're open to the idea suggest meeting there.
ChickenOverlord
22hr ago
By chance are you a white American or European?
No amount of game or self improvement will ever get you close to that if you lack the genetic basis for it. It's like thinking a 70 IQ man can become a world class physicist and win the Nobel prize if he just tried hard enough-- the world doesn't work that way.
I've certainly met people who aren't very attractive but some combination of attire and posture and personality gets them laid a lot.
It mostly seems illegible to me (and probably them). When it comes to discussion of game I imagine it's people trying to crack that code for themselves. It's probably not hopeless to try, if that's one's goal, even if they aren't the top 10% hottest in terms of profile pics.
Online dating is probably not your strong suit if you're not in the top 10%. You're probably a lot better off going out and getting drunk and hitting on girls in that case.
TIRM
23hr ago
Yes, the Cambodian genocide and the American Civil War are examples of a significant minority of society getting stamped out. But you can't do that easily. And that was a large majority crushing a relatively small minority.
If you tried to do that to a significant majority (around 70% support for first trimester abortion) maybe it is you that would be taken before a firing squad.
stolen_brawnze
I am the way Sia says "batteries" in that one song.
23hr ago
I already know you're the Indian doctor atheist transhumanist novelist. So if I ever generalize in such a way again you can be sure to exclude yourself from the group for the sake of my point.
This seeeeeeems like a tongue in cheek pantomime of anti woke media preferences, but ahem.
If you think The Northman is pozzed then i literally dont know what you want out of movies. That actresses eyes arent quite far apart enough to make her diverse.
More options
Context Copy link