domain:parrhesia.substack.com
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
Again, I am not surprised by that view.
To focus on the substance though, I think this is exactly where the whole impasse is coming from:
Explicit lack of caring about others is kind of what makes one a "bad person".
I don't agree with that at all. The extent of care that an individual deserves is contingent on their behavior, it isn't just automatically owed to everyone. Related but probably tangential here is that I also don't think I owe care to all humans around the globe and my level of care is higher or lower based on relative levels of closeness to me. For my wife, infinite care. For the guy yelling obscenities at people on the street, very little care. For the terrorist or brutal murderer, anti-care and explicit wishes for the state to terminate their existence.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Theres one gets shot in downtown Dallas every couple of years. Usually around the dump or in the trinity river floodplain. Their normal range peters out right around where the Fort Worth far suburbs turn into generic small towns.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm actually not trying to focus on the root cause, I agree that focusing on the causes doesn't help in the short term.
I'm agreeing that you should be mean and force people out, but that you're not a good person if you don't have a limit on how mean to be.
I don't doubt people think you're a good person, but until you're going to say what your limit is, there's no way to judge. If you limit was all the way to "shoot on sight" that's bad - if it's "we can't move them until we have median-quality housing for them free of charge" that's unrealistically generous.
My line is somewhere around "they should have free housing options somewhat better than the hell-on-earth shelters that currently exist", then you can force them out.
Magusoflight
1d ago
Yup. And while we are granting wishes for things that are good but will never happen, Corporal punishment should also be brought back into schools
rokmonster
Lives under a rok.
1d ago
This is interesting. I think this might be very much a US phenomenon. It would be even more interesting to look at how this varies between cultures and between countries.
In the US cultural context, rich men usually got rich by either having upper-class connections or by being workaholics. In the former case, they are beholden to upper-class cultural norms, which condition a certain status and social acceptability with a similar-age bride from a family of similar class. This might make the young bride less attractive even to this subset of the rich.
Among the US nouveau riche, social skill development is stunted by workaholism, and this probably limits their ability to date young upper class woman. The young upper-class American women I have met recently seem to have their creep detector tuned up to 11 and to habitually present an attitude of cynicism. Which is to say that they will probably make an older man really work for it while they are young, go single for a long time, and not marry until they are late in fertility, starting to get desperate, and cannot afford to be so bitchy.
In the US, there is also a lot of financial risk to marrying young women. Younger women are generally more likely to lose interest in their partner after the first few years, and the loss of 50% of assets during no-fault divorce makes their departure really expensive to rich men.
But thinking of other countries I'm familiar with, it seems that even where 50% split of assets during divorce is not common, compensating social dynamics exist which make the rich man/young woman pairing less common than one would expect. Korea completely lacks the financial divorce risk, but makes up for it with increased social pressure and higher standards for social acceptability, which pushes all relationships (and especially marriages) into similar age brackets.
Perhaps a good experimental counterexample for my explanation would be China, which has low divorce risk and fewer social norms. I think women there get very very picky about their partners' finances, which would predict that rich men there will skew toward younger women and middle-class men there go unmarried until later in life.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
If I see a mountain lion in my neighborhood, something has gone very wrong.
2rafa
1d ago
Red Pill would suggest that a wealthy man can and would keep a soft harem of younger women, discarding them as needed, which isn't really refuted by the data here.
I’d guess actual billionaires (like Hollywood stars, whose indiscretions are more public) have a higher rate of infidelity than average, but do male investment bankers have a higher rate of infidelity than male bartenders, tattoo artists, taxi drivers or nurses? I doubt it. Polling shows that male infidelity stays pretty similar controlling for education and most non-religious class background.
The idea that every rich man who can afford to is secretly fucking hot teens or young women seems like more of a prurient fantasy than anything else. Some do, just like plenty of married cops and truckers fuck hookers. But most? I doubt it.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
It's a huge huge difference though. Canada to the US is almost a 6x difference. Do the inherent population and cultural differences between Canada and the US really justify that? And even if they did, is more prison the best way to close the gap?
I think the more likely truth is that the US is well past the point of diminishing returns when it comes to prison capacity, and should instead spend in other areas, like trying to bring down housing cost and funding proper asylums (rather than prisons).
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
I worded it like that because the OP worded his comment like it was surprising people think these opinions are seen as "bad person" opinions.
No, I'm not surprised by it, I am accustomed to it and acknowledging that I am simply at an impasse with people that differ on this. We have irreconcilable moral intuitions and I'm articulating where I think that comes to a head.
I think if you say "this group of people is annoying, I want them removed by the state and and don't care what happens to them" you've eliminated any possibility of having yourself seen as good, at best you're amoral.
Yeah, obviously I just disagree with this. I consider myself a good person, most people I know consider me a good person, and many other people that both think I'm a good person and see themselves that way agree with my perspective on this matter. I actually don't see my opponents on the issue as intrinsically bad, I understand them to be softhearted people that are unwilling to accept mean solutions to problems. The exception to that would be people that seem to revel in things sucking, that suggest that there's something wrong with people that don't want bums camping in parks, but I actually think this is a pretty small minority view even if it's overrepresented on social media.
Much of what I'm pointing at here is what I see as an actual, real difference in preferences though. You're back to the root cause end of things here with the implication being that the individual I'm referring to is either mentally ill or homeless. As mentioned, that wasn't clear to me at all, and I have certainly encountered individuals that are just aggressive assholes that enjoy bullying other people in public spaces; they would stop if they were forced to stop, this isn't some uncontrollable tic or a product of them not having a nice enough abode in which to blow off steam. I'm fairly confident that there are already statutes that could be enforced against this, there is just a cultural norm of not doing so in blue cities, so everyone gets to enjoy the serenade of belligerence.
When you say "Remove them first" I think you need to specify more precisely what that involves.
Of course I have preferences as to what I think it involves, but what I mean by it and what I assume OP meant is that all solutions that removes these people from the street are superior to those that let them there, including some that cross moral lines (for instance, some mild forms of supervised forced labor), and excepting only, for me at least, the most extreme ones (such as killing them).
I do broadly agree with your plan but I'm afraid that without a lot of "drawing the rest of the owl" it wouldn't necessarily resolve the issue, as some countries have actually managed to provide cheap housing to push its undesirables into, and the result is unpoliceable ghettos (see: French suburbs) that erupt into large-scale violence regularly. And as disfunctional as French immigration can be at times, the people that end up in the banlieues are still likely an order of magnitude more functional than raving park yellers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries
Sure, countries with a lot more criminals per capita will imprison a lot more criminals.
Chicago had 573 homicides last year; the entirety of Australia had 409 homicides in 2023. Australia has about 25 million more people.
Corvos
1d ago
Stormveil Castle is a beef gate. The fact that you get pasted when you try and go through the lower gate is a sign that you need to do more exploring - there are at least two areas other than Limgrave to explore from your position, try playing around.
2rafa
1d ago
It is extremely clear to me that allowing low-level casual brutality against those the local beat cops deem repeat troublemakers is absolutely critical to keeping societal order.
It’s also merciful to its victims. Many a repeat shoplifter or drunk who likes starting fights might be saved from a lifetime in and out of jail by getting beaten up by the cops a few times as a teen.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I meant what I said.
There should be no surprise about why people would think you're a "bad person" then. Explicit lack of caring about others is kind of what makes one a "bad person".
I am also not okay with the status quo either, but I think there is some minimum level of support that must be provided (or possible to achieve) before you violate people's autonomy willy-nilly.
(my preferred solution is low-quality, cheap housing, that doesn't have to be right in the most expensive locations for some freaking reason. If you make that available that justifies a lot more force when removing people from public, as they actually have somewhere to go.)
What did you do for the late game? I'm a bit stuck: winged spear + (erdtree seal + lightning spear). VIG: 22, Mind: 22, Stamina: 20. Str: 16. Dex: 16. Faith: 45.
It did pretty well as a high damage-output glass cannon in the early/mid game but just doesn't seem to have the stopping power it used to once I get to
Magusoflight
1d ago
Ashley Madison was a scam site populated with almost exclusively female bots. Pretty sure there was a data dump that confirmed this, there were no women, not even prostitutes
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
There aren’t any catalysts which directly boost spells based on STR/DEX, but there are plenty of weapons with the relevant scaling.
Magusoflight
1d ago
Just give police discretion to knock heads around like they used to. A summary judgement followed by public lashing of a sort. Or put them into those public mocking where passers by can throw garbage at them while they’re locked into something. That would end the problem in most cases I would assume.
2rafa
1d ago
Like SeekingArrangement, AshleyMadison was low key just a prostitution site on which more expensive ‘escorts’ found clients and vice versa. Most women who desperately want an affair don’t need a dating site to find a partner. Poor johns are of no interest to self-respecting and moderately expensive escorts who do even the most basic background checks.
I presume that poor men who want to cheat do so with women in their social circles, on hookup apps (they’re usually higher time preference and from families with more divorce so care less about the consequences of being found out) and with cheap street walker or truck stop prostitutes.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
I worded it like that because the OP worded his comment like it was surprising people think these opinions are seen as "bad person" opinions. I think if you say "this group of people is annoying, I want them removed by the state and and don't care what happens to them" you've eliminated any possibility of having yourself seen as good, at best you're amoral. You need to at least give some thought to the well-being of these people, who in some cases are in their situation through only minor fault of their own.
When you say "Remove them first" I think you need to specify more precisely what that involves. There are absolutely moral lines you can cross. If you just get them to "move along" they just switch locations and annoy a different group of people. If you want to throw them all in prison you should keep in mind the cost (both moral and financial) of doing so.
That's not to say I think the desire is wrong at all! I also want these people removed, and I also don't think the standard western liberal approach is working. I think you need to provide some level of reasonable alternative before forcing people out of public spaces. I think that alternative does not exist in many places, due to housing and healthcare costs, and we are therefore forced to endure the ruin of our public spaces.
I think the correct approach is some combination of:
- provide housing as cheaply as possible (that standards for what is acceptable to provide should be much lower than they are today, but still provide a stable, permanent space) and the force these minorly disruptive people into them
- increase policing of minor offences like yelling at people, force them to move along (if they have their own space, then they have an actual private place to go to not annoy the public rather than just shifting the issue around)
- institutionalize the most severe ones - this is expensive and difficult, so you want to minimize it's necessity as much as possible
High earning men seem to want class peers.
Well. That's who they want on their arm when they're seen in public. Certainly selection bias in terms of what we actually see.
My inherent issue with this is its not differentiating between what they chase as sexual partners vs. what they might actually settle in for a long term relationship.
So what's going on here? The Red Pill explanation of men preferring younger women doesn't seem to fit,
Red Pill would suggest that a wealthy man can and would keep a soft harem of younger women, discarding them as needed, which isn't really refuted by the data here.
Or it might be that richer men are more sensitive to judgement from their peers, who would disapprove of larger age gaps.
Possible. I'll also throw out that younger women are a little less likely to successfully keep up the right appearances and are probably somewhat more likely to do something that is blatantly embarrassing to you either intentionally or unintentionally.
So even if your peers 'approve' of large age gaps, you're still risking reputational damage if the woman you choose is actually immature.
The thing that surprises me most is that you don't see richer men marrying younger women
There's the key word. Marry. Leo DiCaprio has gone through 12 younger women in the last 20 years alone (is he an outlier? Probably, but not by much). No wedding in sight.
Broaden the question to more general 'relationships' and I'd imagine age gaps are more prevalent.
So yeah, is there anything in the data to suggest that rich men wouldn't pump and dump as many young women as they can (Elon sure goes that route) and only marry one that actually matches his personal status more closely?
I'm genuinely not trying to be contrarian, I'm just put off when I see a claim like this, backed up by a narrowly-defined set of data that purports to refute an idea that is making a substantially different claim.
At a cursory inspection, 1 million was the cheapest I could find, but far from the average: many houses were a significant multiple of that. Rathgar is posh but admittedly not as posh as, say, Foxrock.
I thought there was a tech driven housing crisis.
There is, although I prefer the term "shortage" to "crisis".
Antisemitism was always extremely high in the Muslim world (moreso since 1947) and was rising in the West long before October 7.
Charlottesville with the ‘Jews Will Not Replace Us’ chant was in 2017. Online antisemitism exploded after 2015/6, although it was growing on /pol/ and in conspiracist parts of YouTube many years before then. Polling suggested rising antisemitism too.
I think the response to the war in Gaza accelerated things, but it was very clear things were heading in this direction long before then. A combination of a new reactionary right and mass immigration from the third world (the latter accelerating the former) meant a renewed antisemitism was long inevitable. Maybe if October 7th had never happened (or had been thwarted in advance) things might be 3-5 years behind.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
Love this game so much.
As others have said, mixing combat is fine. Great, even. It’s really nice to have a bow or spell on hand.
What you want to avoid is conflicting Scaling. If you’re investing in STR for a hammer and FTH for incantations, and you get a bow that really wants DEX, then you have to split your points even further. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had a bow that mostly wanted STR, too?
The good news is that Elden Ring is probably the best souls game for mixing and matching. There’s gear which suits (or can be made to suit) any combination of stats. The trick is finding it.
I recommend checking out that castle. You don’t have to clear it, but there’s some really useful stuff around there!
Question is a bit fraught.
I'd absolutely bet that historically and recently, it was more likely that wealthier men had higher infidelity rates simply because it would be relatively easy for them to find attractive affair partners.
If nothing else, they can afford to pick a high-end escort for a night.
Invert it. Consider that young women are actively pursuing the rich men (if you're on dating apps, this is effectively explicit) and are much, much quicker to put out for them.
On balance, what effect would we expect this to have? Rich guys getting laid a lot, and very few of these women getting wifed up by said rich man. He can wait for the 'ideal' match, hopefully one that isn't so naive as to bang the nearest rich dude without much discretion.
I've talked to death about the lack of actual long-term relationships forming among the current crop of young women, I think the point that's relevant to this discussion is that there's a class of men who have their pick of women, and actually DO get to have it both ways. Bang the nubile ones for fun and then eventually find one worth marrying.
So what these men are marrying isn't quite revealing what they're actually pursuing, sexually.
More options
Context Copy link