site banner
Hour Day Week Year All
Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 17 of 42 results for

Friday

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 14, 2025

Welp, it finally happened. However often in the past ten years we've heard about the writing being on the wall (which were coincidentally also closing in), or the other shoe dropping, it's always turned out that Teflon Don was able to escape more or less unscathed. Even January 6th, which by all rights should have ended his political career for good, turned into something he could make hay out of, blaming Democrats for overreacting to what was essentially large-scale trespassing, and playing the what-about game. 24 hours ago I thought the Epstein thing had more legs than any of the other scandals, but I didn't see it as having the potential to end things. Trump had handled it poorly, but there was still a chance that some distraction would arise and the whole thing would blow over.

With the filing of Trump's lawsuit against the WSJ, that chance has ended. With the full understanding that I'm making quite a bold statement, I think this may be the biggest unforced error of Trump's presidency so far, that if Murdock was looking to destroy Trump he played the whole thing beautifully, and this has the potential to bring down the entire presidency (though I'm not predicting that it will). It's almost as if Murdoch set a giant, obvious trap and, spying the bait, Trump ran headlong into it without even stopping to investigate. The correct way for him to have handled the whole Epstein thing would have been to shut up about it. It was a lame conspiracy theory that his base bought into but that had little purchase among anyone important. All that stuff about binders being on Pam Bondi's desk was only news among these people, and even Elon's Tweet didn't move the needle much. It wasn't a major scandal until the DOJ published the "nothing to see here" memo. From there, Trump's totally unnecessary denials only added fuel to the fire. He could have fired Bondi and delayed the whole thing for a couple months while a new AG was confirmed, during which time the matter could have died. But he instead doubled down on her pronouncement, calling half of his base losers in the process for caring about it. The WSJ thing wasn't even particularly damaging considering what else had been out there. So Trump may have sent a bawdy drawing to Epstein containing an oblique message that could have alluded to pedophilia. The story might not have survived the weekend if Trump would have just denied having written it and moved on.

Instead Trump had to sue. Because Trump always has to sue; he can't leave well enough alone. He could have taken the weekend to consult with advisors and attorneys on the best path forward. Any kind of reflection would have made it clear that this was a bad idea. But Trump is impulsive, and wasn't going to wait until Monday to file, wasn't going to give himself a chance to cool down. Get it out Friday. Now he has opened himself up to a world of hurt that he couldn't imagine beforehand. Since WSJ's defense depends on proving that their publication of the material wasn't malicious, proving the authenticity of the alleged letter is paramount. And the best way to prove that Trump can't meet his burden is by getting as much information as possible about his relationship with Epstein. Trump will have to turn over ever email or other communication with Epstein that he has. Trump will have to sit for a deposition where he will be grilled about their relationship. He will have to turn over documents. Everything is on the table, and courts give a pretty wide latitude for discovery in civil matters. And the process proceeds slowly enough that there will be a steady drip of documents that the WSJ will gleefully publish as soon as they get them. This could drag on for years, with new stories monthly about how Trump did this or that with Epstein. I'd be surprised if they don't livestream his deposition.

Unlike previous legal issues, Trump can't claim persecution here since he initiated the proceedings. While this means he also has the power to pull the plug if things get too dicey, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that would look. Even now, withdrawing the lawsuit is an admission that the letter is authentic. Dropping it at a later date makes it look like he has something to hide that he doesn't want coming out in discovery. Even the best case scenario, where it is revealed that the letter was a complete fabrication, isn't that great for him, as all he has really done taken one inconsequential piece of "evidence" off of the table. It doesn't make the whole Epstein Files mess disappear. But it will be a tough case for Trump to win, and it will be any tougher for him to prove enough damages to have any effect on News Corp. Is a jury in Miami really going to buy that Trump is 10 billion dollars poorer as the result of that article? But that's unlikely since the legal standard Trump has to overcome is the high as the journalistic standards of the WSJ. Murdoch is no babe in the woods, and he isn't running Buzzfeed. If the WSJ runs an article, one can assume that it was vetted properly, especially if they ran it by Trump for comment first. I don't know how this ends, but this suit just put things into overdrive.

Friday Fun Thread for July 18, 2025

Fun Friday music: OUT DEMONS OUT (weirdo hippie music by the Edgar Broughton Band covering The Fugs)

The Edgar Broughton Band was a British blues band who had an early entry to the mashup genre by combining Captain Beefheart's "Dropout Boogie" and the Shadows' "Apache" into "Apache Dropout." They recorded a live album at Abbey Studios in late 1969, but the only song released at the time was "Out Demons Out," which is a cover of The Fugs' "Exorcising the Demons Out Of the Pentagon." The rest of the live album isn't very good (it was released in full in 2004 and is available on YT), but "Out Demons Out" is a fun piece of schizo hippie weirdness.

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 14, 2025

At risk of coping, I would actually contend that video games do in fact teach useful skills, just not all games do, and the skills are very narrowly applicable. MMOs are the obvious outlier here, since the social aspect plays a large part, and e.g organizing raids is quite literally management work even if low-ish-stakes (and even then people certainly get mad just like IRL), my Classic WoW-playing friends regale me with tales of literal Excel spreadsheets for loot distribution.

On another note, autism simulators like Factorio or Path of Exile are very good at teaching soulless optimization systematic thinking, "seeing through" the immediate picture and user-facing things in general to the complex tangle of underlying systems beneath, which I think is a generally useful skill in life, besides a part of my literal job description right now as a mid-tier IT monkey. I'm plenty stupid for a nerd and definitely starting to feel the IQ gate required to advance further in the field, so I wouldn't say I'm the kind of gifted person who would naturally grok such things either, my interests absolutely made a tangible difference. This is definitely not the best course my life could've taken, but it's certainly far from the worst, even just mitigating the NEET attractor and throwing myself into wageslavery already averted a lot of the worse outcomes even if I'm not always happy about it.

(Tangential and somewhat edgy but my pet theory is the "systematic thinking" part is largely why gamers are so infamously Based - as "seeing through" visual/verbal veneers to the core beneath becomes ingrained and reflexive, you start to second-guess your lying eyes and Nootice an awful lot. Unfortunately the skill at keeping your Nooticing to yourself is purchased separately.)

Wellness Wednesday for July 16, 2025

So, a funny story about how motivation is contagious.

I was working on some chairs. I keep trying to make steady progress, because the longer I go without working on them, the less motivation I feel to get back in the saddle and just finish the damned things. My wife waylaid me with a task of making some floating shelves, which I knocked out in about a weekish. The finish is currently curing and then they go up on the wall.

Anyways, I'm explaining how I stay motivated to my daughter, and I ask her "Is there anything you wanted to do, but then got distracted and now it's hard to get back to it again?" She goes "Yeah, riding my bike without my training wheels." This apparently lit a fire under her five year old butt, and she's been going hard at it. After we got the driveway redone on Thursday so it's nice and flat and smooth, and every single day since she's been out there with her training wheels off. Friday I was giving her a push before she fell 5-10 feet later, Saturday she was pedaling down the driveway but couldn't make it uphill. Sunday she was making it uphill. Monday she was making it uphill and downhill and turning at the bottom. Yesterday she frustrated herself to hysterical tears trying to get going all on her own without a push, and by the end of the day she'd pulled it off. Not 100%, but she got her foot in the door. Couldn't be more proud of her.

And it was seemingly kicked off by me having a candid conversation with her about putting effort into staying motivated.

Tinker Tuesday for July 15, 2025

Last Friday I read the first draft of my NaNoWriMo project, which I completed at the very end of May and didn't look at for six weeks.

It's... decent. The story is coherent and I think the characters are believable. Right now, I think the main thing that's holding it back is pacing. It's broken up into five acts: I think the first, fourth and fifth are quite strong and very readable, whereas the second act is a little slow, and the third needs to be edited quite heavily to add in a new "hook" that only occurred to me after completing the first draft. Additionally, at the end of the fourth act and the start of the fifth act there are three very long chapters back to back at which the pace grinds to a halt, which I need to cut down very dramatically so the pacing doesn't flag too much.

On Sunday I began work on the second draft, chopping down the first with a goal of removing (per Stephen King's writing advice) at least ten per cent of the total word count. This has not been challenging at all: by the time I finished work on Sunday, the combined word count of the first and second acts was already 24% shorter than the equivalent word count in the first draft (I even cut an entire chapter from the second act I didn't think added much). I've been really enjoying the process. Once I've finished cutting stuff out, I'm going to add in some ideas I had since completing the first draft, again with the goal of my second draft being no longer than 90% of the first draft's word count (preferably shorter). Then and only then will I let someone other than me look at it.

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 14, 2025

Hahaha yes, YES! Finally I can dust off my SICKOS shirt. Your move, Anthropic.

Factually, I concur with posters below that actually this isn't markedly different, and in some ways more basic, than the already possible setups for AI gooning (if the system prompt posted on X is real). Not a big fan of the voice either tbqh, although the model rigging seems good, and manic pixie Amane-Misa-at-home is a more natural fit for an AI waifu at a casual glance than whatever eldritch horrors Replika has. I'll likewise point out that while this incarnation is obviously aimed at men, the potential for female appeal is much bigger, and is in fact only a model/voice swap and a system prompt away. Not sure who is actually going to pay $300/mo for it however, the porn equivalent is literally free, and an equivalent ai gf via OR or something is much cheaper if a hassle to set up. Normies hate trivial inconveniences almost as much as steep price tags, I don't think this is how you get buy-in from them, but I assume this is literally the first step and we'll see further developments.

Regardless of technical chops, the real value here is of course exposure, a first decent shot at normiefying the whole edifice. Elon may be a fake gamer, the gravest insult I can levy against my fellow man, but fringe interests make for strange bedfellows, and I'm glad to see the first public attempts at rather literal waifutech make the twitterati seethe. I know what I'm following for the next few days. Though I agree with the OP that the whole Mecha-Hitler brouhaha was 100% a publicity psyop in hindsight, the timing and subject matter is too conspicuous. Based?

On another note, I think that people invoking the Torment Nexus are kind of missing the point. I don't think "authentic" humans are threatened (NB: screeching xitter denizens not considered human authentic). Even the most literal goonette femcel I know consistently finds much more joy in talking/RPing with an actual human over a chatbot, by a rather wide margin, even if the chatbot wins out on 24/7 availability.

Instead, I think the real horror potential here is - may Allah forgive me for uttering this word - gacha games, or more broadly chatbot integration and monetization. I've recently gotten into Girls Frontline 2, and seeing the manic pixie grok gf clicked something together in my head. I can already see the framework, the jewish tricks are practically manifesting before my eyes: gacha girls have affinity/bond levels (here increased by gifts = in-game loot), a certain level of bond unlocks the chatbot functionality with the given waifu, further levels relax the guardrails or change the system prompt (reflecting increased affection)... you get the gist. My cai/Chub experience tells me gacha girls are some of the most popular interlocutors anyway, so the match is eminently natural.

From there the potential for added deviltry is almost limitless:

  • obviously, 3d model visibly reacting to prompts like not-Amane-Misa here
  • outfits for said 3d model, those are already a gacha staple but maybe some kind of added animations or different "backgrounds"/environments for the chatbot part? (i.e some hypothetical maid costume, with some abstract cafe setting written into the chatbot's system prompt if the costume is on?)
  • limit the amount of prompts per day (vantablack ninth circle hell tier: offer paid refreshes)
  • lock explicit NSFW behind a paid item (e.g. GFL2 has a marriage Covenant mechanic, the ring is single-use and costs $5)
  • give the waifus some kind of actual stat boosts for "cheering them up" before gameplay, grading incoming user prompts to this end like Grok seemingly does (I eagerly await the inevitable rizz meta guides on how to best word your prompts for the optimal boost)
  • some kind of voice command integration built on top as an afterthought? GFL2 is turn-based xcom-lite so I imagine voice commands can work given an autistic enough framework under the hood

Granted I sense the danger of metaphysical cuckoldry Chevrolet-tier oopsies and general bad press here, a man in pursuit of his coom is endlessly inventive, but as long as the chatbot is sufficiently insulated on the backend (also just imposing harsh character limits already neuters most prompt engineering) I think this can work. Though it probably won't be a Chinese gacha given the dangerously free-form nature of chatbots, and I don't think anyone else is deranged bold enough to try.

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 14, 2025

An Attempt at Following Up on the User Viewpoint Focus Series

Thanks to @hydroacetylene for 1) the nomination and 2) reminding me to get on it. I followed his excellent template here.

Self-description in Motte Terms

I'm a classical liberal with a keen awareness that the American dream was made for me. In my personal life, I'm a well-paid Texan engineer with an appreciation for firearms. I love America and the American ideal even though I feel it's currently struggling with (what I see as) a particular failure mode of populism.

We enjoy unparalleled material prosperity thanks to strong societal values combined with good initial conditions. That carried us through two centuries of struggle to the top of the world, and now it gives us opportunities to shape the future of mankind. It also reminds us of an obligation not merely to perpetuate the system which got us here, but to spread the benefits to others who are less fortunate.

Yes, this almost certainly makes me one of the most progressive posters still on the site.

I absolutely despise the fascism of pure aesthetics which is so adaptive on social media. Contrarian countersignaling that you'll make the world a worse place because bad things are good, actually. "Tear it all down," "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"... That's the lowest form of demagoguery.

My girlfriend, whom I love and trust more than anyone, once asked "why do you hang out with these people?" Why am I spending my time on this Earth arguing with people who hate my guts and sneer at the things I value? It's because I believe in the project. I believe that when classical liberalism gets to compete with the fascists and the communards, it comes out looking great. I believe that our model of debate club is a valiant attempt at implementing the liberal ethos of free exchange of ideas. I believe I can win friends and influence people via the political equivalent of betting them that nothing ever happens.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.

Recommended Reading

I'm not going to give a list of published books. Y'all probably know what goes in the classic Western philosophical canon. Plus, and I might not be supposed to mention this, but the vast majority of my model overlaps with what they teach to reasonably smart high schoolers. Perks of subscribing to what's basically our civic religion.

Allow me instead to share a few standout motte posts.

I still think about this post by, I believe, @AshLael. The idea that certain flavors of argument are advantaged against others helps to explain large swathes of the political landscape. It's also part of the reason I'm so invested in maintaining a Debate-heavy space like this one.

Here's a classic bit of Hlynka for those who missed it. While I deeply, deeply disagree with him on lots of things, he was grasping at something that most other users don't quite get.

But I've always had a special place for the strange and wonderful digressions of the Motte. /u/mcjunker's stories, @Dean's policy analysis, all sorts of stuff. One of the best examples has to be this monstrous essay on the aesthetics of jazz. Amazing stuff.

If you have any affinity whatsoever for text-heavy, mechanics-light video games, you should play Disco Elysium. Its Moralintern is a bizarre but excellent commentary on our rules-based international order. Also, it's generally hilarious and poignant.

While I am tempted to namedrop countless other works of fiction, it'd probably be more of a distraction. Ask me on a Friday thread.

Brief Manifesto

Assume your model is not going to work.

Doesn't matter if you're theorizing about politics or international relations or the state of the youth. The very fact that you've taken the time to present it in a forum post is a comorbidity for any number of critical flaws. Maybe it's wildly overcomplicated; maybe it overlooks some basic fact of human psychology. As soon as you introduce your theory, the fine commentariat of the Motte will show up and explain how it's actually stupid.

This is a good thing, because picking holes in ideas is how you get better ideas. (Okay, yes, it's also quality entertainment.) But it might not be fun, and there will be some psychological pressure to insist that nothing is wrong. No. The critics are right, and your grand psychoanalysis is probably bunk. So why not try to get ahead of the curve and figure out what went wrong? What's the first objection someone is going to make when you hit "post"?

This is the difference between arguing to understand vs. arguing to win.

If you want to have a constructive discussion, the single most useful thing you can do is to think about how you might be wrong. It's not easy, I sure don't live up to it as much as I ought to, but I promise. It's worth it.

Ping Me On...

Voting systems. Electoral reform along the lines of single transferable vote is literally my single issue, because I think it's actually a credible path to a more functional government. Seriously, if you know about a way I can act against FPTP, let me know.

Science fiction. Fantasy. Weird hybrids that defy or define genres. I'd like to say I'm pretty well-read in this sense. I certainly enjoy the subject.

Historical trivia of all sorts. Perhaps it's stereotypical for a board like this, but yes, that includes military history and hardware. And while my own collection is still amateurish, I'm always happy to talk about firearms as a hobby, too.

Posts I'm Proud Of

I don't generate a lot of AAQCs, and when I do, I tend to look back with a little embarassment. Something of a tendency towards melodrama. Still, I'm convinced that I was on to something here.

I also feel strongly about my comments on the state of fiction. Media is the first thing to get the 'ol "back in my day" treatment, and especially with modern storage methods, it's so easy to put on rose-tinted glasses. But all sorts of bizarre fiction is out there. Perks of a bigger, faster, more interconnected world. I encourage everyone who thinks modern media sucks and/or is captured by their ideological enemies to go out and find stuff that's just too weird to capture.

This was easier to write and harder to do than I expected.

I'll nominate @Rov_Scam for the next entry.

Friday Fun Thread for July 11, 2025

My favorite flourish of his was in Echopraxia, where he casually dropped the non-bomb that reality in that book was proven to be a simulation, but it never comes up again and has no impact on anything.

Echopraxia was quite the mess. There were things I enjoyed about it, but it lacked a lot of narrative direction and also contained a lot of plot points that didn't make any sense at all just because the story had to happen.

I think in general Watts' short stories work better than his novels, since short stories lend themselves to the exploration of a single conceptual thread which is his clear strong point. With the exception of Blindsight and perhaps the Freeze-Frame Revolution I think things tend to fall apart when Watts is left to craft an extended narrative - there are often a whole lot of unrelated ideas not relevant to the story and there's a general lack of narrative cohesion. The lack of character depth also tends to become far more clear when he has more words to waste on them. Though, you don't really read Watts for his spellbinding characters.

Friday Fun Thread for July 11, 2025

I reviewed the game here.

The game feels kinda long, but I think it's mostly bc I suck at it. E.g. I'm always dealing with some problem and running it at slowest speed.

Even though the supply chains are less complex than Factorio, the extra details and infrastructure related stuff means there's more..problems that can crop up.

Don't think I played the tutorial, I just did the in-game one.

If I were you, I'd give you this advice:

  • remember that you'll need to scale up .. almost everything. (my current big issue is I can't expand my settlement without dumping a megaton of crap into ocean)

  • plan ahead knowing that and you'll do fine.

My biggest peeve with the game is truck dumping. You lose gigantic amount of terrain-moving capacity if you incorrectly set up allowed dumping and truck drive across half the map. NEVER allow a dumping designation outside of a designated mine!

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 7, 2025

Sure, you can rewatch it to pick up all the clues you missed the first time round, but that's more like doing a crossword puzzle

I made the exact same comparison in my review of Memento, which is not a good movie. I think one of Nolan's major weaknesses is that he loves plots, but hates the fact that there have to be characters in them doing things.

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 7, 2025

If I had to water down my thought to one feeling it’s this: black Americans are faking being black Americans.

I've shared that thought, although I'm not as sure it's new. I haven't watched the movie, but I'll take your word for it that the performance lacks the authenticity of a Friday.

Most black people are interested in protecting an ethnic identity. I'd bet that number approaches 100% when it comes to black entertainers. Cynically, because ethnicity means a target demo to make money from. Less cynically, because they are responding to cultural norms that push them to be black, and actors, often annoyingly, consider themselves representative.

Maintaining a culture that can induct new generations requires understanding and conformity. Time and entropy weakens the ties to founding myths and common understandings. A culture then places more importance on fewer pillars, popular ideas, and easily identifiable signals. There are still many black people alive who can share personal experience that bonds them to the black experience. However, these people are dying. As they die fewer grandparents share the old understanding of Civil Rights, racism, victimhood, etc. Young black people can (and do) try fit their experiences into the broader cultural framework and society, in this case, helps facilitate it. But, since these individuals cannot always credibly sell their stories as the same old stories they can sound little off. Did you know 13 unarmed black men are killed by police each year?

It's not unusual to hear black people tired of being black because blackness imposes on them. The bits that outright blame black culture is a less public grievance, because there's taboos, norms, and bad words to call people who fight this type conformity. The most socially acceptable way to express this sentiment in the mainstream is to primarily fault white people for the cultural pressure or, in entertainment, blame the Jews. Even with a few naysayers, demand for blackness remains staggeringly high. Black people favor more blackness, the studios want more blackness, many white people want more, but the black people selling blackness today lived different lives than the story everyone wants and is familiar with. Those within the culture can choose belief, others that are most inclined can humor it, but for the rest of us this is more difficult. It requires talent to sell us on an update that aligns close enough with our own. Maybe Sinners as a production didn't have much talent, but a show like Donald Glover's Atlanta did.

Black people may have another Tyler Perry to rally behind, but it's also possible we'll notice more performative blackness as relatively unblack, untalented people contort themselves to try and fill that demand. Blackness has already been fully commodified and commercialized, so maybe we can call it post-commodified blackness? Uber commodified? Flanderization also comes to mind, but what is an identity if not some grade of caricature or stereotype?

That said, if you're just now noticing this, then it's more likely something has changed your perspective recently. This is an ongoing, decades long trend, and Friday is a part of it.

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 7, 2025

I watched Sinners last night.

It’s a flick about 1930’s vampires set in the American bayou. It’s a black flick. It’s about blackness, being black, black music, black stuff. Very black.

I love black cinema. From Life with Eddie Murphy to exploitation like Sweet Sweetback’s to Don’t Be a Menace to Friday I dunno whatever, even Scary Movie maybe. I’ve seen several dozen of them. They’re all ‘ black ‘ and pretty watchable for anyone. Plus anyone with even a hint of social awareness can watch them just fine.

The movie I’d most compare this to (it’s where my mind went for some reason) is Idlewild - basically OutKast (the musical group) in Atlanta in the 30’s … also very black. I love this movie.

The black characters in all these films are … black. They seem like normal people, just black. Rich black. Poor black. Dumb black. Smart black. Teacher black. Funny black.

I was born in Poland so I e always watched (not enough) a bunch of Polish cinema. Same idea. The Polish characters are Polish characters in a myriad of ways and if you’re Polish then you get it, and if you’re not, you can still be entertained and understand.

Well with Sinners - and even before really over the last few years … it just seems like the blackness is performative. It’s not that I don’t believe Michael B Jordan isn’t black, or that the writer or director don’t know about being black, it’s that I think now they’re starting to act as a fictional black narrative.

Being a 1930’s black man is no longer believable on screen. It was believable in Idlewild. Friday is believable - it’s caricature of course, but believable! I believed Dr Dre … I don’t believe Kendrick Lamar. I believed The Wire … I don’t believe (basically any ‘ black ‘ show I’ve tried to get into lately). I haven’t watched the show Atlanta but I’ve heard good things but mostly from white people, and mostly the writer and actor falls into this land of unbelievability as well.

I think there’s this black (black American) malaise that I can’t describe or catch onto over the last decade or so that makes black entertainers over perform their blackness in a subtle way.

I’ve always felt black Americans are Americans, just black. More recently I feel like they’re trying to be in some way more so.

If I were a pessimist I would say this is part of the ‘ we were kings ‘ meme that has been overloaded into the cultural psyche - if I were an optimist, I’d say it’s a culture trying to find itself and strive for a cohesive core to begin to become something other than ‘ black Americans ‘.

I’m usually optimistic in all respects but I have a lot of negativity towards, in respect to this post, black entertainment. Or at black entertainment that attempts to be mainstream.

Friday Fun Thread for July 4, 2025

In May, he hung up a poster advertising World Potato Day, saying that it fell on Thursday, May 30th. I very politely pointed out to him that May 30th falls on a Friday this year. I was legitimately annoyed about this - I'm not saying you have one job, but this responsibility of yours is a profoundly easy one, and you still managed to fuck it up?

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 6, 2025

Based on friends who have all gotten long-term relationships from the apps, combined with my own experience, here's what I can tell you:

  1. Use Hinge, and nothing else. The quality of people on there is much better and the other apps are garbage.
  2. Use good photos; don't just pick the six most recent photos with you in them. The first one should be a good picture that shows what you actually look like. One picture should be of you in a group, so they can see that you actually have friends, but more than one creates confusion as to who you actually are. It also shouldn't be one of you and your ex, and ideally shouldn't include anyone better looking than you are. This also shouldn't be your first picture, and should be somewhere down in the order so the only people who will see it will be those intrigued enough to scroll down that far. At least a few pictures should be purpose-shot. You don't have to hire a photographer, but a friend who knows how to work a real camera with a long lens will help. Don't include too many pictures where you're wearing a hat or sunglasses as this makes it hard for to see what you look like. Some of the pictures should be "action shots" of you engaging in hobbies so they can see that you're interesting rather than read about it. Make sure you're smiling and showing your teeth. A lot of guys tend to smirk or look overly serious, and women don't like that. Women also don't care about cars so shots of you posing in front of your Mustang or WRX just make you look like a douche. The only exception would be if you own a Lambo or something and want to attract women who are after your money. Don't include pictures of you with deer you shot or fish you caught. No pictures of you shirtless or flexing. Selfies are bad. Bathroom selfies are worse. Bathroom selfies of you flexing are worst. You can include a Linkedin style professional photo if you have one, but I'd save this for last.
  3. Fill out the profile completely or almost completely. The purpose is to make you look like an attractive, well-rounded person. Include your job (unless you're a doctor, which will get you more matches but from women looking for guys with money), especially if you have a good professional job. If you're working as a bartender but graduated from college, it's okay to just list the college. It's also okay to just list the job if you're paranoid about them being able to figure out who you are (which can be surprisingly easy). It's fine not to list your religion if you don't want to, but your politics are liberal. Most young women in urban areas simply won't date Trump supporters, and if you say you're moderate or other or nothing they'll just think you're a conservative who doesn't want to admit it. Your height is an inch taller than you actually are, unless you're like 6'5" or something. Unless you're obviously black or East Asian your race is white. It's fine to omit one or two of these but if you omit too many the profile looks incomplete and it makes you look either uninteresting or like you have something to hide.
  4. If you have children, say you have children. If you don't, say you don't. Omitting this does you no good and can fuck things up. Women who aren't open to dating guys with kids won't risk it on guys who they don't know that about if they have other options. If you do have kids and they find out later it might be a dealbreaker. As far as intentions, be specific with those as well; if you want kids say you want kids, if you don't say you don't, and if you're open to the idea but not committed one way or the other say that. "Not sure yet" may be an option if you're under 30, but in general you'd just be turning people off since a girl who wants kids isn't going to be happy if the guy decides he doesn't want them after she's been dating him for two years. You're looking for a long-term relationship; if you're looking for a hookup you shouldn't be on Hinge. Saying "life partner" may be fine but could come across as a bit intense. Saying "figuring out my dating goals" makes you look confused and indecisive; I always assume people who write this are dipping their toe in the water after a divorce and will probably be flaky. Saying "long, open to short" or the reverse makes it look like you're either taking what you can get or are looking for a hookup but don't want to admit it.
  5. Select your prompts carefully, and include as much information as possible. I don't have a list of prompts at my fingertips, but you should be able to discern which ones actually say something about you and which ones don't. You only get three of these so use them wisely; saying that you order the loaded french fries for the table doesn't add anything to the discussion. On the other hand, saying what you do on a typical Sunday communicates what you like to do when you're not working or running errands, and saying what you could do together communicates what you have to offer in a relationship. Avoid one-word answers and non-answers, which are things that apply to pretty much everybody. So, you like tacos, travel, and music? Great, so does everybody else. Give her a reason to date you over the masses with generic responses. Even if she doesn't like all the things you like, it will at least make you seem interesting.
  6. Avoid using negative prompts. The last thing you want to do is give someone a reason not to match with you. If something is a serious dealbreaker, Hinge has a match note feature where it will come up when you match and give them the option to back out. I've only seen this once, and it was just a generic thing about actually being serious about starting a long-term relationship. But unless something is a serious no-go I wouldn't bother; you only get three prompts, so use them wisely. Also, and this probably goes without saying, but there are a bunch of prompts that mention therapy that shouldn't be used by anybody.
  7. The general theme of this list so far is that your profile will make or break your success. Six photos and three prompts are the only information the person on the other end is going to have when deciding to make a match. This is valuable real estate and you don't want to waste any of it. I've talked to a lot of female friends about this, and they're pretty unanimous and unequivocal about their complaints. It's been said over and over again about how women have it much easier on these apps then men, and while that's true to an extent, women have their own frustrations. Sure, a woman may be flooded with likes, but a large percentage of those are going to be from guys who have half-assed profiles that don't give them any usable information and another large percentage is going to be from guys who put some effort into making profiles that seem designed to appeal to other guys (though women are equally guilty of both of these). If you're not supermodel hot, seeing one of these profiles will make her hit the dump button without a second thought, and if you are supermodel hot she'll think about it and come to the conclusion that you're a fuck boy looking to score.
  8. No that we've gotten through the profile, you have to actually use the app. First, you won't get many likes, and the ones you do get will be from women you probably aren't interested in dating. Hinge isn't a swiping app like Tinder where you have to randomly match with someone. You send out likes to profiles you're interested in and the other person can choose to match or reject. Like in real life, men have to take all (or at least most) of the initiative—men match by sending out likes, women match by reviewing incoming likes. The only women who normally send out likes are the ones who aren't receiving a sufficient number of quality likes themselves. The rest are either women who happen to really like your profile or women who just got on the app and haven't yet realized they don't have to send likes out. The likes women send out are generally to men who are supermodel hot. This has created an interesting dynamic where men rarely get any incoming likes and don't match with the ones they do get, while women may send out a bunch of likes but rarely get matches from those.
  9. When you send out a like, Hinge gives you the option of including a message along with it. You should always do this. Remember, women are getting a lot of incoming likes, and most of these won't have messages. You're going to have to start a conversation eventually, so you might as well do it now, and it will at least give the woman a reason to check out the profile rather than just hit the dump button. And these messages should be well thought out and have something to do with the profile, preferably one of the prompts. This shows that you actually read the profile and are taking an interest rather than just clicking on a pretty face. And sending messages like "Cute" does nothing to start the conversation and doesn't demonstrate anything—if you didn't think she was cute you probably wouldn't have reached out in the first place. Some guys online have said that this does nothing but make them waste time thinking of something to say to someone who probably won't respond, and that they get comparable results by not saying anything and only putting in effort if there's actually a match, but this seems lazy to me. Again, most guys won't say anything, and you need to do whatever you can to make yourself stand out.
  10. When you actually get a match, respond promptly, and try to follow up your response with a question to keep the conversation going. Remember, women have an easier time getting matches, and you don't want to give them any reason not to respond. Don't be afraid to go back to the profile to get more source material, but also don't be afraid to get into things that aren't covered by the profile. Put some effort into this and don't slip into idle small talk; "How was your day?" isn't going to elicit any useful information for you and isn't going to communicate anything to them. Don't communicate during the work day unless you want them to think that you don't work very hard. Weekends are trickier; remember, you're trying to give the impression that you lead a busy, interesting life, and messaging on Saturday night or a beautiful Sunday afternoon doesn't give that impression. That being said, if it's a miserable day or they message you first, don't be afraid to respond on a weekend, and don't wait all weekend to respond to a message you got after work on Friday. Pick your shots.
  11. Don't be afraid to respond promptly. You don't have to check the app every 15 minutes, but you should be logging in at least once a day, preferably not late at night. If a girl is slow to respond it can be tempting to use that as a license to stall yourself, but remember, she probably has other options, and isn't going to keep talking to a guy who doesn't seem that interested. Sometimes you'll catch her on the app at the same time as you and you'll get a real-time conversation going, but mostly you'll get one exchange per day, and sometimes you'll respond one day and she the next, and you the next, etc. Sometimes things move faster, and people get busy and don't check the app for a while. Also, give her at least 48 hours to respond, but after this don't be afraid to double text. Sometimes people are just busy and forget, or possibly you did something to make them think you weren't that interested. I wouldn't worry about this making it look like you're needy. She might not be that interested, but you have to take all the shots you can at this point. If she still doesn't respond, but hasn't unmatched, at that point I'll wait until it's been two weeks since the last communication and send another message. After two weeks the app hides the dead conversations, but if there's another message it will unhide it and get you back on the radar. Usually it's a lost cause at that point, but you never know. Some people have things come up that make them drop everything, and by the time they get back on they won't respond to your message because they think the ship has sailed. I take the view that if they haven't unmatched me or otherwise communicated that they're not interested that I'm still at least marginally in the running and it's something worth pursuing.
  12. You should aim to have about three active matches going at once. Less is fine if you aren't getting any, but any more than that is wasting your time. Trying to keep a dozen conversations going at once is going to get pretty unwieldy pretty fast; it's time-consuming, and you're inevitably going to be more interested in some of the matches than others. There are obvious exceptions. Sometimes you'll get nothing for a while and get a flood all at once. Sometimes you'll have a full plate and more will trickle in, or conversations you thought were dead will get unexpectedly revived by the other party. Think of it as a podium with a first, second, and third. Any other active matches are off the podium, and the ones that have been around longer should be closer to the top. Everyone else you may be matched with is an off-podium reserve, and may include both active, unintentional matches and dead conversations who haven't unmatched you for some reason. If something changes with one of the finalists, knock them off the podium and rearrange things accordingly. Also, once you have a full podium, you should stop sending out likes. The last thing you want is women you might be interested getting short shrift due to bad timing and dipping out due to lack of attention on your part.
  13. Don't string along those lower in the running. This can be tempting, either because you have limited time for dating you don't want to waste on them, and you don't want to be on date two with your third place before you've gotten to date one with first place, or whatever. Women aren't stupid; if a conversation goes on too long without you asking them out, they're going to get the picture and will stop wasting their time.
  14. To that effect, don't let conversations drag on with anyone for too long without asking them out. This is obviously going to depend on the frequency of messaging, but unless there are unusual circumstances, you shouldn't go more than a week, and if you're getting (and sending) prompt responses it should be a lot less than that. In-app messaging should be used to establish rapport and show interest, and that's it. It's hard to get a feel for when a good time to ask someone else is, but you'll quickly get the idea. If the topic you're discussing is played out and you're scrambling to change the subject it's a good sign. If the conversation is flowing on multiple subjects it's a good sign. If the conversation is dying and you can't think of a response, it's a good sign. Sometimes you'll ask someone out because you're excited to meet her, and other times you'll ask someone out because you're bored with the conversation and are willing to take a chance that she'll be more interesting in person. If I get an unexpected response from a months-dead conversation, I'll usually just ask her out right there because I'm not interested in wasting my time again. As for what to say, keep it simple. "It's been nice chatting and if you're interested in hanging out let me know when you're available" is as good as anything. You don't have to propose anything right away, though if you're not available certain days, let her know. Sometimes people will be good with responding but get cold feet when it comes time for action. Usually it means they were just stringing you along as a plan B. I'll usually give them longer to respond to a date request, like a week, because I don't know if they're trying to figure out a schedule or something. If they still haven't responded, they're going to keep getting weekly messages from me until they either respond or unmatch. I can understand losing interest and not responding while in the messaging phase, but if there's an offer on the table, I think they should either accept it or reject it. There's no penalty for persistence, so there's no reason not to.
  15. As for what to do, I usually prefer drinks or coffee for a first date, preferably on a weeknight. Dinner is a traditional date option, but doesn't work as well for online dates. The cost of dining out makes it expensive for something that probably isn't going anywhere, and can attract the kind of woman who just wants a free meal. More importantly, there are disadvantages due to timing, as there is no date where dinner is the appropriate length. If it's going poorly you're stuck there til the end. If it's going well you're going to have to find a bar or somewhere else to go afterward, because the 60–90 minutes a restaurant meal takes isn't really enough time. If you're at a bar or coffee shop you can linger as long as you want or beat a retreat if necessary. For what it's worth, I only went out to dinner on a first date once, and only because the girl backed me into it, and she ended up being a bitch (not to me, but you can usually tell). I also don't like "activity dates" for a first date, since they tend to be similarly expensive and don't give time to interact. The purpose of a first date should be conversation, and I don't want to spend money to not talk to someone.
  16. When you're on the date, be yourself. If you end up getting involved, she's going to meet the real you eventually, so don't waste her and your time putting on a facade. If things went well and you'd like to see her again, let her know that you had a good time and text her the next day asking her out again. If you don't want to see her again, tell her you had a good time and leave it at that. Giver her a day or so to reflect on things. A decade ago, with IRL girls I already knew, I would tell them I'd like to see them again at the end of date one, but I don't do this anymore, because it puts them on the spot. I said this to the last IRL girl I dated, who was ten years younger than me, and she seemed uncomfortable and gave a noncommittal answer which ruined the rest of my night and the next two days. Imagine how surprised I was when she agreed to a second date after I asked her out again. Which brings me to another thing—I don't know if you're familiar with the "three day rule", but if you are, forget it. It may have some applicability depending on your age, but most mature women don't expect you to play games. Give them time to reflect, but don't feel the need to drag it out. If she agrees to a second date, it's going to be because she's interested in you, not because you used proper dating technique.
  17. Don't get discouraged. It will probably take I while for you to get matches, and you're probably going to be plugging away at it for months before you get off the app. This is normal for everyone. If you aren't getting matches after a month, then you need to take a serious look at your profile and make an adjustment. Also, keep in mind that these are real people, and treat them like you'd want to be treated. Online dating is similar to the internet at large, where people use the nature of the medium as an excuse for shitty behavior they wouldn't do in the real world. Try not to be one of these people, but don't hold it against other people. People will abruptly cut off conversations, but not unmatch you. People will cancel or reschedule dates at the last minute. People will take forever to respond without an apology or explanation for the delay. People will match with you but never talk to you. You'll meet people who text really well but in person have the personality of a manilla envelope taped to a beige wall. You'll have dates that you think went awesome with someone who doesn't want to see you again. You'll have dates that you think went terribly but you'll get a second one out of nowhere.
  18. There are a lot of people online who will tell you that this is impossible if you aren't a male model with an MD. Ignore them. I have numerous friends who have met long-term partners on Hinge, and none of them are exactly Adonis. None of them ended up with women below the standard of what I'd expect, and most of them are dating (or married) above what I'd expect. Also don't believe the people who tell you that since the apps have an incentive to keep you single they're specifically designed not to work. While this theory sounds plausible, there will never be an app that works so well that a major market will run out of single customers. There are definitely some weird idiosyncrasies and glitches, but by and large, the apps do what they say they do.
  19. Don't, under any circumstances, pay for this. Some people are convinced that the apps are designed to keep people paying, and that they won't work unless you pay. As I said, they work as advertised. Paying gives you access to features that are of dubious benefit. For instance, getting unlimited likes per day may seem like a good thing (the free version limits you to around five), but the consequence of this is that you end up burning through the local dating pool before you've had time to optimize your profile. Roses are a scam; don't bother with them, even the free one you get a week. Filters may have some use, but not for what they charge. Profile boosts are pointless for men, who don't need more people seeing their profile for reasons stated above. These features are window dressing for their real purpose, which is to attract the kind of undateable whales with bad profiles who are convinced that their lack of success is due to them not paying enough money.
  20. Beyond this, I can't really give you advice. The first step is creating a profile that is likely to get you matches, and the second step is managing your matches so that you can get dates. During this period, you basically are your profile, which is why the profile is so important. After you meet, though, you transform into a real person, and so does she, and now anything I can tell you is just basic dating advice you can get anywhere else.

Best of luck to you.

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 30, 2025

I find activists in part evil because they never hold up their end of the bargain. On Friday, they will celebrate their hard won compromised victory and on the next Monday they will be telling us how the status quo is intolerable and needs changed. Every time you move the line a little, the next movement of the line is only slighter more expensive compared to the new status quo and the government has already admitted the alleged moral case.

I don't really understand how this makes activists 'evil'. If they believe in A, how is trying to get to halfway to A first an illegitimate way to pursue your goals. Compromises never constitute a recognition on the part of one party that the new status quo is actually desirable, merely better than the alternative, and this is always how politics has functioned. Most obviously, as soon as each thought they had the ability to put their cause in a better position, those both North and South who had acceded to the compromises of 1820 and 1850 were more than willing to jettison them.

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 30, 2025

The CW angle is that Trump and Doge downsized the National Weather Service. This made sense ideologically -- meteorologists are basically climate researchers, and thus likely to be more worried about climate change than immigrants, plus college-educated pronoun-bearers. And I am sure that some of the NWS people were installed there by previous administrations for political reasons (which I happen to be sympathize with). But separating the wheat from the chaff would require a scalpel, not the chainsaw of doge.

Anyhow, in this case, the Guardian reports that NWS cuts did not contribute to the tragedy:

Despite funding cuts and widespread staffing shortages implemented by the Trump administration, NWS forecasters in both the local San Angelo office and at the NWS national specialty center responsible for excessive rainfall provided a series of watches and warnings in the days and hours leading up to Friday’s flooding disaster.

The forecast office in San Angelo has two current vacancies – typical for the pre-Trump era and fewer than the current average staff shortage across the NWS – and has not been experiencing any lapses in weather balloon data collection that have plagued some other offices.

[...] In a final escalation, the NWS office in San Angelo issued a flash flood emergency about an hour before the water started rapidly rising beyond flood stage at the closest US Geological Survey river monitoring gauge.

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 6, 2025

Even if your neighbor's dog is barking a lot, barking utterly pales in comparison to fireworks in terms of how disruptive it is due to the massive difference in volume

I don't know where you live, but I hear barking on a daily basis much louder than any of the firecrackers that went off this weekend (at least accounting for distance; how loud a mortar is from equivalent distance is frankly irrelevant to me unless my neighbor is literally setting them off from his porch). At least with fireworks, it's one or two nights per year and confined to a predictable 6 hour span. The barking occurs on a daily basis, at random, and extends indefinitely. Here, people's dogs bark at any hour. I've been woken up by howling at 3-4 am on a work day multiple times. You could ask me to choose fireworks every Friday if it meant dogs were banned from residential areas and I'd take that in a heartbeat. Over the span of a full year, there really is no comparison when it comes to which is more disruptive to my life.

At least a dog is an independent creature you can't control ... fireworks people are deliberately choosing to be assholes disrupting their neighbors

People choose to own dogs. They choose to ignore properly training them. They choose to continue to keep them even when they are a persistent nuisance to their neighbors. This attitude that you can't just get rid of your personal vanity project is common among dog owners. If your neighbor has a car horn that goes off at random times for random durations, I think you would be right to say it should either be fixed or trashed.

Are you really trying to argue that fireworks are just desserts when they punish not only the irresponsible, but also the responsible owners and those who don't even have dogs?

Nowhere in my post did I support the use of fireworks past a certain hour. I explicitly said I find them annoying as well. I've found many dog owners and their allies have a tendency to get extremely defensive and treat the slightest pushback on even a subset of behaviors as an attack. I never said that I want fireworks in order to punish dog owners, but somehow by simply saying that my personal frustration with dog barking is greater than my frustration with fireworks you jumped to that conclusion.