domain:furiouslyrotatingshapes.substack.com
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
50m ago
Why can't people like me even be given the solace of hopelessness?
Because the hopelessness is a construct of your own making. With very few exceptions, most of romanceless men are not like someone with Down's Syndrome longing for a college education that is literally beyond his potential.
I am not religious, but I kind of sympathize with the Christian idea that despair is not just counterproductive, but sinful. Yes, it's comforting to escape into despair and hopelessness and just say "No matter what I do, it won't work, so no sense in trying." But sometimes things are hard and difficult but still doable, and you would just prefer not to do them.
I doubt there is something deeply awful and abnormal about you. Maybe there is, and if so I'm sorry, but I can't diagnose you personally. But I get that we are given a lot of really bad, if well-meaning advice, like "just be yourself." (I got that one too, and it did me no favors.) That said, when your life is not working out for you, contrary to the fellow I was just arguing with about how grand and free medieval peasants were, no one has ever lived in a period with more freedom to remake, reinvent, and choose our lives than today. That doesn't mean everyone gets to be happy and fulfilled and get everything they want, but every incel-type guy I've ever known has basically had no serious personal defects that would make him literally undatable, just a lot of bitterness and resentment and unwillingness to change or put in the necessary effort. Why do you see so many men who shouldn't "rate" (they are definitely not chads or three-6s) pulling relationships? Are they just blindly lucky? Or do they persevere with some luck and effort - maybe a lot of luck - but mostly persistence?
Hell, there is even the redpill- "Game" apparently works, though I personally dislike the manipulativeness of that entire scene.
I can't tell you not to give up and abandon hope, but I cannot honestly feel sorry for you if you do.
remzem
55m ago
Russian and Iranian cooperation seems more just to counter the western empire's expansion collaborate to avoid sanctions and so on. They share some military tech and iirc Russian trade with India is through Iran. Other than that economically they are less interdependent, and if the war went bad and Iran closed the strait of Hormuz and hit Saudi Arabia's oil fields it would put Russia in a spot to make a pretty huge profit and a lot of pressure for the west to back off sanctions to stabilize their economy. This threat is ironically probably a more effective weapon against the west than a nuke.
I think China would be far more likely to come to their aid. They are a huge energy importer and Iran is crucial to their overland trade routes. They recently committed to a half trillion dollar infrastructure project in Iran, etc. Already heard of a couple Chinese warships entering their waters and some cargo planes flying in and out. Guess it will depend on how things escalate.
Hadad
57m ago
And I'd argue it's a vast gulf. I'll take Christianity over Islam 100 outta 100 times.
JarJarJedi
58m ago
being ostensibly natural for them to take this opportunity to set another trap for the Western coalition.
What kind of trap could they be setting? They have no military resources deployed there, and whatever they could ship is at complete mercy of Israel air force now that they have full aerial superiority. Nobody is trying to invade Iran on land, so Russia's favorite strategy of sending 10x people in and having 5x killed but still coming ahead on the numbers is pointless there. Not to mention even the most hardened Russian patriot would find confusing why exactly he must go and get killed by Israel in Iran and how it is vital for Mother Russia. Russia would gladly sell Iran any military equipment they could, but the things they are better at than Iran - e.g. air defense systems - are pretty useless by now, as existing ones have been destroyed and new ones are hard to deploy in any useful way in the middle of the war where the enemy owns the air.
On the other hand, they have some very vulnerable projects - like Busher reactor - which are technically not military, but given how Iran already hit many civilian targets in Israel, the case can easily be made for it to be infrastructure and thus fair game. So far, Russia made the opposite deal with Israel - we stay out of it and limit ourselves to blowing hot air, and you don't bomb the shit that makes us money. Since Busher, as far as I know, has little military value, Israel is fine with leaving it alone for now.
On the third hand, is Iran manages to really piss of Israel and it will authorize taking out Iran's oil facilities, guess who would be the only supplier of cheap oil to China. And who would benefit from the oil and gas prices inevitably raising.
So Russia is being very smart right now and doing exactly what is their best interest is - talking big game (in case ayatollahs pull through and there would be business to be done with them in the future) while not doing anything that would cause them to bear any costs. Trump has nothing to do with it - that kind of situation existed long before him, Russia had always been reluctant to mess with Israel directly, and Israel had always been willing to take Russia's interests into account as much as it is possible without hurting the main goals.
Hadad
58m ago
I don't think China's going to collapse global trade if we bomb Iran too much. They're rather reliant on it, too, you see.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1hr ago
Collapse of the current global trade/finance system that massively benefits America would cause harm.
Our lives are subsidized in many many ways by this system.
Perhaps you think the current system has made Americans lazy and complacent consumers of trinkets (not wrong), but the violent end to the system will still cause a lot of harm to the people around to experience it.
Also yeah, losing the chip fabs (and the rare earth metals, and the pharmaceutical precursors, and the machine tools, and innumerable other inputs) would be devastating to scientific and economic progress. All those things could be onshored eventually, but that process would be unfathomably painful (and longgggg).
Also losing the ability to sell stuff to a massive fraction of the world's population
quiet_NaN
1hr ago
Sure. Here is Practical Ethics (That PDF is kinda terrible, but it appears that libgen is down.).
On page 85 (pdf page: 98), Singer argues that people mean different things when they say human being. One meaning is
It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species Homo sapiens'. The other is There is another use of the term 'human', one proposed by Joseph Fletcher, a Protestant theologian and a prolific writer on ethical issues. Fletcher has compiled a list of what he calls 'indicators of humanhood' that includes the following: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past,the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication, and curiosity.
Then he goes (p.87):
For the first sense, the biological sense, I shall simply use the cumbersome but precise expression 'member of the species Homo sapiens' while for the second sense I shall use the term 'person'.
In the following pages, he goes on about why being a person makes a difference for involuntary killing.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1hr ago
A peasant from the middle ages is more free than you are in all the ways that actually matter to the individual experience of the world to a degree that is comical.
You cannot be serious. What's comical is your lack of knowledge about the lives of peasants and your idealization of some "free men of the soil" living like Hobbits in Middle Earth.
He pays less taxes,
Peasants paid whatever tax rate their lords set for them, which could range from bearable to crushing.
owns more space,
Peasants did not "own space" - generally they literally owned no land at all, and at best had tenure on it. The dwellings they lived in were tiny by modern standards.
has more social relationships,
Peasants "social relationships" were generally limited to the village they lived and died in. They had no other options and were often not even legally allowed to move to a city with more social relationships available.
works more for himself
Peasants didn't work for themselves, they worked for their lords, and had very little volition in what work they would do. Peasants didn't choose their careers.
doesn't have to spend much of his life in a school
Peasants didn't spend much of their lives in school because school wasn't available to them. Education wasn't available to them.
can't be conscripted into wars
Peasants absolutely could be conscripted into wars.
doesn't need to fill as much paperwork...
Peasants couldn't fill out paperwork because they were illiterate, and thus had no way to even know if any theoretical rights they had were being violated.
the list goes on.
Do go on.
But sure, if you would prefer to be a medieval peasant than a modern man, that route is available to you. There are many places yet even in first world countries where you can disappear, build yourself a cabin, and live alone in the woods.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1hr ago
I'd argue the difference between autocratic islam and autocratic Christianity is wayyyyy smaller than either side will ever admit
jkf
1hr ago
You really can't think of any logical reason for somebody to oppose high levels of immigration? It's not a particularly important issue to me, and I can easily throw few lines of argument in the ring:
-
<insert country> is overcrowded already -- bringing in more people is creating an inferior experience for the existing people in terms of overcrowding, cost of living, increased crime, etc. -- and is therefore undesirable to the current populace.
-
If we are talking about immigration from less developed countries to richer western ones (which we usually are), and the pro-immigration interlocutor believes that AGW is a significant threat to the global environment (which he usually does), then bringing large numbers of people from a poorer, less carbon-intensive lifestyle to a more consumptive place where they produce more GHGs seems like an obviously bad idea.
-
More spicily, if one considers the existing culture of one's country to be generally superior to that of other countries, then importing people from other cultures would dilute the existing culture, which would be undesirable. If this one is not logical enough for you, you will have no trouble at all finding somebody around here to make a similar argument based on extensively cited research around HBD -- it's not an argument I care to make, but seems to meet your criteria. (other than containing ideas that you undoubtedly disagree with of course)
Hadad
1hr ago
The goal isn't genocide. Genocide is just an acceptable cost. Nothing stops Iran from abandoning its nuclear ambitions before dying, much like how nothing is actually stopping Palestinians from not embracing a life of suicidal terrorism.
This requires no sociopathy, fyi. You're correct that I'm not sociopathic. But I'd absolutely push The Button. I'd mash it, and then continue to exist as a stable, psychologically well-adjusted person. The outgroup has no moral value to me. If you're convinced I wouldn't, well, okay. I say I would, you say I won't, guess the conversation's done.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1hr ago
The promises to Abraham which Cruz references are interpreted in the New Testament as applying to Christians as follows:
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. […] All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
I think the easiest argument against any kind of dual covenant is that the first recorded preaching by Peter is to Jews in Israel, in Acts 2. They are told to repent, be baptized and believe in order to be saved.
Hadad
1hr ago
Fortunately, I'm not inviting you out to eat, and Ted Cruz isn't reading The Motte. Everyone wins!
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1hr ago
This isn't just an internal Dem party thing. This strategy is even prevalent in local government in red states.
iprayiam3
1hr ago
"What is with him" is that he genuinely believes that his God, through scripture, has commanded him to support Israel, and there are many in the upper echelons of the US government who genuinely and wholeheartedly believe the same thing.
I don't want to go off the deep end speculating on his stated faith, but at first glance, this part felt somewhat post-hoc to me. I don't doubt that his support for Israel is tied to his faith to some degree, but I also doubt that that particular verse is the driver rather than the justification.
It is suspicious to me that he had the verse memorized (and corrected Tucker on the exact wording at one point, to narrow his interpretation even though his quote was not quite right anyway.), and had the 'I learned in Sunday school' framining, but didn't know where in the Bible it was, or provide any additional context outside of the single quoted verse.
It just came off to me like a digestible soundbite to rattle off, rather than the starting point for a developed point of view. I think Tucker sufficiently surfaced this in his pushback, but it didn't come out explicitly.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
Yes, this is accurate. None of the things you think matter I think matter. I can go to the restaurant dressed however I please, and I don't care if the meal is especially tasty or not. I just want to get some food.
If none of those things matter to you, I don't want to go out to eat with you.
If you pick the restaurant, you're liable to pick a $200 a plate sushi restaurant when I said I wanted a quick snack; or take me somewhere that's absolute shit and say "I don't care if the meal is especially tasty." If I try to take you out to nice dinner to celebrate a friend's birthday, you're liable to show up in gym shorts and a wifebeater and say "I can dress how I please."
Similarly, if Ted Cruz doesn't care about the size of a country he wants me to go to war with, I will ignore Ted Cruz' opinion on who we should go to war with. If Ted Cruz wants to personally go to war with Iran, that's his call, but I'd prefer he not drag me and my country with him.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1hr ago
Progress continues on my 200 snatch goal. I carved out some headroom above 130 reps. But man, it sucks getting old. First something in my mid right back tweaked the fuck out. Sprained or knotted something so fierce I could barely get out of bed the next day. Eventually stretched/massaged that out. Then something in my right shoulder hurt so fucking bad I couldn't reach behind myself to wipe my own ass with my right hand. And more or less only that movement in specific caused problems. I could actually still do tons and tons of snatches no problem. Lots of stretching and massage for that too. Both those problems have gone away and don't seem to be coming back. But now my fucking fifth metacarpal on my right hand, which I broke in my 20's, has decided to ache for days every time I do my 100+ snatch reps.
Extremely high volume work is for 20somethings. If you are past 40, extremely high volume work is the path to injuries. You can absolutely continue to build strength and reduce fat past 40 (source: self), but I think anything more than 5x10 (like the Wendler Boring But Big plan) is asking for trouble.
We haven't seen an impassioned and unambiguous attempt at genocide by a first world country since the Holocaust. Israel's actions, as genocidal as they may or may not be, simply don't compare to the total national annihilation that I think you're envisioning.
Despite your fantasies, I don't think you are actually Holden Bloodfeast incarnate. It's easy to say that you want all your enemies (who consist of an entire ethnic group) to die in nuclear hellfire on the internet, but I'm confident you aren't actually sociopathic enough to push the button and witness the results yourself. In any case, nobody really wants the game-theoretic consequences of real genocide being back on the table. I certainly don't, as I'm not exactly lily white myself and I'd prefer p(TND) or even p(Liberia) to stay as low as possible.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
Knowing the specific population of Iran is far, far less relevant than knowing it’s a Shia theocracy implacably opposed to Israël and pushing Shiite interests in the Middle East.
Why not both? Is that really so much to ask?
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1hr ago
Especially the average white male county judge in counties where they are elected. Oh boy.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1hr ago
Bottom tier: Sotomayor and KBJ. There are random white male judges (who went to unremarkable state law schools) I could pick from my state's court of appeals (not even supreme court) who would leave both in the dust.
Next tier: Kavanaugh and Barrett. Subpar by federal appellate judge standards. Probably still higher than most of the recent retirees from the Supreme Court, though.
Next tier: Thomas (probably higher when younger--some of his opinions interpreting and harmonizing conflicting federal statutes are not for lightweights) and Roberts. Maybe Gorsuch, but maybe he's highest tier. Gorsuch's writing style is excessively casual and sometimes sloppy, which I don't think is a good feature for a justice.
Highest tier: Alito and Kagan.
Provided advice to a guy in almost exactly your situation. He's doing a lot better now after investing ~3 years in his crappy job.
- $50k is low. If you're competent and patient, you can improve this.
- You can determine your relative skill by:
- Exercising via leetcode or codewars to see where you stack up
- Interviewing elsewhere
- If you are too lazy to determine your skill or exercise your skills outside of work, do not under any circumstances go get a masters.
- If you move out of your parents and towards your job, make sure the place you're moving to provides other benefits (economic, social, health [getting outside])
- Believing "a career" is antiethical to human life does concern me. Expecting growth from yourself in exchange for huge swaths of your time is not asking too much. Nor does a career have to be an endless treadmill of progress. Moving out of your parent's house and having a reasonable 401(k) is an OK place to stop striving. I'm sympathetic to there being limits to how much you should try, especially given progressive tax rates
You're correct that the industry will shrink for people who can't beat AI. I am still hiring, but have lost patience with people who cannot operate independently. The clock is ticking far more slowly than the world would have you believe, but you'll definitely want to muster up some energy to evolve.
You mentioned not having a plan, not thinking about money. You'd be surprised how easy it is. If you're starting at ground zero, can I suggest I will teach you to be rich? It's 80% correct and a short read.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
1hr ago
Would it be fair to say that the whole disagreement here is that @fmac is interpreting "Tell them not to have premarital sex" as, literally, programs telling kids not to have premarital sex, where you're interpreting it as reversing three generations of cultural change?
Yes, I'd say that's entirely fair.
But, although I'm not criticizing you for sticking with Chesterton's wording, doesn't it feel like "difficult" is grossly understating the problem here?
Also entirely fair.
I would say that "sex education" is a failure all around and that we've so thoroughly given up on designing a culture and education program to achieve goals that we don't have any clue how to do so. Healthy cultures are evolved phenomena, and most cultures currently alive are no longer suited to their environments.
This is not a high-effort response, and yours certainly is, so I apologize for the inadequacies.
Hadad
1hr ago
How do you imagine us suffering? What harm are you imagining China inflicting on us if we use too many bunker busters in Iran? China will never harm the US mainland, because mainland threats against nuclear powers don't happen. Perhaps, if we ran out of resources for awhile, we wouldn't be able to protect Taiwan. But, really, Taiwan belongs to China as it is -- same as Cuba is ours. We shouldn't really be protecting them anyway, we should be building our own domestic chip manufactories.
I find it simultaneously hilarious and kind of sad that you think Trads are "anti-sex". You've clearly never interacted with a sincere Catholic or Orthodox Jew before. (Or Mormon for that matter)
You have the causality exactly backwards. Trads, as a general rule, are pro-natal/pro-family-formation first and thier disdain for the liberal mantra of freedom from consequence/responsibility and "soulless pleasure seeking" is a result of them being pro-natal not the cause.
More options
Context Copy link