site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 2327 results for

domain:mgautreau.substack.com

The concept was originally applied to job, if I remember correctly. Ex: the flight attendant whose father passed away yesterday but still serves snacks and drinks on the flight with a smile and pleasantries is performing emotional labor.

I don't mind it as an idea in that context, honestly, but the people applying it to personal relationships are insane.

If you want to find most accurate crime statistics, look at crimes people have to report for insurance purposes, and this means crimes against cars.

If someone robs you on the street or burglarizes your house, you can just let it slide. If your car is gone, not so.

Far more accurate metric than murder - many people would not be missed by anyone if they went missing. Very few cars.

I think you're projecting Bulverism onto your interlocutor where none was implied. "Aella writes Substack articles (in part) to promote her OnlyFans page" and "Aella's Substack articles contain no valuable insights" are not synonymous.

If you want to attract men to your OnlyFans, the obvious thing would be to do is to put a hot but SFW picture of yourself into substack and mention that you are on OF. She does none of that.

Her Substack profile picture is literally her lying on a bed, wearing a negligée, with her cleavage on full display.

What is shame for? Why do we have it? To bully people into doing things that are pro-social. There's a reason why fat people are shamed and it's not just because of cruelty for cruelty's sake, there's value in it as well.

But the value is vastly less than the cost, even before one takes into account the low effectiveness.

Within the past few months, there's been a fascinating change in my interactions with people. Basically, all of my life up 'til now I've held this bizarre faith in "randomness" -- that things might change forever if I only stumbled into the right person. So each time I socialized, I kindled this weird unconscious hope for this event, that "it" would finally happen, whether that be romance or finding an incredible friend, or ways to make money, and went in with no expectations. But in my mid 20's, it struck me that this line of thought is mostly bullshit. Randomness happens, but the more we experience, the more we're forced to admit that randomness's effect on our lives is (mostly) a rounding error. Some people win big, some people lose big, but overall its influence is so minuscule that you may as well ignore it entirely.

As a kid I genuinely wondered why guys in their late 20's and up had such different energy from the younger crowd. I thought it was biological, as if their emotions must have tapered off somehow, but actually they're just compartmentalizing the experience. Conversely, when I look at all the adolescents I know it's weird to see them still operating with that hope. Kinda sad, too. Because this faith in randomness might be the ultimate tool for psychological self-sabotage. Like I've got a friend who's been drinking more lately, and I want him to cut it out, but I know it's precisely because he believes in randomness and ignores the logical conclusion to his actions that he keeps going. Having this perspective really deeply transforms you as a person, it's incredible. Not to say I'm a perfectly mature adult now or anything, but it's like wiping the fog off your glasses, it helps so much.

Also sorry to make a blog post when I never post here. I just lurk, because you're all way more informed on politics than me.

I don't care how the board is flipped, Trump will continue to be petty and impossible to work with.

Perhaps feminism should instead go for shaming man of pre-marital sex

It is currently doing that right now; that's what "Rape On College Campus" (and related), #metoo, #fightfor25 is agitprop for.

I mean it's all well and good to notice that we've gone and done a stupid thing and destroyed Something Great.

But so long as it remains impossible to undo it, it's collapse that we're doing. Hopefully spectacular enough to warn people of the consequences of taking the most sacred of all traditions lightly.

The single determining criteria of autism vs schizotypy was an oversensitivity vs undersensitivity to errors in sensory prediction.

Im sceptical of this because for me this differs a lot between different kinds of sensations. E.g. I can never "forget that youre wearing it", whatever "it" is, but it takes effort to not tune out music in under a minute, even if Im not doing anything else.

Some genuinely aren't sure if they want a relationship with the woman until things progress.

I think this is a decent amount of it. There's plenty of people who are just cruising for casual sex, but on the other hand if you're expecting to fuck by the 3rd date and within about 10 hours of meeting there's gonna be a ton of situations where the match was good enough to get that far but isn't going to work longterm.

Still the broad tragedy of the matter is that the average man could likely solve the online dating woes of the average woman within about 30 minutes if placed into their body by simply adjusting their expectations and being more willing to fight through the Ick. The average woman if placed in to the body of the average unsuccessful male will have to, at bare minimum, go on the normal journey of self improvement in most cases. I had to do it myself a couple years ago, and have the vivid lived experience of going from a 4 as a guy to a 7.5 over the course of a year or two and it's insane how night and day the two experiences are.

So that's now two onlyfans performers who determined that a substack is a good way to advertise to some potential clients. Aella and this one.

I find your ad hominem disgusting. While I do not have a paid subscription for either Aella's substack or OF, I read her free substack articles sometimes, and find them interesting in a way which does not make me want to subscribe to her OF.

If you really think Aella wrote Chattel Childhood because she thought "oh, my onlyfans subscriptions are stagnating, so I will just talk about child torture" then you are out of your fucking mind.

You can pretty much dismiss anything if you can gesture vaguely at a potential conflict of interest. When Scott wrote SSC, he was very much part of the medical establishment, so we can safely disregard all his articles on mental health medication. When NATO suggested that Putin might invade Ukraine, they were clearly in a partisan position, no need to pay attention to them. Whenever Anthropic produces AI alignment research, we should ignore this, because they are also building AI systems. When Ford claims that an engine has a certain displacement volume, they should not be trusted, because they just want to sell you the car.

The farhakhalidi article is not OF bait. If you want to attract men to your OnlyFans, the obvious thing would be to do is to put a hot but SFW picture of yourself into substack and mention that you are on OF. She does none of that.

Or you could say it is all part of a 5d-chess move: dissuade women from dating, so more men will end up not getting laid and going to OF, where they might subscribe to the author. This might make sense if you had a world with 10k people in it. She persuades five women to drop out of dating, which increases the number of sexually frustrated men by two, who will randomly subscribe to one of the two OF accounts which exist in the world, so she gets a new subscription, profit. It does not work in a world where there are millions of OF accounts, and a ton of alternative sources of porn besides. She is literally increase her OF subscriptions more by posting a picture of her elbow there than by trying to dissuade people from hookups.

I went to a HEMA tournament a few weeks ago. It was peak hayfever season, I was keeping myself somewhat functional with an ample supply of antihistamines and complementary coffee, I had barely slept, but there I went to compete, I cannot do otherwise. I ended up in a pool that contained the following types of fencers:

  1. One very quick guy who ended up winning the whole tournament,
  2. An accomplished veteran of countless tournaments,
  3. A relative newcomer in good shape,
  4. A fairly unmotivated but physically fit guy whom I had fought twice before, one win and one loss,
  5. Myself, completely out of practice and in the worst physical shape of my life, and
  6. A girl

1 and 2 made short work of me. I got a few sloppy hits in, but otherwise got justly dismantled.

3 turned out to be left handed, and I completely failed to adapt to that in time (I ended up having to realize that I grossly overfitted my entire fencing style to defend against strong blows from my opponent's right). We fought again in the eliminations, I tried to recall my best anti-lefty techniques but failed to pull them off, then just switched to maximum aggression and threw a wide variety of different attacks at him which got me a lot further, but but my opponent used his superior mobility to get safe hits in and retreat.

4 did exactly what he did in every fight so far, going in hard and fast to push me out of the ring - I saw it coming and tried to use his momentum to push him out instead, but fumbled it. From then on I used what worked against him in the past, kept him at a distance and hit his exposed extremities. No pretty fighting, but it worked, I won that one.

6 had previously gotten absolutely pounded by 4, who won the match by repeatedly going in close and grappling her with little resistance. I fought 6 last in the pool, and was by then thoroughly exhausted. I first scored by doing what 4 had done to her, went in close, grabbed her right arm with my left and just gave her a one-handed bonk on the helmet. I could have probably repeated that a few more times, too, but instead I wanted to do better and tried to outfence her at medium distance, which just turned into silly sword-waving on both gassed-out sides. She ended up winning that one by pushing herself and paying actual attention in the end, while I was just phoning it in out of fatigue.

First time I lost against a woman in a swordfight!

I think that framing it this way misses some important alternative possibilities. Possibilities like "Trump doesn't survive to 2028" (even leaving aside the assassins, which will continue for the foreseeable future, he's less than four years younger than Biden), and "the gameboard has been flipped; this question is no longer relevant" (most obviously by WWIII or by AI).

Can I say the line? I kinda want to say the line. Ok, I'm going to try saying the line now.

What did you think 'let's destroy marriage and the family' meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays?

The solution that allows women to set a “price floor” for relationships, in spite of both those factors, is to use social technology to align their interests. In this case, that technology would be “slut-shaming”.

"The" is an incorrect use of the definite article. There is another solution, another technology. Even Beyoncé knows of this technology, though she, like the author you cite, clearly lacks comprehension of what it's for and how it is to be used. It is the humble ring. It goes on a finger. There are many others which superficially look like it, but one is a special piece of social technology.

It's not very surprising in an intellectual sense but it surprised me.

Up until now I hadn't found that point of no return where a girl could get me. I wasn't totally sure it existed.

It's like one's first hangover: oh THAT is the amount of alcohol I have to drink to get hungover.

Female- and especially wiccan-coded. If the first doesn't kill its appeal, then the second is certain to by making the cringe LARP nature of it too obvious.

In some ways I'm surprised that it's not more popular among nerdy male rationalist types. That's the kind of demographic that gets really into Campbellian monomyths, loves mythology, and is also obsessed with creating and then tweaking complicated symbolic languages. It's exactly the sort of thing I would expect to be popular.

But for some reason tarot is female-coded, and maybe that's a killer?

Unprosecuted crimes are usually still counted in statistics AIUI (specifically as "unsolved"). However, the more indirect route of "progressive prosecutors decline to do their job -> reporting crime now doesn't result in the crime stopping -> people stop bothering to report it" seems to hold water.

I've seen enough of ao3, what great sin have we committed? Would a just deity unleash ao4 on the world?

More seriously though, it's bad for society if people aren't in stable, happy relationships. What is shame for? Why do we have it? To bully people into doing things that are pro-social. There's a reason why fat people are shamed and it's not just because of cruelty for cruelty's sake, there's value in it as well.

Some people just aren't relationship material and have qualities in other domains. Montgomery would doubtless be bullied for rizzing up the baddies with how he'd lay out his tanks in future wars.

Nixon told girls about his autistic alt-history scenarios where the Persians conquered the Greeks and this impeded his love life somewhat.

But society was structured in such a way that these men didn't end up loners because they were weird or gave women the ick, they married and had kids. What are we doing if the most erudite and civilized men are devoting their lives to B2B SAAS and not having kids?

Free public transport is not really on the table either,

Melbourne has free trams in the CBD. Making the whole Victorian public transport network free (other than on Christmas Day, when it already is) is not really talked about, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone floats the idea; the fares got bid so low in the last election that it's questionable whether they pay for the infrastructure needed to collect them (ticket barriers, ticket inspectors, etc.).

From the substack:

Second, consider that men’s psychological profile includes scoring higher on all dark triad traits – psychopathy, machiavellianism, and narcissism. These traits are distinguished by a lack of empathy and remorse, and a tendency towards deception and manipulation to achieve one’s aims.

While this is probably true in some statistical sense, I would argue that this is mainly selection bias. Dark triad traits are (I think) hot in men.

Now consider the dating marketplace and all the ways it privileges men’s psychological profile at the expense of women’s – the way he’s issued clearance to bottle-feed all of his desires, and the way she’s compelled to smother all of hers.

[...] All in all, the average woman is psychologically abused in the dating market.

As a man who dropped out of the dating market because the only relationships I might get are with women who are too neurotic to be net positive, and who is not going to organize his life around maximizing his SMV, let me say booo-fucking-hoooo.

The sex ratios in the sub-50 age brackets are balanced, so for every chad who manages to string five women along, there are four men who are not getting any. Society is not going to listen to them whine about that very much, because at the end of the day, nobody is entitled to sex. I find porn can substitute for sex and video gaming can substitute for the social interactions of having a relationship. It is not perfect, but so much better than being in a bad relationship.

I think that for evolutionary reasons, being sexually successful is hot in men. I am not kinkshaming anyone, if you are into men who can find a date and get laid every weekend, by all means go for it.

But just as low SMV men are not entitled to sex, women are not entitled to having a chad go exclusive with them. For evolutionary reasons again, most men have some inclination to take the harem route. The hot men who are inclined to a monogamous relationship likely are in a monogamous relationship, so the hot men in the dating market are mostly not interested in that.

Put frankly, if a woman prefers to date the hottest men who are willing to invest a few hours on dating for having sex with her, then she is actively selecting for men who have no incentive to go exclusive with her. If hookups are all she wants, that is fine, but if she is interested in an exclusive relationship, I would advise she lowers her SMV standards and compensate by requiring a longer runway before she engages in sex, thus making pursuing her more costly for men who are just looking for casual sex.

Also, there is no shame in being without a partner. IMO, anyone who can not function without being in a sexual relationship is definitely not relationship material. Looking at the romantic market and saying "the incentives are badly aligned, I am not going to try to participate in this" is something which women can do just as much as men. Just substitute porn with ao4 or something.

There's not that much need for an exhaustive deep dive, as it is a question you asked and answered in the same post.

To put it in other words, the nerd is titillated, but is also still unconsciously ashamed of his titillation, so appreciates the fact that there is a smokescreen justifying his titillation.

I think that's called "burying the lede". "There being a LGBTQ+" page does not give full picture of what he supports and plans to do.

I was specifically talking about the main thrust of his campaign (in this election), which is different from what he actually supports and plans to do. The campaigns that politicians run don't always correlate on what they will actually do.

Men who make up the bulk of an actual representative sample, to her, are Not People.

Ouch, part of me, especially as I get older, thinks videos like that are needlessly cruel, but then I remember, and realize that yes, while they may be cruel, they are also, in a very important sense, necessary.

I can understand it with violence, or I'd speculate possibly with competition or dominance in general? There is a thrill I get from competition, including physical competition, and that involves a certain level of aggression. When I was going through puberty I was involved in fencing, at school, and that was one of the co-ed sports. I remember trying to be chivalrous about it, but... you can't really go all out against the girls, and it's not the same. I wanted to push myself. I wanted to be allowed to be fierce.

That was probably a major difference, because I did recognise that trait in some other boys, but much more rarely in girls. There was definitely a female kind of aggression, but it did not manifest the same way.