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

Showing 25 of 110886 results for

domain:drrollergator.substack.com

I intellectually understand the possible seduction value of treating women as narcissists/children. I broke into sexual success years ago through PUA, so I'm not unfamiliar with those concepts. However, my actual experience with the women who wanted to be with me longer than a one night-stand has not been that of being with narcissists/children. The women I've had long-ish relationships with have mostly been smart and decent people. Not without their problems, of course, and some of them were no paragons of mental stability, but neither am I, and they were decent... very far from this nightmare image of women as treacherous harpies. I'm actually probably more often the one who screwed up those relationships by being narcissistic/childlike myself, and/or by wanting to spread my wild oats. At least, it's 50/50. The women I've gotten to know, as opposed to one-night stands, I mean, they were often weird, but in the same way that I'm weird... neurotic, well I'm neurotic too... not totally rational, sure, but not any more so than I am irrational. I've also had some cool female friends. And as far as just sexual level stuff goes, I'm no Don Juan, it's not like I have hot girls beating down my door, but I've been with some really attractive women.

You say: "Treat them like narcissist/children" and it works... I mean... how do you go back? How do you compartmentalize that back away?"

I just don't think of it in those terms. Treating them like narcissists/children bores me, it's not arousing or stimulating for me in any way. Even if it works, it's not my thing, it's something that I don't enjoy and doesn't turn me on. I've had enough sex by now, and have satisfied my old painful teenage virgin frustration enough, that now I'm at a point where I'm not willing to do X Y and Z like a chore in order to get to sex or romance. I'm into having fun. I personally enjoy a very minimalist type of seduction, so for me fun in that regard is about just trying to use eye contact and other kinds of body language mainly. But not all guys are into that, I'm all for every guy just doing whatever kind of flirting he enjoys the most. What I enjoy most likely doesn't maximize my success but whatever, as long as I get laid every now and then with attractive women I don't care. I fall in love with every woman I see more than a few times. Not in a simp way, I don't lie or compromise or pretend or put them above myself. And I've never had a woman who I was with for a while actually disrespect me or screw me over in any way that wasn't justified by my actions, so that's never been an issue. I fall in love partly in a painful way, because I tend to get attached. But also in an expansive way, I genuinely become interested in who they are as people. I dunno, I'm still in touch with a couple of my former lovers. It's nice. They're people. Different people than men, sure. But interesting people... I don't even think about things in terms of cock carousel or whatever. If a chick wants to fuck 40 guys in a year I'm like, cool, go for it. I don't want a girl I'm seeing to fuck other guys but if I'm not seeing her then my genuine reaction is like "awesome, hope you have fun fucking".

So give me your sources. The AI gave me Gitnux and 2date4 love or Worldmetrics as sources. I don't want to research that stupid shit too deeply, if you have other numbers just send it. The point still stands, sex is relatively easy to purchase for almost any single male.

But can you help me understand the "encyclopedia" and "web surfing replacement" use-cases, when we have actual encyclopedias and a web to surf?

When looking for answers to programming questions, lots punctuation gets stripped out of search queries, and many language keywords are stopwords that don't get included in a search. But to an LLM, they're more tokens.

Another thing I've found useful is to get one to surface general issues in first-pass troubleshooting and then go look for actual forum threads documenting those issues. This helps you find where the experts are and cross-check the output against a real discussion.

I genuinely don’t understand what’s going on in Starmer’s head.

Now, I’ve seen in a lot of lawyers this idea that respect for the Rule of Law is the one thing standing between us and full banana-republic-dom. you’re allowed to twist it into a pretzel but the moment you say, “the judge has made his decree, let him enforce it” you might as well be living in Trump’s America or Putin’s Russia. (And no, they don’t see a difference between the two).

I wonder if Starmer just sees himself as the last line of defense against the barbarians. If so it’s weird he gave the vote to 16 year olds.

Insurance companies are definitely always hiring tech, but I worry a little about their tech culture being very backwards (e.g. everything tech is "IT", tech is considered a cost center, etc). But I suppose that's part of the price I might have to pay. I think I do like teaching, but I haven't done it in years so I'd need to dip my toe back in to see if it's something I would enjoy doing when my livelihood depends on it.

He did not.

Between work and family, I have minimal free time. It would be nice to have my work and local community closer together. I am aware that some people want strict separation between work and private life, but I've never really had issues hanging out with colleagues outside of work.

Ok, the weirdest part of the Wikipedia on the British Indian Ocean Territory is that its motto references Lemuria, an extremely outdated scientific theory that has connections to Theosophy.

But my understanding is that the most relevant element of the territorial dispute for people outside of Mauritius is that the territory nominally controls the .io country-code TLD. Geopolitical instability over British soverignty led to the mass exodus from .io domains.

The deal signed between the UK and Mauritius means that Mauritius will take control of the TLD; there was some doubt that it would continue to exist as a valid domain. We're definitely in a bizarre world where internet domain names are the subject of geopolitical disputes. But .su will bury us all.

Apparently the US also has military infrastructure on the islands, and Trump was a fan of the deal?

patriarchy is fundamentally about dealing with male intrasexual competition.

Please say more about this!

I remember there was some controversy around Godot but I entirely forgot what it was. Censorship issues?

They're clearly using whichever method is most politically expedient in the circumstances. They deserve the criticism, but I can't see the impact of all this. Labor is likely out at the next election anyway over immigration and other systemic failures.

In the same way, as a true liberal, I feel it is, all else being equal, axiomatically, fairly wrong to prevent people from doing whatever the hell they want

I want to sincerely thank you for creating such a succinct illustration of why liberalism always fails within its own framework.

I have at least one post that I deleted because I belatedly realised that it could function as a "how-to" for a terrorist.

I would not appreciate that post's version history becoming available to all Mottizens.

(The rest, IIRC, are from me realising I misinterpreted a post on reading further context and deleting a misaimed response or unnecessary question; undeleting those wouldn't accomplish anything but I wouldn't strongly oppose it either.)

The problem here is that James will not lose his teeth and everyone knows it, especially James. What pretty much everyone misses is that patriarchy is fundamentally about dealing with male intrasexual competition. All the stuff psychoanalyzing women largely misses the point.

Killing people just because they ask you to has always been kind of fraught though -- particularly doing it exchange for filthy lucre.

It is kind of fun. No multiscreen needed, just a weed vape, a laptop, 30+ tabs, and a few hours to kill.

It gets old pretty fast though (same with porn in general). I quit weed to get a better job and don't really miss it. Kind of a shame, because fake weed vapes are dirt cheap while getting bored and going to the bar 4+ nights a week gets expensive in a hurry such that I kind of need a side gig to help pay my bar tabs (Last time that happened it spiraled out of control such that I wound up being a bartender, a fun but very time and money intensive way to develop a friend group of mostly fucked up people.).

The bee thing was solved a long time ago. Time to retire it.

What stands out to me on Wikipedia is the insistence that the islands have an indigenous population that the British lied about and deported. The Chagos Archipelago article includes the introduction "the UK falsely claimed that the Chagos had no permanent population", and the page on the islanders themselves has as its second sentence "Under international law, they are the indigenous people of the Chagos archipelago".

Read on, however, and it becomes clear that this 'indigenous population' is a melange of people from many different regions brought to the islands by Europeans as workers in the 19th century, and that when the British deported them in the 60s and 70s, they moved around a thousand people, who were mostly workers on failing, unprofitable plantations that would have been closed in the near term anyway. This is probably not what most people have in mind when they think of colonial genocides of indigenous peoples. The Chagossians are a relatively recent polyglot of diverse origins, not people with an ancient connection to the islands, and seem likely to have had found more opportunities away from the islands anyway. I'm not asserting that the deportation was therefore morally unproblematic - I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like a very central case of the violations it's being presented as. Wikipedia doesn't technically lie - "the UK falsely claimed" and "under international law they are X" seem like claims that are at least arguably true - but it presents those claims in ways that strike me as calculated to produce a misleading impression.

Wait. So you think the brain is uniquely outside of understanding?

I agree that Malaysia walkability is generally awful, but I've been to about 60% of the country's major cities and have only seen pockets of what I'd consider proper Poverty. Even places like Sabah and Sarawak tend to have a floor of 'okay' housing, for a given value of okay. I've lived in Darwin and spent time in Broome & a few other parts of Northern Australia and I've seen a lot worse than the typical Malaysian dwellings in a similar climate.

Personally I'd consider KLCC a bit of a confusing dump. Petaling Jaya is where most of the best areas for livability are, partly due to demographic reasons and there's islands of gated communities practically everywhere in the greater Klang Valley. Also the vibes in Putrajaya where it's the government swinging around large amounts of oil money and still a bit of a ghost town are quite different to the affluent suburbs of PJ.

I guess there’s a big difference between a bi guy who’s secure in his bisexuality and has had relationships with both men and women, and one that’s still figuring things out. The former seems to use “pansexual” or “queer” as a label more often I’ve found? I can totally see why bicurious guys would be a problem though, and I don’t think I’d want to date one.

I’d date a trans man for sure if we’re compatible. It’s not that I’d be more attracted to one, but it makes things easier when you have a shared experience over things like dysphoria and the other person just gets it. Plus you don’t have to worry about them transitioning to a woman (which is weirdly common among men willing to openly date trans women).

Maybe I'm just too sheltered, but I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating here.

I mean it pretty literally: an employee sat down, explained what I was doing wrong, what the expectations for that specific space was, what likely failure modes I'd encounter if I continued as I was doing, and some alternative approaches.

I dunno what the guy's specific job was, but one of the older employees sat down and gave a ten or fifteen minute spiel, starting with the simple stuff like explaining what someone buying you a drink meant (only strictly speaking requires a conversation, but impolite to accept if you aren't looking for something more, with expectations of reciprocity, and how the tab worked under those circumstances) and how to handle it if the drink was unacceptable but the company wasn't (tell the bartender or waiter when you order your first drink that you're a teetotaler, even if you're not), that customers purchasing less than two beers worth were going to unspecified issues (hint hint), normal don't leave drinks unattended and know your limits for alcohol when you do drink. Eventually, what I'd missed about the name (a marijuana reference), what event nights were active for 'mostly' social stuff (poker or betting on watch football) and which were much more heavy on either hookups or otherwise might be a little too ribald for me (here's a flier; yes several include drag and/or guys in glorified speedos), and other spaces that might be easier to get friends to go to the bar with (admittedly, not very helpful given three of the recs were explicitly political orgs).

I have no idea how many of those conventions were even common back then and I'm sure many aren't common now.

But my read is that the "I'm a femboy and I fuck better than your girlfriend" is a strikingly common fantasy.

Uh... yeah. One of my first crushes was on a straight guy, and it wasn't the only such crush, add in a general shortage of tops, and there's a lot of reasons it works as a fantasy. And while I've never pursued it, you only really need one or two closeted guys for it to feel like it could work.

That said, the "I'll just go gay/date a femboy/date trans women" thing seems to have a little purchase, but only in the way that Trump wanting to buy Greenland is. It's a memetic negotiation tactic, a way of asserting "I have power over you no matter what you do!"

Maybe? I dunno how much of it's kidding on the square. A lot of soccons have looked at the number of younger generations self-identifying as bi and then not doing anything about it, but there's other explanations for that behavior that could end up changing pretty fast.

But that may just be me assuming many other people share my interests, and there definitely are starting to be people who try to take that approach and get surprised to find out exactly how poorly it works in practice.

But also straight men need to be real careful lest they start assuming that twinky femboys are drama-free sex machines.

Hah! Fair point. Even 'always up for sex' isn't anywhere near realistic, and that's assuming a lot of frot that straight or 'straight' guys aren't probably gonna be feeling. And it's very much just a different sort of drama, and not even that different, rather than as overt a difference in quantity as a lot of straight guys expect.

Hell, some of the times you don't even avoid the shoe-explosion.

What's particularly strange is this seems to be the overall campaign for HIV prevention, treatment, and testing, but the banners I recall specifically were advertising PrEP.

Interesting. I'll have to put some feelers out; this seems like the sorta thing where everyone involved was sure they were just presenting the most palatable experience, but by the end of the game of telephone it's somewhere between useless (like dental dams, PrEP for lesbians is probably not a high impact field: I think there's been literally one case of cisF/cisF HIV transmission through oral sex documented) and actively counterproductive (expecting partners to use a drug they can't get and wouldn't be helped by).

This seems plausible from a kitchen table evo psych point of view: in the ancestral environment, all things being equal, the man who jumped at a chance to have no-strings-attached sex had a greater inclusive genetic fitness than the man who did not.

If this counts as "plausible" according to evo-psych, then evo-psych is even more of a joke than I already thought (I did not hold the field in high esteem as-is). No, a casual fling would not have been an advantage in the ancestral environment, because one or both would have been killed by the rest of the tribe, and they sure as hell wouldn't have pitched in to raise the kid.

A wise man once warned of crafting just-so stories, never do we ask "What does the world look like if this is true?" We can also ask "So, does the world look like that?" Our ancestral environment was not one in which Single Female Lawyers could get knocked up, yet remain sexy and self reliant; it was one in which chid rearing was insanely hard, and required the support of the tribe, who had no incentive to aid someone who couldn't be bothered to stay loyal to tribal hierarchy. It was also one in which the sexes were segregated, meeting the needs of the tribe as their sex allowed. Opportunities for surreptious coupling would be few and far between; a man and woman - who the tribe did not already recognize as coupled - would have arroused suspicions.

All this talk of evo-psych as applied to modern (emphasis on "modern" as opposed to "traditional") mating practises sounds like nothing so much as the never-ending attempts to square the absurdly high rates of obligate homosexuality in humans with basic evolutionary theory; perfunctory just-so stories that fall apart under the slightest investigation (something something "reasoning from first principles doesn't work for human interaction"). We know what kind of animal selects for female preference, and it doesn't look anything like human social organization. Even more, if we evolved for female preference, then why the hell is it failing so badly on the one metric that counts, human reproduction?

It should be blindingly obvious that humans short-circuited mating by means of social mediation, much like our simian relatives. This is far from uncommon in the animal kingdom; on the one hand, I can click on a Youtube video and watch the larva of a parasitoid wasp that has evolved an insanely specific method of feeding that allows it, without anything that could justify being called intelligence, to carefully eat only the parts of its host to provide nourishment without killing the host as long as possible. Then I can click on my "recommended" list and see a cheetah mother trapping a helpless foal, and spend hours watching her dumb-as-shit cubs play with said foal, lacking even the basic instinct to hunt. They literally didn't evolve the basic senses necessary to get food, they have to learn it from observation and trial-and-error, is it really so hard to imagine that humans didn't evolve mate selection, it's just something that has been passed down from generation to generation (see also farming, which isn't an evolved instinct in any human observed)?

I would say...why worry about it? There aren't even going to be standard humans around in 100 years. The amount of self indulgence and narcissistic focus putting this much of yourself into your personal sexuality and sexual history is astonishing. That is what i don't get about people. It is just sex. A warm hole and an orgasm.