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

Showing 25 of 111618 results for

domain:x.com

Yes.

My point is he records everything and has a clear counterparty rather than just spitting predictions with no skin in the game and crowing that he was right when a few of them land.

But Fuentes ain't predicting black swans either. "Israel and Iran will try to hurt each other" is a generally reliable prediction at its base.

And once you've been given the information "Hamas just killed a bunch of Israeli Civilians, in Israel" there's a few straightforward guesses from there RE: Israeli response.

I'll say there's zero chance I would have correctly predicted the Pager operation, even in the broad "Mossad wipes out Hezbollah's entire command in a single attack" strokes.

But "Hezbollah gets decimated by Israeli espionage" is not a wild, out there guess by any means.

If Fuentes was specific enough to say "The U.S. drops bunker busters on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities" as a likely outcome I'd start to give him credit.

Thanks for always posting these stories! I'm curious how the pro-Palestine monoculture you describe comes to be in the UK - is this stance already the predominant one in their media? Here in Germany, every mainstream outlet is solidly pro-Israel, and since COVID at the latest media skepticism has become right-coded. As a result, we get some wild right-side-of-history positions like "we should let Israel do its thing and take in all the Palestinians as refugees here", along with vegan housecat fantasies that Israel and Palestine could get along if Bibi just were replaced by a proper left-wing leader.

I think what's actually going on with Fuentes is that he's alienated with what he sees as the low-class nature of modern conservatism. Here for instance he attacks conservatives for being "openly hostile to all the good things about liberals" and being "low-IQ hillbillies who take pride in being simple and hate the rich:"

https://x.com/FuentesUpdates/status/1908187813117411525

The problem with populist political movements is that the people who rise to the top tend to have psychological traits more characteristic of elites, intelligence, drive, and ambition, which wind up alienating them from the populist masses.

My point is not claiming with certainty that premarital sex and single parenting due to divorce is going to exist forever. But at least in my lifetime I'd say I think it's unlikely that any group that opposes this will acquire control of the mechanisms to ever find out what they could do with them. Given that slavery lasted for millennia, the people who said slavery wasn't going anywhere were probably right in all the ways that mattered.

Sex outside of marriage was frequent even when said groups did control those mechanisms. And the advent of birth control means people at least believe they can have sex with no consequences. A quick search suggests only 5% of people want to make birth control harder to get, and only 28% want abortions to be harder to get. About 95% of Americans have had sex outside of marriage, often with someone they did not eventually marry. Only about 35% of Americans say sex outside of marriage is wrong. Only 32% of Christians say it is never acceptable to have sex outside of marriage.

I'm saying that this viewpoint is in a very deep hole and it would take a very dramatic shift for it to happen. Gaining control of those mechanisms to convince people to stop having sex outside of marriage is a chicken and egg problem. Even Republicans don't seem interested. It sounds about as likely as me hypothesizing how many people I could sway to become pro-immigration if I could get a speaking role at the Republican National Convention. Maybe some of the attendees will switch to Democrats at some point in their life, but that's not a reason to pursue that line of thought.

I see tons of pickups in my blue/Hispanic area in absolute mint condition and empty beds. Fairly often they drive around with tow mirrors extended despite not towing anything. Sometimes you even see "duallies" (trucks with four wheels on the rear axle) in similar pristine condition. Hispanic landscapers drive beat to shit Ford trucks.

Does anyone have a sense of why Americans choose pickups over other big-ass form factors?

I think in my area, suburban office workers are alienated from anything to do with manipulating the physical world rather than symbols and feel that a very large and expensive truck connects them in some way to rugged manual labor.

Are autoandrophiles even a thing? Blanchard was sceptical.

Heck, now the option of identifying as non-binary is more salient, FtMs are barely a thing for autoandrophiles to be a sub-thing of.

Seconding the others’ interest. I want to say I agree with you but I suspect we have pretty different ideas of which movements are the central examples.

Caplan's record, as he readily admits, is somewhat less impressive when you account for the fact that he wins by consistently betting in favor of consensus and the future being like the past. He's not successfully predicting black swan events, but arbitraging others' overestimation of the frequency of black swan events.

To be fair, you’re describing about 75 percent of the major 20th century authors here. The personal dysfunction (Raymond Chandler, Ernest Hemingway, James Ellroy, David Foster Wallace), the string of failed careers with writing chosen less as a calling and more because it’s easier than working a real job (Bukowski notably, but most of them), the constant seething racial and personal axe-grinding (Phillip Roth, James Baldwin, James Ellroy). Sci-fi writers back then tended to be more functional and less of an emotional garbage fire, which is probably why this was such a surprise to you. To be fair I think it’s a big part of the reason their writing is actually interesting. Riley Sager has a stable home life and is emotionally well adjusted and unfortunately you can clearly see that on every dreary page of fish-wrap.

Real people, whether Ellison or a childhood friend, will not be clones of you or homonculi of what you want or want to become. Real relationships mean friction. Pratchett's view had its flaws and its failings. Carrot Ironfoundersson (mostly) doesn't and can't. Beware what extent the latter has hacked your brain.

I feel like this would be different if Ellison had any sort of coherent views aside from being loud and angry. What did he stand for that could outlive him? Following along with the civil rights movement? Earning a few attaboys along the way? He mostly just spilled hate across countless pages.

Like I said below, I fell in love with the man's TV persona. And I greatly enjoyed many of his non-autobiographical stories. But undergoing this deep dive into the person has been a journey into the horror of the man. Where as I naively assumed before that the TV persona was the real Ellison because it was so much more impactful than Ellison on the page, and so I assumed written Ellison to be schtick, it turns out the TV Ellison was the schtick, and the written Ellison was the genuine article.

I can only describe it like this. There is a horror film coming out called "Cannibals Rape, Murder and Consume College Coeds 3". You watch all the press junkets and the actors seem very charming and likable. You know when you see the film you'll see some shocking stuff, but you know it's not real. There are no actual cannibals eating anyone.

Then 2 months later Italian authorities arrest the cast and crew because they did in fact rape, murder and consume one of the extras when they were filming in Sicily. Do you still separate the artist from the art? I mean, it was the most amazing cannibal film you've ever seen.

Possibly the only defining feature of Ellison's entire body of work is the hate. It used to exist in a box with suspension of disbelief applied. They were just words on a page. Now I have a sneaking suspicion that more likely than not, the hate was the realest part of him he ever put out there, and it's just sad. Not fun and edgy anymore.

Goesaert v. Cleary: “Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the woman bartender, it was argued, could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.” 1948. Overturned in 1976.

Schulz v. Wheaton Glass: it turns out making identical job listings but paying the women’s jobs less actually counts as discrimination. 1970.

US v. Virginia et al.: no, spinning up a second school to allow male/female segregation is not, in fact, separate but equal. 1996.

I find it obvious that second-wave feminism was legitimately fighting oppression. The same is doubly true for racial minorities. There are plenty of reasons why the Civil Rights Act was significant, rather than a formality.

Firstly, if we are limiting the discussion to the mentioned attributes, with the exception of age (a condition which on retrospect I suppose I only included because it tends to correlate with accumulation and accentuation of other mentioned issues), why is it unreasonable for me to set as conditions my own characteristics (not with children, not overweight/obese)? I refuse to compromise on what I also expect of myself, and if that destroys my odds, so be it. Whether this is "punishment for entitlement" or "punishment for having standards" is a good Russell Conjugation.

Secondly, if it is, as I believe, psychological issues which inhibit my rapport with the opposite sex, then a relationship with someone sufficiently "low value" to initially entertain my eccentricities and chronic self-esteem issues would likely end up going badly in the long run.

This does loop back around to a rejoinder which I have come to accept: it is also perfectly reasonable and fits with my experience that most women are similarly unwilling to compromise on certain severe psychological and self-esteem issues in men, and that's not a standard I'd expect anyone to spontaneously drop.

This is why tomboys hate formal events - they are used to being able to be performatively androgynous without looking like they are cross-dressing.

And, in reverse, this is how you can trivially differentiate autogynephiles from everyone else (AGPs dress as formally as possible all the time).

I agree that autoandrophiles can exhibit this, but they often don't because the pull effect from "guy clothes" isn't as strong considering there's no article of clothing (except ones you can't see) that aren't trivially available for women; you'd have to go out of your way to be transgressive and most people wouldn't understand it being "designated guy clothes", they'd just see as "woman with unusually poorly fitting clothes".

Didn't we all? One only needed to have looked at the Palestinian-to-Israeli death ratio in any given scuffle to have known how this was gonna turn out

Sure, I personally responded to October 7th with "oh, damn, Gaza's gonna get fuuuucked."

Some speculate all sorts of things. Please preemptively provide evidence, not speculation.

Lots of parents deputize the one kid they think is reliable. The wisdom can be debated but it doesn't really contradict the playground cop thesis. The US also bribes countries like Egypt on the other end which fits as well.

As for letting them squabble... this'd work if a)everyone didn't already agree that the use of nukes is a taboo to be maintained and b) there was no chance of it spreading to the exact sort of groups that got Iran into this mess and c) one of these nations didn't continually insist it was in a religious war with the rest. That gives people reason to deny you a nuke.

People were protesting and demanding ceasefires almost immediately after October 7. I assume this was because they expected destruction.

At least on the left some personalities like Cenk Uygur - whose geopolitical acumen I don't value particularly highly - were explicitly condemning Hamas because they thought Israel would just absolutely wreck Gaza in response. (This bit faded as Oct. 7 became more distant and now it's mostly Israel criticism)

A lot of these people overestimated the damage (they assumed much heavier starvation much earlier on) they didn't downplay it.

Indians are usually far more adept at keeping track of the clan. I think I personally know just two of my third cousins, this one included. With my coaxing, he's up to four. But if I cared to ask my mom, I could probably find out about dozens of others.

Oh sure, knowing your third cousins isn’t weird. It’s knowing whether they’re second or third cousins- or even caring- thats a bit odd.

Please elaborate a bit when you’re questioning someone.

Sky takes up cool hues here during the rains, so its frequently pink and other colors during this time of the year as opposed to any other. Very light rain probably has a lot do with colors in the evening.

More effort than this, please.

It’s awfully hard to argue with one-liners.

Ideas spreading is not like mind control. I don't know how you would arrive to that conclusion. A lot of factors have facilitated the spread of ideas that did not exist before the last few decades. I would like to read a more elaborate post from you on this topic too.

Tbh as long as they're hot, I dont mind. Very few things come close to the female form.

In that case it should be easy to provide an example of others that made the same predictions.