domain:noahpinion.blog
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
22hr ago
I don't know for sure, but that's a likely reason.
She's late 20s, same age as me. That is slightly long in the tooth by Indian standards. Not the end of the world by any means, but it'll only get harder once she hits her 30s. She was fretting about this during our video call.
It's also bad from the perspective of being a trophy wife, with little to offer except looks and decent familial wealth. Her family are well off, but not ridiculously so. If she was a working professional, she could probably delay till her early 30s before things got really bad.
The arranged marriage market in India is quite brutal. I would flourish in it, because I'm a qualified guy (age is far less of a factor). Her family is quite liberal in mostly turning a blind eye to her romances, but if I had to guess, largely because she seems serious about locking a guy down and it saves them a lot of hassle. Love is a great lubricant, and at least cuts down on dowry demands.
To the modal, conservative leaning potential marriage partner:
- She's getting close to too old.
- She's a model, which is scandalous. The looks are a positive, the career a negative. Her parents wanted her to do something else, but she talked them into this. Most families would prefer a housewife or career woman, and not this.
- She has had multiple previous sexual partners. This is a big deal, it would be easier to suppress this than to talk it through.
She has no end of guys down to fuck. I remember, on one of our dates, she showed me her Bumble matches. So many the counter broke. But how many would want to put a ring on it? Most would be like me, in for a ride but not willing to take the car out of the dealership for good.
To an extent, her anxiety is well founded. She only has a few years before it becomes an uphill struggle, even if it won't be literally impossible to find a good partner. Ed creds and a good job would have sweetened the deal, but she's not there, and she's not a supermodel either.
This guy was:
- Relatively serious about marriage
- A semi-compatible background
- Apparently honest and entrepreneurial
- Decently handsome
To a family that has wealth but concerns about the continuity of said wealth, she could do worse. I presume her family would have loved me, but we never got to the stage of introductions. I made it clear I was leaving soon, and it would be a good while before there was a chance I'd be back.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
22hr ago
This explains so much. When I said "We've had the same issue with Hlynka", I should have focused on this thought instead of getting triggered by the usual Hlynka rhetorics. In a sense, it's impressive how he did basically nothing to obfuscate his identity, exactly the same cocksure loquacity glossing over substantial flaws, and could rely on good faith alone.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
23hr ago
Ahahaha, this explains so much. I was worried we've got another LLM skeptic with the exact same mix of bad takes.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
23hr ago
· Edited 19hr ago
A cute girl who is retarded can usually make it work. There are plenty of men thinking with their dicks who would snap that up and be very happy about it. I'd be concerned about a son who came out a himbo, sure, that's not the end of the world, but I personally aspire for better.
She did write me an apology later, wanted to stay friends and promised to internalize things and change, but ngl I'm not holding my breath.
My condolences. She clearly means well, but I share your suspicion that she lacks the ability to actually enact her wishes. Not everyone can be above average in terms of intelligence or common sense, if only because that's logically and statistically impossible.
I can only stress how hard they're bending over backwards to accommodate this guy.
Why though? Just because he's so much better for her than the usual fare she gets around her?
Fang Yuan would have put a baby in her, then refined them both into Gu.
I highly doubt the Gu of Cute but Retarded would be of more use to him than securing the favor of a wealthy righteous clan.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
23hr ago
You know, I was just browsing the RI sub, mourning the fact that I had finished the novel again.. Fang Yuan would have put a baby in her, then refined them both into Gu.
Anyway. Her dad didn't frame it as a precondition, it was a genuine offer. He's getting on in years, and he'd love to have someone take over the business. His son is busy doing something that makes too much money in an MNC abroad to bother, his daughter? She couldn't run a Nestlé distributor during a drought. So the only real options are to sell, or to look for a SIL who can handle things.
I can only stress how hard they're bending over backwards to accommodate this guy. Indian families tend to be very class/wealth conscious, she's marrying down in that sense. Different ethnic group, different religion. This is incredibly rare, and the boyfriend really thinks too highly of himself for his own good but that's his prerogative.
gattsuru
23hr ago
I think only Friedman found a case-wide failure to carry the burden of proof; the rest of the judges mostly focus on the burden of proof for disgorgement aka the high fines.
In New York, as in most other jurisdictions, appeals courts can only overturn an action from a lower court with a full majority of the appeals court judges. Here, there's a majority (5/5) on the fines and sanctions, and division on everything else, and it's not even clear that Higgitt and Rosado want a retrial here so much as think it would be appropriate in a non-Trump case.
Beyond that, there's also just a lot of issues with this specific case getting a retrial -- Higgitt/Rosado might have settled for a dissental because they couldn't get a third signing onto a retrial, but they might have not really wanted a retrial in this case and only argued it for others in the future. Everyone else gives a different reason why they don't want a retrial. From the Moulton/Renwick:
Returning this action to Supreme Court for a new trial as urged by Justice Higgitt is both unnecessary and likely terminal. It is difficult to imagine that a trial could proceed while one of the principal defendants, and a central witness, is President of the United States. The inevitable elapse of time and the attendant difficulties in recreating a vast record of testimony and documents — an exercise that is both Sisyphean and unneeded, because an extensive trial record already exists — would likely consign this meritorious case to oblivion.
From Friedman:
First, I do not believe that we can ignore the fact that ordering a new trial of a case in which the primary defendant and witness is the sitting president of the United States (and will remain so for approximately another 3½ years) would disrupt the political life of the United States and would undermine its national interest, particularly at a time of high global tension, with ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.[FN3] Second, while it is obvious from the divergence of opinions among the justices of this panel that this case calls out for further appellate review, an order by this Court directing a retrial is not immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals unless the appellant stipulates to be bound by the prior judgment in the event his further appeal is unsuccessful (CPLR 5601[c], 5602[b][1]; see Trezza v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 23 NY3d 1011, 1011 [2014]; Maynard v Greenberg, 82 NY2d 913, 914-915 [1994]). It seems inconceivable that defendants would stipulate to a judgment carrying a half-billion dollar award against them.[FN4] Finally, even if Justice Higgitt is correct that neither side should have been granted summary judgment on their dueling pretrial motions, I agree with Justice Moulton that the record before us — more than 100 volumes, comprising nearly 50,000 pages — is more than sufficient to decide the case without holding another trial.
Greg quotes 1 Corinthians 15:
”we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality […] the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons”
But in the very line of thought in 1Cor15, Paul emphasizes that Jesus has to be a man for salvation to occur, because Adam was a man. There is no argument that Jesus has to be more than man for salvation to occur; that thought isn’t found. We read here:
[21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
By a man has come resurrection! Why would Paul not add that the man had to be divine? We see something of the opposite. The mere man Adam made us mortal; the mere man Christ made us immortal. (Adam is an interesting case when you think about it: a man given immortality while still being a man.)
We also find the notion that Jesus resurrecting is an auspicious indication for the general class of mortal men dying, such that because Jesus resurrected we are consequently sure that we all will be resurrected. This would be a bewildering argument to make unless both the author and audience were certain that Jesus is no more than a mortal man:
[12] Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised
Now, if the author and the audience believed that Christ were more than mortal, then it would be perfectly reasonable to hold that there is resurrection of the dead while still Christ resurrected. Because Christ, being divine, can be resurrected, as he belongs to a category of being beyond mere mortals. A being who is both God and Man being resurrected would not indicate anything for the whole class of mortal men. Yet Paul says that his resurrection indicates that all men are resurrected, and Paul considers it impossible for anyone to hold that (1) Christ can be resurrected, while (2) other mortals can’t be resurrected. In effect Paul says here: you must believe that mortal men are resurrected, because if you don’t, then there is no possible way for Christ to be resurrected. And he reaffirms this twice, which is pretty remarkable; it may be the only case of Paul ever repeating the same argument nearly verbatim.
We also find the notion, again in this chapter, that the original state of Jesus in heaven was as a man:
The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
So for Paul, even when talking about the heavenly origin of Jesus, there is no mention of anything except his being a man. This actually poses a problem for Trinitarianism which separates the two natures of Jesus as mortal and immortal, because afaik they believe that the mortal Jesus did not have his origin in heaven, only the Word. If the heavenly origin of Jesus is purely Word/God, then why is Paul speaking of a man from heaven? Even if this is technically logical(?), it’s a highly unusual way for someone to present the idea.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
23hr ago
As I, self_made_human, absorbed this information, I was shaking my head vigorously. Some people genuinely don't recognize good fortune. I, honest wage slave in a foreign land, could only marvel at this man’s ability to fumble the largest economic windfall of his life for the sake of an ideology built out of sticks, mud, and motherly approval. If some elderly gentleman developed such fondness for me that he offered both his daughter's hand and most of his wealth, I'd definitely give it serious consideration. I'd be tempted even now, except for my complete lack of interest in operating a large clothing business. This guy already ran a struggling version of the same thing. What did he have to lose?
I catch myself thinking that if accepting the business was a precondition to marriage, it would feel more like a downside to me, on account of having neither experience nor desire nor, I suspect, much talent in running businesses. But I suppose what Fang Yuan would say is along the lines of "even if you run it into the ground within a year, you've benefitted as long as you don't go into debt".
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
23hr ago
I think the difference boils down to few people really thinking it is appropriate to treat universities, even private ones, like private companies. Considering how a university generally winds up hosting a large part of its students' entire lives, they are really more akin to landlords, power companies or ISPs, whose "editorial rights" to choose and un-choose their customers are greatly circumscribed.
(Before you call gotcha there, yes, I think it should be possible to force Christian, Jewish or Islamic universities to admit gay students. I think this should be especially possible if such universities become in any way dominant; I'm not so bothered by a single low-tier small Islamic school practicing full Sharia law, and wouldn't be bothered if there were a handful of designated low-prestige SJW schools that require any white students who join to undergo a humiliation ritual either, in the spirit of conservationism)
Thanks for the writeup and several flashbacks I had while reading this. It feels weirdly comforting to see situations similar to (formerly) my own, I remember being haunted by fumbling such a rare chance encounter but it seems to be common enough to crop up even here. At least this is my cope now.
Her problems stemmed primarily from extreme naivety.
I consider myself a hard-ass individual in most respects but extremely naive women being totally clueless about anything beyond the words exchanged are my fetish the one thing my heart cannot bear to witness, especially when I get told about all the times she got duped in the past cpt. Save-a-Hoe calls all hands on deck reflexively. Last time I tried my damndest to get the girl's mental toolbox up and running in at least some basic capacity, and while it lasted it even worked, but as soon as the romantic attachment was gone everything else went with it, and she was right back to the old habits (including picking a new guy to cling to) in literally a few days. She did write me an apology later, wanted to stay friends and promised to internalize things and change, but ngl I'm not holding my breath.
I honestly got the impression that people like her prefer having no agency beyond the choice of partner; in my own case (likewise wealthy and insulated, with her entire life unsubtly arranged by her parents behind the scenes - e.g when I pointed out the possibility that her getting into the top university with below-average grades was not exactly a stroke of luck, she was genuinely shocked, and shortly devastated when she got curious, asked her father, and he bluntly told her their family made a uh, generous donation) this was all but explicitly stated, with a strange sort of pride even, something like "yes I may be stupid but at least My Heart Is My Own". At times like these I felt my rational-ish influence was actively dragging her down and introducing unwelcome doubts into a blissfully empty head that consciously looks away and refuses to entertain worldly concerns. I distinctly feel that if I'd been any good at manipulation and was less conscientous I would've gotten anything I wanted out of her, up to and including keys to the kingdom, with very little resistance.
On one hand the failure to do so still stings, as a wise man once said - hesitation is defeat; on the other hand, put this way I would not want to roll the dice on child genetic makeup either, girls are cutest when they're almost retarded but I imagine it hits differently when you're the father.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
23hr ago
After around 2003, he lost a bit of that sparkle.
I thought it was even earlier. The first 3 Dark Tower novels are quite the ride, but then I found Wizard and Glass (to say nothing of the even worse 3 books that followed) to be weak. In hindsight, all the people talking about it being great was a warning that a certain segment of fandom will go gaga over "lore" even when it's terrible.
Pynewacket
23hr ago
I don't understand why you are just ignoring the question - it wasn't intended as rhetorical.
it's because he is concern trolling the lot of you.
CanofWorms
23hr ago
I gave up on listening to Blood Meridian around 3/4 of the way through it. I may try reading it at some point but I really just could not absorb this one.
CanofWorms
23hr ago
The Tommyknockers is an absolutely absurd book but there are some wild and memorable images in that book including the scene where the refrigerator turns into a levitating one-ton sledgehammer that zips around smashing into people. There's another scene where a person has created a self-sorting mail device and reading it gave me the same feeling as railing a line of cocaine. Even in the worst of King's earlier books there is always something magical to take away. After around 2003, he lost a bit of that sparkle. I blame it on his car accident and decision to get sober.
CanofWorms
23hr ago
Well said. I'm naturally lazy and would love to travel more.
CanofWorms
23hr ago
Hey buddy. What you want to do is find a shirt that fits you perfectly, take the measurements of that shirt, then go on to eBay and find shirts with identical measurements. I've found this to be the most successful way to purchase button-downs, jackets, and sweaters. It doesn't always work, but I've found really well-fitting button-down work shirts and it has helped me narrow in on the brands that fit me best.
Redistricting fight
It's been in the news that Trump is pushing for mid-decade redistricting. Yesterday, the Texas house approved a new map(https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/20/texas-house-vote-congressional-map-redistricting-democrats-trump/) which nets the GOP five seats- while not a done deal de jure, in Texas politics when something the republican party wants passes the house, it's as good as done. Texas has only in-person filibustering(that is, a filibuster in the Senate needs to talk the entire time), so democrats can't delay the map for weeks in the upper chamber.
Separately, Gavin Newsom is pushing for redistricting California to gain more seats for democrats(https://apnews.com/article/california-texas-redistricting-congressional-map-4c22e21d5d4022d33a257045693b6fd4). One problem: California law doesn't allow the legislature to unilaterally do this. They need voter approval to override their independent redistricting commission. As gerrymandering tends to be unpopular with actual voters, their odds are a lot worse than Texas'. Other solidly blue states like Colorado have the same issue that they can't actually gerrymander on short notice due to their 'independent' redistricting commissions.
The other problem for democrats in an all out gerrymandering war is that they simply have fewer seats to eek out. The most gerrymandered states in the union are all blue; red states going tit for tat isn't actually something they can escalate that much against. Combine it with red states not being dumb enough to establish independent redistricting commissions and it's pretty clear that democrats will lose in an all-out war of redistricting.
More options
Context Copy link