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

Showing 25 of 391 results for

domain:eigenrobot.substack.com

Well, yeah. Isn’t that what asscreed is all about?

Women don't have agency.

I am skeptical that the particular facts of women playing hard to get are downwind of biology.

Next thing you’ll tell me is that “Bud Light” is not, in fact, your bud.

On the one hand, I don't doubt it is individually sucky to break away from social norms like this. On the other hand, if we all decide to continue as if these are the rules then they remain the rules. Society does not spontaneously re-order due to nobody doing anything. It is a difficult collective action and coordination problem.

Not like this.

Fair enough, that's certainly a possible outcome. I am skeptical that it is worse than the alternative. Especially since I think there's an equilibrium that's better for both.

Yes, women playing coy is definitely a problem. Maybe this is just me but I think the better option is just... not having sex with women who do that! They can either learn to ask for what they want or no one should have sex with them. Errors in the direction of "some people miss sex they could have had" seem much better than errors in the other direction.

Option 1) Play the bigger man. Pardon himself, obviously, and a few limited other people. Beyond that do nothing. This will prevent a wider conflagration in the culture war. Downside: without a tit-for-tat, the left will be emboldened for much greater tats in the future.

Are you saying you didn't write this?

Also, the piece I replied to was your direct response to the question, referring directly to what I've quoted above, "Is there any time you can point to where he's behaved with such magnanimity?". Like, it's literally what you gave as an example of that, or so anyone would think from reading that part of the thread. I think the "misunderstanding", if it is that and not just revisionist history, is pretty damn understandable.

Why does purity have value? If you think it has an intrinsic value, why? If you think it only has value because it deeply shapes impressionable young women, then I think that's the exact argument the author makes.

Prosecuting the Tides foundation isn't going to do much. As a "dark money" organization most people haven't heard of them the way they've heard of the NRA, so the chance that anyone will actually care is low. Furthermore, as a foundation, they don't actually do anything themselves but simply distribute money to other groups. It takes a long time for an advocacy organization like the NRA to build up the donor network and social capital to have the kind of influence they've had. If you're just distributing money, there's plenty of other advocacy organizations that can easily take up that slack.

The biggest problem, though, is that most of the alleged malfeasance on the part of Tides is directed towards liberal advocacy groups who claim they mismanaged money intended for their benefit. For example, they're currently being sued in California by BLM, who claims the group misdirected 33 million in funds that were raised as part of a joint campaign and were supposed to be earmarked. Any other prosecutions are going to be in a similar vein. It's hardly an own of the libs if most libs haven't heard of the group you're prosecuting and the ones who have are likely to be your star witnesses. If BLM ends up siding with the administration it's hardly a good look.

My point exactly.

Despite any pope-knifing, AC2 was more controversial for its DRM than for its politics. This was objectively more reasonable than today’s squabbles.

Are non-monogamous societies somehow less downstream of biology than monogamous societies? Observationally dating norms have been very different historically than they are today and can be quite different in different geographical locations even today. It thus seems hard, to me, to argue that some set of dating norms common in the anglosphere are some biological inevitability.

Definitely agree.

Despite the "lock her up" rhetoric, Trump didn't actually try to lock Hilary up.

That's not magnanimity. At best it's baseline, expected behaviour. If you find that to be impressive coming from Trump, that seems like a meaner thing to say about him than even most of his leftie foes tend to use, at least the ones that are at all grounded in reality. (And I say that as one of those foes, though increasingly I'm only "leftie" by the standards of this place.)

I was mostly looking for upper-middle, educated, career-having women and I'd say about a quarter were palpably inexperienced to the point that I don't think they had any meaningful romantic experience by their mid-late twenties.

Where was the best place to meet this type of women?

For sure. I definitely don't intend to place all the onus to change on men. It's a cultural change that includes changing behaviors by both sexes.

I don't think so.

Jos on kerran äidiksi syntynyt

Joka kerran on äidiksi syntynyt,

hän äiti on kaikkien lasten,

ja kaikkia maailman lapsia

hän on painanut rintaansa vasten,

ja maailman lasten itkua

hän on korvissaan alkanut kuulla,

sillä maailman lapset puhuvat

hänen omien lastensa suulla.

-Anne-Mari Kaskinen –

Don't be that hard on yourself man. I doubt anyone that is a 2/10 has a wife a child now.

It's incredibly suspicious, it's also impossible to know what it actually means without reading Sam Altman's mind. Think poorly of him, it's only fair, but I won't pretend that I know exactly what he meant.

kill a fair number of birds.

Note that alternative power generation methods also kill many animals, directly and indirectly. Is there any indicator that number of animals killed is worse for wind power?

Wind farms are unsightly

This one depends on person, I guess

This is simply not correct to say about the Law of Gravity.

There is a very real sense is that this is determined by the mathematical structure of what mass is. I can make that argument, as I said,

if something has "mass" as defined by certain mathematics, then it must attract every object as you quote,

If you would like me to, but I think its incidental to the real argument we are debating, which is, can we be justified in believing in universal laws?

My point is that while the laws of physics are discovered empirically, what lets us be justified in speaking universally of them, is math.

If all we had was empirical observations, I agree those empirical observations of "mass behaving in X way" would not allow us to conclude "everything with mass behaves in X way".

However, we can instead identify mass, as a certain mathematical structure, where the "must behave in X way" follows as a consequence of the math.

Then we can speak universally, because when we say "all things with mass behave in X way" we are saying "all things with this mathematical structure behave in X way".

If we can be confidant about what the math, of mass is, then we can be confidant about the behavior of mass universally, and unless you embrace philosophical skepticism, which you claim not too, I don't see why we can be confidant in the math.

Indeed, they should take responsibility, but bear none for how things have gotten to this point and bear no responsibility for their present unhappiness.

Okay, that's the kind of thing where you have to make your case.

You were warned for this exact behavior a while back. One day ban this time.