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

Showing 7 of 7 results for

domain:mgautreau.substack.com

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) 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.