domain:nature.com
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
2m ago
So! There's a tiny chance I'll be booted out of the US because 5 decades ago my parents were illegal immigrants and we might decide to end birthright citizenship.
Meanwhile, right-wing nativist Chuds in my parents' country have decided they think bloodline-based citizenship is the actual problem and are taking steps towards ending it.
I don't really want to live in the old country, but to add insult to injury it's narrowly possible I'll lose residency in the US while my kids lose residency in the old country and making that work would be pretty annoying.
This is really speculative of course. But for peace of mind, are there any decent countries that I can buy a citizenship in? Either cash money or via "investment"? The obvious contenders like Cyprus and Portugal seem to have scaled back the enticements recently.
iprayiam3
5m ago
Right which is why she can’t criticize it on that front. So the present moral distaste is transferred onto something else
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
6m ago
Homies: Ride or Die
FINALLY got most major issues with car solved. Switched to PBR ("physically based rendering") from old school Phong-style. Really took this to the next level (pic attached).
Also the wheels now spin properly, the lighting and normal maps stay consistent, I can even select the brake callipers and steer them along with the the front wheels.
The problem the entire time is seemingly that the obj/mtl data files were garbage, and I lost several weeks worth of time using those. I cannot believe how consequential stupid shit like choice of file format is. I'm sure there are dev teams that have wasted millions of dollars from this one decision.
Anyway! I'm told the next thing I want to do is add environment mapping (having the skydome, etc reflect off the car) to really make it pop.
TRON bike lighting
Finally getting back to this. The parts arrived for the $4 PC case fan and charcoal filter and I made myself a fume extractor that impressed my daughter.
IsItPleasing
20m ago
Maybe for some women. I can tell you for a fact that my wife dresses up nice for the same reason she cleans and decorates our house even when nobody is coming around. She likes pretty things and wants to be one of them. From my experience this is pretty common for women.
Pretending it's all about attracting men is not just reductive, it's simply false in many cases.
ABigGuy4U
22m ago
9/11 is one of the reasons the dissident Republican groups never went anywhere, because of all the new, much more comprehensive terrorist financing laws.
VIM
25m ago
I feel like this analysis basically requires that you unquestioningly believe every claim the Israelis made while ignoring key pieces of evidence that contradict said claims, for example:
- Nearly all of the big achievements (eg. the decapitation strikes) occurred at the very beginning of the war, the opposite of what one would expect if Iran's air defenses were truly crippled
- Nearly all of the strikes were performed with Mossad drones or with air-to-ground missiles rather than bombs, a sign that the IAF didn't feel like they could just freely fly over Tehran dropping bombs
- Israel's interception rate fell calamitously in a relatively short period, going from 95% on day 1 to around 50% by day 12
Despite the dire threats coming from Katz, Israel has yet to actually try restarting combat. You'll notice that they don't feel the need to bark when talking about bombing Syria or Gaza, they just do it. There are really only two explanations: restraint imposed by Trump or fear imposed by Iran's missiles. What this war has really demonstrated is that Israel can't handle Iran alone, even with basically unlimited NATO and Arab backup on defense. It simply doesn't have the strategic depth to handle regular hits on essential targets every single day; to win, total, unconditional and most importantly indefinite American offensive support would be necessary. Though if the Houthis are of any indication, even that might be insufficient.
As to the fate of the Iranian regime, frankly it's probably in the strongest position it's been in decades. By all accounts the internal division around fighting Israel was resolved instantly by the sneak attack and discredited the Shah supporters just like how supporting Saddam discredited the MEK back in the 80s. The advocates of negotiating with the US look like chumps and the hardliners who proposed building ballistic missile cities carved into mountains look like brilliant strategists. I suppose the IRGC warrior caste might increase it's power relative to the clerical caste but if anything the IRGC are more interested in nuclear weapons than Khamenei and the religious authorities ever were.
At this point if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon there's very little Trump or Israel could do to stop them, though making a weapon that could actually be plausibly useful ie. one that could be put on a warhead would take considerably longer and would be very difficult to hide the development of. Ironically the one thing that could prevent this would be Russia and China, neither of whom have an interest in Iran going nuclear, offering some sort of protection in exchange for some degree of oversight.
ABigGuy4U
26m ago
Iran's irrational hatred of Israel is not rooted in history or geopolitical sense
Yes it is. Israel and Iran are the two most militarily powerful countries in the Middle East. If Iran or Israel disappeared overnight, the other would be in an excellent position to dictate terms to the weaker Arab states. Whoever survives is the major regional power for the next 300 years (barring Turkey). You’ll notice that while Israel and Iran had a few scuffles through the 80s, the knives really started to come out after Saddam Hussein fell and Syria collapsed. Iraq (and the threat of a Ba’athist axis) being the main third player for regional power.
Iranians would benefit tremendously if their insane leaders were overthrown and a sensible government aligned itself with the US.
That’s how we ended up in this mess in the first place!
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
30m ago
Conor McGregor can be filmed heading off with an outright fatty to presumably bang or at least fool around
That makes sense to me. If theres a woman right in front of you that you can have consequence-free sex with, and your reaction is to go find a different one, I suspect thats mostly been selected against. It would be too rare to have multiple such options to have a specific reaction for it.
As for Zuckerberg at all, keep in mind that a rich guy that you know for being rich had many opportunities to sell it all and have more money than a hedonist could ever need, and he made it to the point where you know him because he didnt take those. There could well be large numbers who update however you think they should, that you just dont see. Actually, Im curious how you think they should, since you say that prostitues are bad also?
hydroacetylene
31m ago
Iran's government might be incompetent, but again, I don't understand what's uncivilized about it?
hydroacetylene
32m ago
Iraq didn't stay a popular war for very long, but was it a genuinely unpopular invasion at the time? My impression is that when everyone thought the Iraqis would take to democracy easily once their evil tyrant(and that is what Saddam was) was replaced it was a generally-approved of war domestically, and it only became super unpopular when it became clear that the Iraqis would prefer armed nuts to democracy.
Tree
48m ago
I’m trying to avoid double-dipping of people’s unpleasantness veto, that’s all. If you agree to do something for pay, you’ve sold it. You can’t use the veto to avoid the unpleasant part of the job later.
I was raised to believe that employers should be loyal to, and supportive of, their staff.
This sounds like some HR bullshit on some corporate website. Just pay me. I'll judge how loyal and supportive you are, and I'll be, later. The kind of loyalty you're talking about has to be earned.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
50m ago
For secular people, it is largely driven by a dislike of pharmaceuticals. Hormonal contraception can have wacky side effects physically and mentally. IUDs can really hurt during placement and after. Copper IUDs have side effects too, even thought they're technically not hormonal.
People who fall in this bucket might not mind a condom or other barrier-based birth control from time to time, but people seem to like having the option to go au natural. Fertility awareness gives them this option.
Charting also can help diagnose and treat issues with the female reproductive system, if you can find a doctor who is trained to use it (often has the keyword Napro "natural procreation".) Common issues that can be identified and treated through bio-matching hormones that are administered at key phases of the cycle are polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), and other hormonal issues.
From a Catholic perspective (because let's face it, it's pretty much Catholics who see it this way), they look at it deontologically/virtuously versus consequence. If it's a matter of consequences, and Catholics are children-maximizers, the 100% assured way to avoid having kids (abstinence) would be immoral, but it's actually supererogatory.
So a Catholic looks at the actions themselves involved with Fertilty Awareness methods and doesn't see anything wrong with any of them.
Action 1: Know your cycle and communicate it with your husband - I don't see anything contrary to morals here. Self-knowledge is generally considered good, communicating with spouses is good.
Action 2: Have (married) sex on a day you know you are likely to have a kid - Believe it or not, a lot of people use Fertility awareness to increase the likelihood of children. Nothing immoral with that either.
Action 3: Not have sex on a day you know you are likely to have a kid - While there are some activities that are required or else a sin of omission is committed, it is not expected for a couple to have sex every day. Knowing that it is a fertile day doesn't change that. In fact, if someone is life-or-death-should-not-get-pregnant, then the TradCath (prior to Fertility Awareness) recommendation would be to avoid sex entirely.
Action 4: Have sex on a day you know you are unlikely to make a new life - Seems unlikely this action would be bad too. Otherwise there would also be warnings against having sex while pregnant or post-menupause, and there aren't.
I think it's more difficult to explain why hormonal birth control is immoral than it is to explain why Fertility Awareness is moral. But if I had to try to explain it, I would probably point to the reasons why some secular people avoid hormonal birth control - the action itself is purposely damaging the reproductive system, and Catholics are more strict on how much damage you can do to yourself before it becomes immoral.
As far as why barrier methods or pulling out is immoral, it changes the nature of the act, so that an actual act of sexual intercourse isn't happening - instead it's something like mutual masturbation. In Fertility Awareness, an actual act of sexual intercourse is happening.
urquan
Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
54m ago
If the argument you’re making is “less than 100% of marriages are worthwhile,” I think that’s completely uncontroversial. If the argument is “100% of marriages are not worthwhile,” then I think that’s wrong.
It sounds to me like you’re intending to say the first, but the way you put it at first — “I've never had a single person tell me it's easier to have a wife” — implies you mean the second. People are bringing up their own marriages to argue against the second, while you’re defending the first. I think an unintentional motte and bailey has been set up, just because of a lack of clarity in the discussion.
But the big difference in views I think I see is that the “wife guys” are arguing for marriage through the concept of companionate love: “she’s the best part of my day, she makes my life meaningful,” etc. You’re talking about it in terms of economic and sexual utility: “I could have sex with any woman, and get assistants to do things around the house I don’t want to do.” If that’s what the utility of a marriage consists of then of course Bezos doesn’t need it! But if marriage includes an intimate relationship of growth in and with the other person, then it’s no wonder at all why Bezos would throw such a lavish wedding if he believes he’s found someone he can have that with. He can be right or wrong about the particular woman he made that choice with (like he apparently did with the first one), but it’s not straightforwardly stupid.
People are bringing up their own marriages to insist that this kind of companionate love is possible in the long term, even if all or even most marriages don’t live up to it. They’re protecting the concept of a pair-bond.
sockpuppet2
55m ago
John Psmith reviewed "Leap of Faith," about the institutional failures or collective "non-decision" leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The review begins:
There are two stories from the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq that I can’t get out of my head. The first is that in the final stages of war planning, the US Air Force was drawing up targeting lists for the sorties they expected to make. They already had detailed plans for striking Iraq’s air defense systems, but they worried that they would also be asked to disable Iraqi WMD sites. So the Air Force pulled together a special team of intelligence officers to figure out the right coordinates for all the secret factories and labs that were churning out biological weapons and nuclear materials. Try as they might, they couldn’t find them. So…they just kept on looking.
The second story comes from an anonymous source who described to Michael Mazarr, the author of this book, the basic occupation strategy that the National Security Council was settling on. The concept was that once you “cut off the head” of the Iraqi government, you would witness a “rapid and inevitable march toward Jeffersonian democracy.” What I find amazing about this is that nobody even stopped to think about the metaphor — how many things march rapidly and decisively after being decapitated?
By his description, everybody involved wanted to invade Iraq, but the dynamic that resulted in an invasion seemed to be that of the Abilene Paradox. He links it to CW issues, with discussion of "moralism" in American foreign policy and due to it being a major issue about which American government went against the overwhelming preference of the populace, and Trump being an outlier critic of the war being a big part of his early appeal. A handful of thoughts:
-
Coincidentally, I just listened to a long interview with an early American casualty in the "First Battle of Fallujah" - it's worth a listen
-
It's hard to square the Powell Doctrine with the description of Powell, which raises a lot of questions
-
I'm skeptical of the accuracy and/or probative value of the psychoanalyses of the people involved, more generally, and it's unclear if it's Psmith's own interpretation or him relaying that of the original author
-
One point raised is that the perceived easy success in Afghanistan was a major factor, which makes me wonder if military campaigns should be deliberately made to seem more difficult than they are
-
I don't remember any defenses of the war to contrast against Trump
-
While one can debate the merits of NATO Expansion, which Psmith criticizes at the end, I don't remember anyone advocating it on moralistic grounds (or the basis of specific alleged strategic threats) or think it's a good parallel, in general (you could say that it's an issue with a disconnect between government policy and the preferences of populace, but the disconnect would be in the general vein of the proverbial man on the street not following that area of foreign policy)
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1hr ago
OP’s a woman
Yes but this is a topic that comes up with some frequency and there are certain male posters who have strong opinions on it as well.
they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them
Yes but the point is that they care about it at all, regardless of their motivations. (The motivations are at least somewhat complex and multilayered. Yes at the end of the day it’s really about “all the women should belong to me” but I think there’s at least some genuine pro-social concern mixed in as well.)
hanikrummihundursvin
1hr ago
Almost. Here's the tidbit I replied to and my reply:
Sure he could hire personal assistants and prostitutes, but he's got a company to run and it's just easier to have a wife.
I've never had a single person tell me it's easier to have a wife. In fact it's the one thing I hear most guys complain about at work.
Now, maybe that connection wasn't clear to people, even if I directly replied to that short comment, thinking it did not need a quote to be clear. So I clarified in this comment chain:
I understand the point but in relation to Jeff Bezos you are not explaining how having a wife is easier than having paid assistants do all of the things that need to be done.
Is it easier having a wife than a paid assistant if you are a billionaire? (Maybe if that assistant has a termination clause of 36 billion dollars.) Queue the wifeguys talking about how great their personal marriages are and how good of an arrangement it is for them. Now, was I to assume they are billionaires or middle class joes when interpreting their comments?
I wouldn't really care but I get the feeling of... I don't know, groupthink and fallacy? when getting a reaction like this:
You have a coworker who is just a bitchy wuss of a person. You can identify this by all the bitching he does. You should exclude his bitchy opinions from your mental map of the opinions of capable people.
This sort of internet tough guy talking coming out of thin air just seems like a silly overreaction to me. Like... You don't know my coworkers. Same with some other comments. What are these people trying to prove and why? I don't see the reason why one would assume that marriage was a necessary or hold the same or similar utility for people like Bezos compared to the average joe.
Tree
1hr ago
OP’s a woman, so from this single garden-variety independent sample this subject is 100% female-originated.
But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity.
They do, but I would postulate that they’re more upset that the women aren’t being promiscuous with them, than with the concept.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
The better way to think about it is that the religious right is the second string faction in the coalition ruling thé GOP, regardless of who’s on top. Populists on top? The Christians are #2. Libertarians? Again, Christians are #2. Thats part of why GOP infighting is relatively less destructive of the party- thé second most powerful faction will literally never lose their coveted #2 spot.
People can defect in various ways to each other all the time; I think we can regard these as fungible to a reasonable degree. It seems weird to say that I am free to punch other people (who don’t want to be punched) any time I like since they can always get their own back by slugging me in return.
You seem to be gesturing at a system of tacit acknowledgement where it’s okay for me to sometimes take apples from your garden because I let you sometimes take peaches from mine, but such an understanding requires prolonged contact in a stable society and also agreement on both sides, which seems to be lacking here.
If what goes around comes around as you suggest, shouldn’t we make sure that what is going around is largely respect and cooperation, rather than deceit and defection?
Do you think employers and employees have any moral obligations to each other beyond those dictated by law and contract?
I was raised to believe that employers should be loyal to, and supportive of, their staff. It seems to me that this leads to a better world than a world where employers can be as fickle and unreasonable as they like as long as they pay enough, and happily fire their staff for failing to anticipate their whims.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1hr ago
Christianity is particularly attuned to women’s petty intrasexual concerns, with its emphasis on female promiscuity.
I think this is far more complicated a topic than a single sentence can do justice to, but the Christian tradition, as much as it would like to attribute everything to Jesus, wasn't written in stone at the Ascension or Pentecost. Most of the "emphasis on female promiscuity" parts I can think of are from Paul, and were written a bit later.
I'd also point to the context of family matters in Rome at the time: Augustus rather famously enacted some policies that encouraged fidelity and "family values" before Jesus was born (and were continued on and off again with later emperors), and it's difficult to fully extract the existing Roman cultural context from the Christianity that took off there.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1hr ago
Clearly on TheMotte, it’s the men who are writing most of the posts about the ills of promiscuity. (I have specific names in mind.)
That attitude may ultimately stem from their Christianity. But there are also a lot of atheist manosphere types who get REALLY upset about female promiscuity. You can’t dismiss it as a purely female concern.
Corvos
1hr ago
If the victim did not object to such things, they would not have hired staff to prevent it and said staff would not be in danger of getting faired for failing to prevent it. If they wanted local notables, they would have invited some.
How does the good-fun principle generalise? People have fun jumping turnstiles and prank-calling and shoplifting and getting drunk & disorderly in a public park in the middle of the day. Not to mention all sorts of antisocial but not actually illegal stuff.
It seems to me that you can oppress the worst behaviour of the bottom 10% without too many complaints, but beyond that you either have to allow ‘good-fun’ exemptions for 90% of the population, resulting is an adversarial and low-trust society, or else say that the rules are different for gentlemen, which I regard as being immoral and long-term corrosive to society, or else be clear that ‘local notables’ are required to model good behaviour for everyone else.
It's interesting because eating food "just for the taste" is in a way affirming the evolutionary reason. Our taste buds evolved for a reason. Just because we've figured out how to make some tasty foods that lack nutrition doesn't mean we like to eat doritos despite our evolution. Our bodies literally think we are getting nutrition when we seek that out.
Likewise, a woman painting her face and dressing scantily may tell herself it's for her own confidence or whatever. But it doesn't refute that she's doing it for male attention and reproductive success. I think the audience discussion is a bit of a red herring, although there are some interesting points to be made there.
More options
Context Copy link