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

Showing 25 of 399 results for

domain:open.substack.com

You can totally do that today, it would take 5 seconds of google to find a story about someone beating up his daughter’s boyfriend for messing around. And there are literally laws on the books in multiple states against things like ‘seduction under false promises’.

Trump specifically mentioned the Insurrection Act, which allows the military to be used. They told him they would refuse anyway. This wasn't about legalisms.

The 0 lower bound is when interest rates hit zero. The Fed has traditionally eased or tightened monetary policy by changing interest rates.

They now have policy frameworks to use when they can no longer ease by cutting rates lower since rates are already 0.

Because the military has actual rules against being used on US soil. Speculating that they’re more willing to break those rules for some vaguely DNC aligned bureaucrats than for the commander in chief is just eeyore-maxing.

Witnessing what my friends went through, as well as living through my own batch of lackluster dates, I wondered if I should just wait to have sex.

The idea felt odd. And boring. I wasn’t religious, nor did I have my sights set on a diamond ring. So I wasn’t scared of hell, nor a future puritanical husband. “What are you waiting for?” people would ask me. I’d ask myself as well. I didn’t have the gall to admit that I was sort of waiting on my gut to tell me when. It felt like a cop-out. I knew gut feelings were wonky moral compasses– afterall, that semester we were reading Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in class, and learning how Huck’s gut feeling of guilt for abetting a runaway slave is shaped by the social mores he’s been exposed to. That was also the year the media littered the term “implicit bias” in basically every headline,27 to unmask rampant racism and sexism in institutions. Suffice it to say, gut feelings were not in season.

Now estranged from the sex-positivity I once adored, I do believe there is a right and wrong time to have sex. I also believe that your sexual footprint does affect you, for better or for worse. And I think a lot of girls are having sex at the wrong time. All these beliefs are fundamentally at odds with the principles of sex-positivity, which beats out any notion of right or wrong sex, other than via the consent-yardstick.

A proper feminist should make prescriptions not off some optimistic blank-slate, but from these basic phenomena: girls are more agreeable, more susceptible to manipulation, cognitive-sexual overload, and sexual blueprinting. They are more likely to be pressured into the receiving end of violent porn fantasies, lied to about STDs, addled by sexual regret, and victim to partner violence.

Anyone who turns a blind eye to this epidemic and eggs on young women to carelessly leap into bed with guys in the name of female liberation, is grooming girls with a flashy, pink glove.

Instead of working against the culture of rampant sexual coercion, pop feminism basically just serves as a bottom-bitch.

Everything old is new again, isn't it? It's fascinating watching someone think out loud, going round and round and found in a neurotic spiral for 30,000 words.

When I tell people that I’m opting out of having sex, I get told a lot of things. That I’m prudish, wasting my “prime,” overthinking it, a control-freak, or even pathological.

I mean, both can be right.

It's fascinating, going through this bizarre, alternate reality hellscape of sexual relations. Absent is even a single person in a monogamous relationship. Not even a single one. How is that even possible? You don't know one single person in a relationship? You don't even know of one? This reads like some sort of speculative fiction where relationships have been outlawed.

Then again, I'm married. I've been with the same woman 15 years. Apps were brand fucking new right when I met my wife, old school dating websites being the standard. In my 20's I remember a lot of people in turbulent relationships. Or the weird friend groups where it seemed like everyone had tried a relationship with everyone at some point. Those were bizarre to me. It was rough. I know a few guys who opted out, and just couldn't take women's high expectations, sociopathic behavior and imperious attitudes anymore.

Maybe there really are just two breeds of men. The ones depicted in this article, who somehow get these broken women to throw themselves at him, and everyone else who these broken women take their trauma out on.

I can imagine how the experience of dating has deteriorated greatly since I was active. But the reality of this article where a monogamous relationship is literally not an option for anyone, and doesn't exist at all, seems a bit extreme. It seems more like cope to justify sex work and/or trying to rebrand as some sort of "intellectual" e-girl.

She'd be better served deleting her entire internet presence.

That solved the problem. Thanks!

Sure, but releasing something for a Youtube video is different from releasing a large commercial product. Imagine thousands of man-hours on the voice making sure the AI never says anything embarassing, pronounces sensitive words appropriately, still sounds pleasing and attractive, doesn't accidentally sound angry when you prompt it a certain way... You have a bunch of nerds who watched "her" and want to use ScarJo's voice, so you prototype with that, hoping everythijg will work out. Now she says no. What do you do? Find someone with a similar voice so you don't have to redo thousands of hours of work.

This would be extremely easy and plausible for a PM unless he was explicitly told not to.

Muslim fertility in the west is below replacement if one looks at the children they have once they're actually here. No one is having a ton of kids outside of small religious extremist groups and the vast majority of Muslims do not fall into that category.

I think you thought I was asking about a different comment of yours? I was referring to this comment:

The Fed learned how to operate at the 0 lower bound. The only thing that ended the 2008 expansion was Covid and that was a choice by policymakers to cause a recession. Without getting super long winded because the subject matter is a PhD thesis the evidence seems strong as we have gone thru a 14 year expansion which also included planning a short recession and rapid recovery.

If she converts to Christianity she can claim to follow the example of all the reformed prostitutes turned saints.

I don’t think Islam has such a thing. When I asked ChatGPT for a parallel it gave me a male mystic who was never a prostitute.

Humans aren't even going to be recognizable as such in a few hundred years, pearl clutching about population decline is a non-starter in a world that still has 8 billion and climbing and robotic and AI tech that is about to make us all obsolete anyway.

He wasn’t featured in any media or historical documentaries or video games or anything else prior to 2020.

Yasuke appears in Nioh, a 2017 game developed in Japan, as a boss. But the context to this is...

I find this impossible to take seriously. If he were that famous in Japan, surely he’d have shown up before the current mania for making visible minorities star in every piece of media made.

Yasuke is a factoid about the Sengoku period. Nioh's plot is framed around a long string of factoids about the Sengoku period. Quite similar to how Assassins Creed plots work, except with Youkai instead of Assassins and Templars. You even play as William Adams, who is another Sengoku factoid. Koei Tecmo practically specializes in games about random Sengoku factoids in general, so even having relatively obscure ones show up is not particularly notable.

Does anyone have any good explanations for why Thailand is more LGBT friendly than surrounding countries? I was reading a report on pride parades around the world and Thailand is set to host five parades just in their capital. Add to this that gay marriage looks like it's going to be legalized and there's no backlash to transgenderism as far as I can discern.

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.

It's almost definitely a reference to the movie "her". What does that mean? Is this a reference to ScarJo specifically, or just the movie? Does the AI voice resemble the movie "her" in any way even without ScarJo's involvement? Is this an innocuous joke, or Altman thumbing his nose?

Without reading his mind, it's actually not obvious what exactly he meant.

Now that it's been 10 years I realize that the whole point of my Ivy league education was to meet people and that dating would have been a better use of my time than doing my homework. But at the time I didn't understand.

It's the usual stuff. Your parents assumed that it will, like, just happen.

People don't waste mental effort analyzing things that work. It's why no one can draw a bicycle even if they ride one regularly.

It's a curious phenomenon. When I was a teen, I made an effort to seek out the best arguments against gay marriage, in favor of traditional gender roles, in favor of Christian sexual prudery, etc. The apologists I found were hilariously bad at this, and they melted into a puddle of "it's not natural" and "things have always been done this way". I did not find them convincing.

Now that dating and marriage are broken, cogent defenders of these position can be found. The clock was taken apart, and people see how it ticked.

I don't think the social technology to do it right is even possible to develop in a world where porn and birth control are legal and easily available.

This.

Traditional purity culture struggles to exist in a world where both cheap pleasure (porn/OF/casual semi-prostitution) and consequence erasers (the pill) exist in abundance. I think another, even larger layer is the existence of social media which becomes a sort of constant relationship rubric, realistic or not.

The abundance of choice is so great that the very act of choosing - let alone the act of choosing not to do something - can feel like missing out. To sort of steel man dating apps; the image sold there is "go on dates with amazing beautiful people and have wonderful romantic trysts!" And that's a compelling narrative to both men and women alike. And it's at least plausible because of the technology today.

So the only way "out" is to actively not take part. To make a choice not to indulge. And that's the essence of the TradCon position; yes, you can go out and have casual sex. Don't do it because it's bad.

Eliminating the availability of those choices is close to illegal in the US at least (the porn-as-free-speech fight was done decades ago). It's bananas to think that adult women would have to get the permission of their fathers / brothers to go on dates. I don't necessarily know where the line is on prescription versus over the counter birth control, but I know it will never be as tightly controlled as even oxycotin ... which isn't very tightly controlled.

If you give people choices, they'll make them. Meaning, they'll make all of them (that is, over the entire population, not that one person will make every possible choice). The whole point of culture and sub-culture is to encourage good choices because we don't want the State to preemptively eliminate certain choices. That is the classic liberal (small L) argument and the begrudging position of all TradCons who aren't theocrats.

So what to do about the impending end of society because of horrible male-female relations in the west?

I've linked to it before, and you can google it - Lorenzo Warby's massive substack series

The high breeders in the west are muslims and blacks and latinos

Nonsense. Neither blacks nor Latinos have fertility above replacement. Black fertility is only marginally greater than white fertility.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

Maybe I worded it wrong. 0 as in the end of humanity so you can no longer rebuild. It’s a complete loss.

Even if you took a bet where 30 humans survived in probably 10-20k years they would have restarted civilization. Which is a small amount of time compared to the useful life of earth. SBF was willing to take bets of complete loss which means things can’t regrow.

When not wanting AI to be in controlled by sociopaths makes you "anti-progress"....

Look, AI is here whether we like it or not. There's not much that governments can or should do to control it. We simply don't have the regulatory tools, and Congress is comically out of their depth. But people like Sam Altman welcome regulation so they can slam the door shut on competitors and take all the value for themselves.

AI risk encompasses many scenarios. Obvious, the fast takeoff singularity attracts the most eyeballs. But that is not even the most likely risk.

Another very real risk is that one person or group is able to control the AI landscape. Whether that group is the Chinese Communist Party or OpenAI I don't want it. I don't want OpenAI to be the leaders because I believe that Sam Altman's actions (this is just a tiny example) make him unsuitable to lead the world's most important company.

Seems like a variant on merited impossibility. Perhaps merited possibility.

"It isn't happening and if it is, it's a good thing"

"It did happen, and if it didn't, why do you care?"

A good part of the philosophical problem with right of publicity is that it has very little impact outside of the commercial protections, and even the commercial protections are only protective to the point where the broader public knows you. It's very much a cut out to protect celebrities and the famous, not defend the little people. California has an unusually broad combination of statutory and common-law protections, but it's still only something that matters to public figures worried about getting used as an advertising or product campaign.

((Other 'moral rights' have similar problems: see VARA for a particularly ugly one.))

But that specific context impacts here, at least if Altman did what people are thinking he did.

Like, a big 'house' for your 'greens' or something? What could we call this?

You mean the weekend marriages Shia men use to hire prostitutes are for married men only ?

My point is that SJ is not a voice actor, and isn’t doing a specific “character” or something the way that Fran Drescher or Gilbert Gotfried are.

True.

She wasn’t being hired for her voice.

In general maybe, but I think she was specifically brought in on Her to replace Samantha Morton - herself a great actor - because the existing actor wasn't working. If she was there for promotional/greenlighting reasons (which I'm sure played a role in films like Ghost in the Shell, Lucy, etc.) you'd assume she'd get cast from the start because her profile is incomparable.