domain:ryandv.substack.com
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
12m ago
No one thing Sam Altman has done sticks out as evil.
His advocacy for regulatory capture in his company’s favor is a pretty clear cut example of it.
hydroacetylene
15m ago
And- I’m going off the numbers gathered by Lyman stone so I don’t have them handy, I’m just remembering- nobody really likes it. 40% of women want to wait until they’re married, and a large majority of women want to meet each other’s families before sex. The percentage of women that like this system is likely negligible and men are mostly complaining about it.
ArmedTooHeavily
19m ago
Thank you, I can't believe I had to scroll this far to see someone questioning the basic validity of this whole story. I swear to god e-girls are the real mind killer, not politics.
hydroacetylene
21m ago
I’ve definitely heard this before, and it seems like solving the problem for shy, introverted women with (de facto)conservative preferences would solve the problem for normie men.
Orlan-10 is more of a long-range long endurance spotter, it has an ICE engine. Lancets are getting targeting data from small electric recon drones with 2-3 hour endurance. We know Orlans can be acquired by stingers- there's even footage of it getting shot down from drone's POV. Electric drones are probably way less conspicuous in IR.
, but the fucking drone swarms spat out of flatbed trucks is a goddamn nightmare worse than skynet.
If you spot the flatbed trucks before they release the drones, you can hit them with PGMs or cluster MLRS strikes. Electric drone range is quite limited..
At this point, anyone who isn't developing autonomous defense drone swarms isn't gonna make it. With AI and terrain following, getting rid of lots of drones is going to be very hard next to impossible. Filling the air with flak fragments gets you only so far. It's strictly line of sight.
Guess what's line of sight: 2 mach ATGMs like the Russians have. So anything exposed is toast. There's also the obvious counterplays, such as drones marking the spot the flak is firing from, sending info back to MLRS and then you have 500 cluster bomblets on that location within a 30 seconds, ideally. Or, you know, a tank firing a HE round from 10 km away.
focus on grenade launchers at the squad level,
I mean, grenade launchers integrated with drone spotting are stuff of nightmares. Unless you're running like a lunatic or under hard cover, you're gonna get blown up. What's wrong there?
Modern warfare makes me wish for a nuclear winter. People getting blown up from 50 km away because a drone spots them, or getting hunted down by FPVs.. bad. It's bleak and only ever going to get more bleak.
I talked in other threads about air supremacy and I stand by that, but even a hundred F35s can't take out a thousand AV500, let alone 10k jury rigged Mavic 2 EAs.
I dunno, but doesn't F-35 have radar guided missiles that can take out the AV500 from outside its range. I presume it can carry some short range IR missiles, right? Are these helis designed to be really cheap ? Can you truly build a cheap helicotper ?
hydroacetylene
24m ago
Red tribe whites with their upper 90s IQ have a TFR on par with Latinos.
felis-parenthesis
26m ago
Because the actual history is messy and embarrassing to every-one.
The early medieval church was clear enough that belief in witch-craft-as-real-magic was superstition left over from the bad old days (think 800 AD). Witch-craft-as-baseless-superstition was heresy and subject to punishment, but you could get in trouble both ways. You committed heresy if you put yourself forward as a witch who could really do the magic. You committed heresy if you tried to protect society against some-one who you asserted was a threat because they could really do the magic.
Then, starting around 1400 AD (but slowly at first) mankind regressed, becoming afraid of witchcraft-as-real-magic.
This is obviously embarrassing to the Catholic Church, who knew the truth and lost it. But it is embarrassing to Enlightenment thinkers too. First, the deterioration happens late; the early stirrings of modernity are making people less rational. Second, the Enlightenment could have taken witch burning as showing the fragility of human knowledge and a case study in losing truths once known. But instead it just ignored the real and troubling story in favour of bashing the Church as always in error.
Recall the story that Columbus met opposition to sailing West to China from people who believed that the Earth was flat. It originated in a "biography" that changed the story to make it more dramatic. Then anti-Catholics took it up, because the flat earth myth was a convenient stick to beat the Catholics. There is a problem with anti-religious campaigners just making stuff up.
I find this disillusioning. As a young man I believed that the 18th Century Enlightenment guys were the good guys who were opposing the Catholic Church (who were the bad guys because they just made stuff up). Now I find that every-one is just making stuff up. And twisting the witch craft story to bash Catholics isn't the only example, so I cannot excuse it as "just once".
hydroacetylene
27m ago
I think you’re pointing out, correctly, that she’s going at it from the perspective of ‘this is how patriarchy works in goatfuckerstan’. It’s worth emphasizing for the audience- goatfuckerstani patriarchy is legitimately a worse deal for women than modern or historic Christian purity culture. Pagan primitives patriarchy is possibly an even worse deal.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
29m ago
I enjoyed the article. I think I'm one contributing factor here is what Scott identified over a decade ago in should you reverse any advice you hear. People in either sex positive or purity cultures are probably in thick information bubbles that take those positions to pathological extremes. This is probably even worse today than when Scott's article was written.
I suspect a lot of people operating in an enthusiastic consent framework would agree with the author that the circumstances she describes some of her friends having sex under were problematic. There's a reason those articles have the disclaimers they do. I suspect they would do so using a language of consent, that various kinds of pressure had rendered the sex in question not really consensual. The problem with this angle is that it turns what is supposed to be a simple and intuitive concept into one that hides a lot of complexity and nuance.
From my perspective it seems like there are two key issues. Firstly, women feel a social and interpersonal pressure to have sex they don't want. Like they need a good reason not to have sex with someone. This is totally backwards to how it ought to work. You do not need any reason to refrain from sex with someone beyond "I don't want to." "No" is a complete sentence, as they say. Related to the first, many men apparently feel no compulsion to respect that "no." Badgering women into having sex with you after they've said no is apparently fine in some people's minds. So the question, then, is how we create the social conditions so that women feel empowered to give that "no" and men feel compelled to respect it.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
31m ago
Don't be that hard on yourself man. I doubt anyone that is a 2/10 has a wife a child now.
hydroacetylene
32m ago
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’.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
34m ago
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.
sliders1234
37m ago
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.
hydroacetylene
39m ago
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.
WhiningCoil
42m ago
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.
SkoomaDentist
47m ago
That solved the problem. Thanks!
SlowBoy
54m ago
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.
Ioper
56m ago
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.
bonsaii
57m ago
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.
NewCharlesInCharge
57m ago
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.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
59m ago
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.
Why don’t you marry her? Only a couple of years of seeing each other every few months, then she’ll I’m sure have a foot in the door to live in Scotland with you. Your family thinks it’s a good idea, her dad would definitely know if it isn’t. You should just go for it.
More options
Context Copy link