domain:theintrinsicperspective.com
Rov_Scam
8m ago
Where are the 30-something conservatives? If you look at the US House members in their 30s, there are 21 Democrats and 14 Republicans. There are only two people under 40 in the Senate, one Democrat and one Republican. Considering that of the 435 members of the House, 400 of them are 40 or older, I think the correct answer is that there just aren't that many people in their 30s involved in politics.
They've been weirdly successful for a crowd that's supposed to have been "dead and irrelevant" for close to a decade.
The popular narrative amongst blue and grey tribers is that the Tea Party was killed and eaten by "establishment" republicans but the last 12 years of electoral results, cabinet nominations, etc... tell a different story. If anything the opposite is the case, the establishment as represented by people like Bush, Cheney, Romney, French, Brooks, Et Al. have been utterly routed. They have been exiled to the wilderness while Tea-Party luminaries are getting to dictate national policy
BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
26m ago
Is an orange apple any part orange? There are many subcategories of orange, but is an apple which has been colored orange in any of them?
I was referring to orange the color alone, not the fruit. Insisting it's an orange would, in fact, be linguistic trickery.
But that's not the part of your comment I disagree with. I disagree with your assertion that the category of "trans women" implies a particular belief of the user of that term. Especially the one you've put forward. I think it's a bad argument.
I don't have a particular problem with your further arguments. They're much better than your original one, you should have lead with them. In fact, I vehemently agree with this part:
Changing the words does not change the underlying reality of what they're describing
Botond173
29m ago
after the convents became selective
?
taken care of by a male relative
Indeed it's another important aspect of a society where men are generally expected to fulfill the roles of protectors and providers.
Botond173
31m ago
These are all good points. However, I'd mention that none of that is relevant to the examples the OP gave, namely "working out, playing the same video games, watching the same tv/movies/anime, scrolling too much on social media and going traveling to similar places from time from time".
Botond173
34m ago
That's indeed the gist of women's usual complaints: the ones willing to exclusively commit aren't desirable, and the desirable ones don't commit exclusively.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
36m ago
the Boomer neo-libs (Kamala, Biden, Blinken, Pelosi)
I have to quibble with your calling Kamala Harris a Boomer. I think that rather than treating generations as having hard temporal cutoffs (“she was born in 1964, Wikipedia says that’s the final birth year of the Baby Boomer generation, checkmate!”) we should instead consider cultural affinities and, also importantly, the individual’s actual relationship to the American post-war Baby Boom. Kamala Harris’ parents were not Americans. Their happening to conceive her on American soil while in between academic positions doesn’t mean that they should be considered part of the American baby boom. Culturally as well, Harris is extremely Gen-X in her demeanor, her points of reference, and her visible youthfulness relative to the cohort you’re lumping her in with.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
43m ago
This sort of low-effort spamming is not the sort of engagement that we are looking for here. You have already received two previous warnings, and have no QCs. I am banning you for one day. Please take the time to read and understand the rules linked in the sidebar; if you continue to engage in this manner, the bans will rapidly escalate.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
54m ago
This didn't get any funnier on the 3rd time than it was on the first.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
58m ago
In the sense that they eventually we got some semblance of coherent resistance to them? Not sure how that refutes the comparison to the Mongol Horde.
ccc
1hr ago
The "don't tread on me" crowd is already dead and irrelevant, as if they weren't already 10 years ago.
Laws are tools for power. You don't just get one of them and say "ah, we're done, now let's just enforce it and call it a day." Did liberals stop once they got the Civil Rights Act of of 1957 passed? Civil Rights Act of 1960? Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did they call it a day then? No. Of course not. They packed courts with sympathetic judges and universities with sympathetic admins. They even got Republicans to sign off on amendments.
If you want to win, you keep passing more and more laws that get you more power until you get as much of what you want as you can get. You tear up as many enemy laws as possible. You do all of that and you do everything else you can too. Propaganda, persuasion, institutional capture. Enforcing laws you like, ignoring ones you don't. This is politics.
What you don't do is piss and shit yourself and then have a cry when that doesn't do anything.
If you want your state to do things, you need state capacity. That is reality. You might not want that, but the average MAGA voter has a laundry list of things they want their Daddy to do to their enemies.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1hr ago
That's a really nice thing to hear, even if you don't mean it in a complimentary way. Nobody has asked me that before, once they know it's hereditary they accept it. Not that I think poorly of them, it's just nice to hear. But no, the worst is much worse than me. Any son or daughter of mine would likely be smarter than me and therefore even better at hiding their craziness from others, and I went 5 years before anyone realised how crazy I was. And it's not that people weren't looking, they were and some even suspected. I just knew how to brush them off. But the other component is my craziness was almost entirely benign. When it connected with the real world it mostly led to me making confusing purchases or instantly writing off strangers for no apparent reason. There's no way to know what shape the illness would take in my child.
I do think about it sometimes though, lord knows I want to roll those dice. One in seven is either the best or the worst odds depending on how optimistic a gambler you are, I'm told. But then I remember my time in hospital - not how I was, but my fellow sufferers, sitting in the common room at visiting time staring blankly past their loved ones, in an entirely different world - their loved ones just hoping for one fleeting glimpse of the person they know and love. Not a conversation, not even a word said, just recognition. And so few of them got it. I could handle that, because I've been there, but there aren't many who'd sign up for it willingly. Then the years on medication, zonked out of my mind, changing my diet to accommodate the constipation and absence of energy, being tethered to my home because if I miss a day I'm a vomiting, shaking wreck. Oh and then the new medication, with no withdrawals, yay, oh wait now I just throw up every day full stop. No it is healthier for me to consider myself a genetic dead end I think.
Yep.
I think men find it more tolerable to compete for the hand of the 'fair maiden' who is making everyone play the game to win her affections, than to have to face the reality that the maiden isn't so fair after all and they were burning efforts trying to get her to pay heed, meanwhile she's banging Sir Lancelot on the side and was never actually considering his proposal.
Rejection is less likely to convert to resentment when a man is at least 'in the running' for a woman's affections. When he's one of twenty dudes, 4 of which have already banged her, and another 10 have her nudes, its like... what is the point?
A guy being tested by a woman, rising to the occasion, passing the test and earning her hand in marriage is a pretty solid cause - effect /action - reward path. Humans are persistence hunters after all.
But a guy putting in effort, getting rejection, then seeing that the Chad (whom he KNOWS has got four other women on rotation) get the prize with much less investment, well, that's going to sting, it feels personal, even if it isn't.
And of course worst is when the women CONCEALS her other paramores (as they are wont to do) so its only AFTER one man has put in tons of effort that he realizes he could have just used standard pickup artist tricks on her and gotten the sex without the emotional distress.
Having an easily legible, mutually agreeable path for successful courtship solves for all the uncertainty and makes it so much less stressful on men and women, but we've fucking THROWN OUT the rulebook.
Throwaway05
1hr ago
and if I read 200 pages of a 1000 page story I still consider myself to have "read" it.
That is fair, would do it, and at the same time is antithetical to me haha.
faceh
1hr ago
Yeah.
Fixing it doesn't depend SOLELY on reining in female promiscuity (although that's a major factor), we would need to PUNISH male promiscuity, or at least the brand of it where a guy exploits a woman's naivete and leaves her more cynical and closed off than before, because he pays no cost for it.
I'd suggest execution, but the nice compromise solution would be castration.
faceh
1hr ago
I've made the point before that women are a potent political force, but an incompetent military one
If your political coalition is dependent on tons of addled females voting for them to maintain its support, it is ALSO dependent on NEVER allowing the other side to bring organized violence against them since those same females would fold instantly.
If things get heated for real, the side that wins will absolutely positively NOT be the one that is depending on women voting for them.
So its a question of who has enough motivated men to 'force' the issue.
Supah_Schmendrick
1hr ago
My gut says that living in dense cities is somehow injurious to the human spirit and generates a lot of sicknesses downstream.
I think this is likely because you have not been exposed to smaller, prettier, and orderly, but still dense town environments.
Shirayuki
1hr ago
Fantastic post, you've given me a lot to think about. If couched in those terms, I suppose I am indeed a blackpiller lol.
I’m guessing you’re from a striver background and are on the first or second rung of some or other intense career and feeling pretty lost
Scary psychoanalysis haha, that's pretty much it. Spent a bunch of time striving to "make it" and now I'm having my quarter life crisis I suppose...
I agree completely on the idea that the blackpill is the idea that nothing you do feels like it matters, where you have no traction on something you wish to move.
If I say I'm blackpilled over, say, my ability to beat the final boss of Final Fantasy or improve my deadlift obviously that's silly; everyone who isn't disabled can do that, and there's clear feedback loops on how to accomplish your goals. It's very easy to have "traction" when playing video games and when working out, which is why so many men find themselves drawn to such things.
By the same metric, if I say I'm blackpilled over my ability to beat Lebron in ball or beat Carlsen in chess it's hardly a "blackpill" in any real sense, there's nothing I could ever do to achieve that and my chance of doing either is 0.00%, any blackpill here is just being realistic and I should probably abandon my goal.
Where it gets complicated is for goals that are neither 0% or 100%; I definitely agree that a lot of disaffected guys are cognitively distorted about what they can achieve, but at the same time it's abjectively true that career and dating "success" is becoming harder and more costly, while any feedback loops are increasingly being broken down.
The true percentages of success nobody can really know, an optimist might say they're high enough to be worth trying, while a nihilist might say their chances of finding a partner that improves their life are the same as my chances of checkmating Carlsen, so it's time to check out; two ways of looking at the same picture.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
1hr ago
Saying "evidence" and then linking the New York Post is maybe not the most credible way of doing that.
That article did link to better articles, although both of them didn't link or substantiate their underlying data
In a year or two we'll know who's telling the truth on this
What's it a hallmark of when the definition of "undesirable" excludes literal criminals, classified based on their criminality (not as an incidental feature like MLK)?
I agree with your concern over the lack of process (are those people actually illegal immigrants? Are we sure?), but the intended targets are appropriate targets for persecution.
More options
Context Copy link