domain:firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6hr ago
On the one hand, I don't doubt it is individually sucky to break away from social norms like this. On the other hand, if we all decide to continue as if these are the rules then they remain the rules. Society does not spontaneously re-order due to nobody doing anything. It is a difficult collective action and coordination problem.
sliders1234
4hr ago
The issue with this is Perry probably did just see the chance and killed him for fun. It’s just that the victim was shitting on the commons to an extent that he opened the door for someone to kill him because he didn’t like the victim.
Perry likely knew that the victim was cosplaying revolutionary and wasn’t going to execute him at any high non-neglible probability.
In ordinary life when someone exposes themselves that you can do something bad to them and get away with it we usually choose not to do something bad to them. In this case the victim broke public trust to an extent that people are less forgiving. He paid the asshole tax.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4hr ago
I get it. I mentioned in another reply about the complexities of the coordination problem. That's why it's hard! The individual incentives are the other way!
netstack
Texas is freedom land
5hr ago
Next thing you’ll tell me is that “Bud Light” is not, in fact, your bud.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6hr ago
Fair enough, that's certainly a possible outcome. I am skeptical that it is worse than the alternative. Especially since I think there's an equilibrium that's better for both.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6hr ago
Yes, women playing coy is definitely a problem. Maybe this is just me but I think the better option is just... not having sex with women who do that! They can either learn to ask for what they want or no one should have sex with them. Errors in the direction of "some people miss sex they could have had" seem much better than errors in the other direction.
philosoraptor
12hr ago
Option 1) Play the bigger man. Pardon himself, obviously, and a few limited other people. Beyond that do nothing. This will prevent a wider conflagration in the culture war. Downside: without a tit-for-tat, the left will be emboldened for much greater tats in the future.
Are you saying you didn't write this?
Also, the piece I replied to was your direct response to the question, referring directly to what I've quoted above, "Is there any time you can point to where he's behaved with such magnanimity?". Like, it's literally what you gave as an example of that, or so anyone would think from reading that part of the thread. I think the "misunderstanding", if it is that and not just revisionist history, is pretty damn understandable.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4hr ago
Playing hard to get is a filtering mechanism for a man's ability to stick with an effort despite initial failure or hardship. It's as simple as that. Phrased differently, "if I make it easy for him to come (that's an unintentional double entendre! hahaha, nice), it will also be easy for him to go...Therefore, I have to make it a little hard up front to test out if he's going to see it through"
I guess it depends on how specific we get on "playing hard to get." "Woman sometimes turns down date with a guy she would actually like to date to see how persistent he'll be" seems less objectionable to me, although comes with the obvious problem lots of women who don't want to date a guy are going to continue being pestered. "Woman sometimes says so no sex even though she wants it" seems like a much worse norm. Surely we can develop better norms for women to filter men for a kind of stick-to-it-ive-ness than creating strategic ambiguity for rape.
We should, however, provide the social pressure to hold them accountable for crossing various milestones as well as general honesty with partners.
I am unclear on what it means to "hold them accountable for crossing various milestones." I agree that women should be more honest with partners, that was my whole point!
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
6hr ago
Are there problems between the sexes and how they interact? Yes. Have there always been problems between the sexes and how they interact? Yes. Are they even solvable writ large? No.
Men and women want different things out of relationships so there will always be power struggles, strife, breakups and makeups. Messy business really.
There will always be harmonious unions and terrible joinings, because people are different and some are willing to make things work while others are not, some luck into a wonderful match, others never had a chance. This is the history of the world.
Fertility is dropping due to birth control, education, rising living standards, more options for entertainment and a devaluation of human labor. This trend will only accelerate if things keep getting materially better for people.
If you want more people 150 years from now you're going to have to grow them in a vat and raise them with a robot. That is just how it is going to be unless you're in some kind of originalist cult in AD 2174. Getting pregnant yourself when a machine womb can do it for you will be seen as grotesque and unnecessary.
non_radical_centrist
3hr ago
There are a couple levels to explain things on, from neurochemical to evolutionarily. Neurochemically, I couldn't say why two birds would end up mating for life- although I will note a lot of species that ostensibly mate for life also "cheat" on each other a lot. Evolutionarily, it happens because both the mother and father of children get more expected gene-spreading value from raising and investing in their children in the niche that species operates in, instead of the father or even both the father and mother ditching the children after birth.
Is your point that lots of partners early degrades whatever neurochemical method the human brain uses to pair bond, making you unable to fully do so when you'd want to? If so, I just want to see some better evidence of it. A more rigorous neurochemical explanation of how that degradation happens, or good stats about how people who've had many partners early in life are more likely to dislike their spouse later in life.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5hr ago
Are non-monogamous societies somehow less downstream of biology than monogamous societies? Observationally dating norms have been very different historically than they are today and can be quite different in different geographical locations even today. It thus seems hard, to me, to argue that some set of dating norms common in the anglosphere are some biological inevitability.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6hr ago
For sure. I definitely don't intend to place all the onus to change on men. It's a cultural change that includes changing behaviors by both sexes.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
8hr 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.
non_radical_centrist
22hr ago
I'm not at all convinced that that "pair bonding" is a super significant phenomenon. I think it's quite likely that instead those stats reflect that women who want varied sex will have multiple partners before marriage, and then will also desire varied partners after getting married, leading to her divorcing or leading to her cheating which leads to divorcing. Especially since a lot of women who don't have sex before marriage come from cultures where divorce is socially unacceptable.
What would be more convincing is instead of stats about divorce, since that's distorted by women who're socially unable to divorce even if they'd want to, is stats on how much women who haven't had previous partners like their spouse.
non_radical_centrist
56m ago
That sort of thing stood out to me too. But I think women with holding sex from fratty dudebros and being more aware those fratty dudebros won't make them happy, like this article advocates, would lead towards women looking for other types of men. To select less on looks and more on whether a man isn't douchey.
non_radical_centrist
59m ago
Rape's not that rare. Lots of men go to the trouble of putting date rape drugs in women's drinks to do precisely what the author claims that random dude did. I hardly think it's impossible that a guy would take advantage of an "opportunity" he stumbled upon that other men go out of their way to arrange.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1hr ago
Sorry, Mods. I really tried not to, but then I did.
Yeah, you did.
History shows two previous warnings, four AAQCs. I don't see the point of a warning here, given that you obviously knew exactly what you were doing and that we don't want you to do it. Banned for a day. Please do not make a habit of this sort of thing; the bans will escalate if you do.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
I don't know. I think social norms around the treatment of women, LGBT people, people of different races and lots of other groups were much worse in the past, including in my lifetime. We got here from there somehow.
SSCReader
2hr ago
It's interesting because the guy with the rifle was in some sense doing a right wing coded thing. Open carrying a rifle, which in Texas is legal. It's been a left wing talking point that this in and of itself should be considered a threatening act (see Rittenhouse, K). Which means in other circumstances it could quite well have been the case that the right was outraged by the shooting, as open carrying a rifle in and of itself should not be grounds to be seen as threat of violence, that justifies self-defence. In fact if Foster had shot and killed Perry as he was driving a car towards a protest he would have been in the Rittenhouse position! Arguing he brought a rifle to the protest to defend against just such an attack.
Which is why (as with Rittenhouse) the case hinged on whether the rifle was pointed at someone and if this itself constitutes a threat. Only without clear video in this case to show one way or another.
There is a narrative here where Rittenhouse was found not guilty (correctly) because he did not point his gun at someone and therefore was not threatening, and Foster also did not point his gun at someone so was not threatening and was thus murdered by Perry. In that case the left would have a case to argue that they did indeed play by the rules more than the right. Rittenhouse was acquitted. The jury set aside all the political stuff and acquitted him. Perry was found guilty then a political intervention happened. That's how I would contrast the two stories if I were still going to bat for the left in a political sense at least. The left left (hah) it up to the judicial system to decide the right (hah!) outcome, the right refused to do that and blatantly freed a convicted murderer. Might have some bad optics for squishy moderates. But of course plays well with those already convinced. Unlikely to make a difference in Texas, but might have some play if pushed nationally, perhaps.
I suppose to turn the discussion back to you, if you had clear video that Foster did not point his gun at Perry, and was just walking around, would you accept that he like Rittenhouse did not actually threaten someone and thus Perry shooting him was murder?
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2hr ago
Out of interest, why Rotterdam over other places in the Netherlands?
2rafa
6hr ago
I’ve seen many people argue that Arabs under Israeli rule are likely better off than under their own. Indeed West Bank Palestinians are quite prosperous for the region excluding petrostates.
I am skeptical that the particular facts of women playing hard to get are downwind of biology.
More options
Context Copy link