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

Showing 25 of 176 results for

domain:betonit.substack.com

Human tongues are pretty sensitive, they can pick up very tiny differences in texture and taste.

Well aktshually, the sense of taste is rather gross, with the tongue only really being able to detect basic aspects of salt, sweet, bitter, sour, and umami, and the vast majority of what people would consider flavor, including all the subtleties, are from olfactory sensing. That's why if you hold your nose it's difficult to tell the difference between an apple and an onion.

It doesn't affect your point at all. I just thought it was interesting.

One wrinkle for me when trying to think about the efficacy of therapy is that the incidence of mental illness has skyrocketed in step with the wide spread adoption of therapy culture. This is supposed to be caused by increased awareness, but then you have things like Scott's Anorexia in South Korea story, that push me towards a different theory. Therapy culture is horrible, and therapy itself is mostly trash (which is why we can't make any meaningful improvements to the practice after over a hundred years), it only works in as much as it is the socially acceptably path to resolve such issues. I imagine if we could check, running amok would have been found to be an effective above placebo 'therapy' as well. Outside of a handful of mental illnesses with consistent cross cultural manifestations, everything else is either conversion disorder with people trying to fit their negative emotional states into a culturally understood framework, or increasingly, excuses for shitty behavior and to avoid accountability. The framework spawned by therapy culture in the west is particularly bad, mental health awareness is bad, stoicism is probably correct.

Baby steps. Get people over the hangup of "it's not ok to just ban things, only leftists are allowed to do that!", then work on "woah you can't just throw communists into an alligator swamp, thats only ok when communists do it!"

If they can ban dishwashers that actually wash dishes and then raid people who import ones that work, we can do the same to them. And anyone who complains needs to be reeducated.

Bad Therapy is largely about that kind of thing. The premise is that there are always risks to any intervention, and when the target audience isn't suffering from debilitating mental illness, the risks outweigh the benefits.

My father experienced something similar with his sister, due to a "repressed memories" therapist.

The identity preference ratchet is something else, though, from what I've heard. Something more like Marxist class warfare, but for identity groups. Cain and Able, Kulaks, misdirected Leviathan, that kind of thing.

There might sometimes be a steel man for people to use HR scary words about discrimination and toxic environments when they really just have kind of a shitty manager who's bad at managing or something. As far as I can tell, unless it's absurdly obvious and well documented, if an employee complains that their manager is bad at their managing job, they will be met with disinterest, possibly irritation towards them, rather than the manager. Perhaps they will get in trouble for wanting clear directives or trying to enforce their own boundaries in the face of the shitty manager at some point. They will probably not get a better manager. If they go on about HR scare words, on the other hand, the company will go out of its way to protect them from reprisal, and they might actually get put under someone else. That's a win for the employee! So that's what they're incentivized to do.

I don't see any puzzles here, I don't consider Nietzsche all that difficult to understand, and I don't like secondary sources at all (I do read translations, though).

Human beings cannot be rational, as they can only follow their own nature. Even if their nature leads them to attempt rational thinking, it's still their nature which is in charge. This is why Nietzsche psychoanalyzes people. He was also intelligent enough to do this to himself, no doubt. Of course his work was motivated by his suffering, if you think Nietzsche lacked self-awareness you underestimate him.

Nietzsche liked exceptional people. But everything exceptional is rare, and the rare couldn't exist without the common, so he doesn't even want to do away with the rabble. And of course his writing isn't for everone, just like this website isn't for everyone. It's not just best for you that certain people never find this website, it's also the best for them that they stay away. It's not a moral statement or a kind of discrimination, it's a matter of compatibility.

The higher man will care about aesthetics and not just about objective things. This is because he is in touch with his instincts, because he has his own values, and because the top of the hierarchy of needs is more spiritual than physical. The subjective is a luxury, as is having suboptimal preferences. But most importantly, higher type of people say "yes" to themselves and to life (they're life affirming and of good conscience).

Nietzsche liked humanity, and he seemed to have a problem with modernity and some fundemental misunderstandings that society has with human nature (mostly because slave morality forced us to lie about human nature, until the lie became how we decided things ought to be). An easy example is every belief which ruins the conscience of men. Society is filled with people who are terrified of the possibility that they aren't "good", and who tries to look for evidence that they're "good", and who try to prove to themselves and others that they're "good". They also look for ways to "become a good person", but this is nonsense, for being a good person leads to good actions, not the other way around. You can only become who you are. So society turns pathelogical over simple errors.

Look at the death of nationalism, for it can be understood as self-destructive behaviour, the preference of something other than oneself. "Humanity are a plague", "Having children is bad", "Cats are better than people", "Power/ambition/competition/discrimination is evil". It's all a hatred of elements which are essential to either life itself or to humanity. So such philosophy is ultimately the preaching of death. Nietzsche regarded this as worse than evil, and that's because evil people still prefer themselves. Evil people still enjoy life. This can be summed up with "Narrow souls hate I like the devil, Souls wherein grows nor good nor evil."

Life is hard to justify with all of its suffering and striving

Read the end of Zarathustra. It's a little hard to understand, but when you feel joy, you say yes to what is, and in that moment, everything is redeemed, including all the suffering you went through just to experience that moment. But Nietzsche considers happiness and suffering to be of secondary importance, and considers their focus to be a symptom of degeneration (just like hedonism, which is the optimization of pleasure, is a superficial and unhealthy way to live)

I don't like being rude or excessively critical, and I'm open to counter-arguments, I just... Feel like it all makes sense.

'Moving on' is how you deal with trauma and distracting yourself helps with that.

My wife just had an uncle she was close with die suddenly and this is really the first big family death she's experienced. I and her took some time off, she's playing lots of a game she likes, I'm taking her out to eat. She's still dealing with moments of intense sadness but, in general, is dealing with it really well, essentially entirely because I'm not letting her dwell on it.

I've had an inordinate number of deaths in my family, starting from pretty young, and the hard truth is that you never really 'get over it' but you absolutely move on. I still have moments of sadness to do with my mother's death decades ago but they're few and far between and it otherwise doesn't effect my life. Picking up and keeping going is how to deal with hard spots in your life. Real mental illness is different but, to be honest, most people going to therapists don't have real mental illnesses.

an embarrassment that is disliked by its own peers, but still to be defended from outsiders

DeBoer has outright stated that, in his ideal world, "the wokest person you know" get 90% of what they want. Combine that with his strident attitude towards gender topics (where his anti-idpol takes give way to annoyance that anyone has an idpol skeptical take)...

So yes.

I'm just trying to pin down the argument here. If the argument is “the government should ban unhealthy foods in the interest of public health” that's a position that's easy to understand, whether you agree with it or not, but adopting it would imply banning a bunch of traditional foods too.

If the argument is “the government should ban unhealthy foods, but only if they are new” then the logic is less clear: why does it matter if an unhealthy food is new or not? You should be able to defend the “only if they are new” qualifier, unless your real motivation is something different (e.g. irrational hatred of lab-grown meats or the people who advocate for them).

(Note that all of this assumes that lab grown meat is unhealthy as a given, which I certainly don't believe in the strict sense, though I will concede there is some unknown risk associated with it.)

Is it? People say that but is it true? If growth is just the result of more people then we aren’t increasing wealth. Growth per capita is what our model is based on, no?

If we bring in ZMP or NMP, then that’s a problem.

So are you arguing that without the extrajudicial home raids, the ban is useless? Because I'm fairly certain home raids aren't part of the current proposal.

Sure, let's say, when left to their own devices, people will choose to eat garbage. Is it the government's job to prevent this? If yes, then why single out lab-grown meat, when hot dogs, jellybeans and soda are just as bad? If not, then what is the basis for banning just 1 of 1000 unhealthy foods that people already consume?

Indians are fairly racists or in their case castiste.

The data shows Indian being a relatively low IQ country. But at the same time they have no problem finding extremely brilliant people to be US executives. It’s just the caste system and having inbred Ashkenazi Jew type groups.

As an investor I always heard the term India is the next big thing. 1.4 billion people where in America the ones who made it here are extremely successful. Until you start jumping into the hbd game it seemed logical India would be a very rich country because the population is huge and the Indians who come here are brilliant.

"Self Care". This is a synonym for self-indulgence, but with a good connotation instead of a bad one. Spending 8 hours watching netflix for example, in my grandfather's English, would be understood to be a moderately shameful act of vice. Now it can be referred to as "Self Care", in which case it is understood as a noble recognition of ones own weakness.

On the other hand, never taking any time for oneself can be somewhat corrosive to one's sanity....

I think this might be an instance of All Debates Are Bravery Debates.

not answering your question, but... combined powerbank + keyboard + wrist exerciser + crank energy generator

The more you think about something bad that happened to you, the more upset, traumatized and poorly functioning you will be. It is that simple.

Therapy and therapy culture doesn’t work because it dredges up trauma and negative experiences. Repression does work, this is what stuff like ‘playing Tetris after a traumatic event reduces trauma’ does, it represses. Distract yourself, forget about it, and you can have a lifetime of happiness with a few bad occasional recollections.

It is so banal that it is barely worth saying: the less you think about something, the less you stew in it, the less it will affect you.

Disclaimer: That avoids doing anything for ADOS.

But that gets the right ratios and avoids negative selection bias. Even if I believed HBD was smaller but we still had affirmative action then Google recruiting at HBCUs is bound to fail. A 1400 SAT black high school student is going to select into Harvard and not go to the HBCU. I could almost say this is true even if HBD did not exists. New England private liberal arts schools have collapsed and can not compete with the big boys. If HBD was not true then the best HBCU would be like Amherst. And what does everyone at Amherst have a rejection letter from Harvard. Once you add in affirmative action and hbd the gap gets much larger.

: sob :

And, interestingly, Brazilian Portuguese is much closer to the new world Spanish dialect continuum than European Portuguese and European Spanish, whereas new world French is kind of its own thing with little to do with either of them.

But gosh golly gee whiz, I thought he was impartially banned not for the content of his existing posts but for failing to post upon a wide enough variety of subjects

That is correct. He was told to occasionally do something other than Joo-post. You thinking it's some gotcha that @self_made_human likes colorful mod notes is in character, since last time this came up, you made quite a deal out of it.

Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.

Yes, if we tell you to stop single-issue posting and you take @somedude's advice to spam threads with ChatGPT posts and YouTube videos about goat noises, you will get banned. When we ask people to do something or not do something, the intent is to improve discourse. The rules are not a legal contract where you can "get away" with shitting on their intent as long as you argue that you teeeeechnically (insert nasal whine here) followed the letter of them.

Also, keep golly-gee-whizzing me because you cannot contain your animosity if you would like to further test our catch-all "Being egregiously obnoxious" rule. You have a track record already of basically telling people that you think the rules are meant to be shat upon because you don't like the moderation here. You created this account just because you had a hate-boner for Hlynka. You're clearly a long-time member/alt with a grudge, and you only have been given this much latitude because we are so tolerant, even of haters who want nothing more than to shit on us. But that tolerance is not unlimited.

I'm pretty sure you're the guy who's ban evaded ten times.

It can't be, he's assured us that he has little sympathy for the far right (before launching into four paragraphs of standard far right talking points).

I really doubt that different races have different tendencies towards specific kinds of political or legal institutions. Asians and Jews seem to adapt perfectly fine (as well as anyone else) to liberalism in the US

The latter sentence is very weak evidence for the former. What they do when they are in minority doesn't neccessarily tell what they would have done if they had majority. one data point: Asian Americans are horrendously underrespresented in ratsphere despite higher IQ; even more so underresented relative to their IQ.

Errr.. I didn't actually realize that was publicly visible. I was trying to put that in the internal mod log, and levity is one way of handling that job, which can be thankless at times. It was more of a joke than anything else, I genuinely do not have a strong opinion on the matter.

It's right below. Given that nobody pays me for the job, an in-joke suffices.

I'm not the strongest advocate against single-issue posting. My usual approach is to simply minimize the thread, since I make it a point not to block anyone at all, no matter how odious/tedious they might be, and quite a few people are more so than SS. However, as a moderator, I do my best to follow the guidelines I signed up to enforce, and being neutral on SIP means I don't particularly care either way.

Is he SIPing and scaring the hoes? Seems obviously true to me. We probably have the highest tolerance for witches around, but we want multiple kinds, not just someone making this particular cauldron their bandwagon.

Is that against the rules as written? Yes. As interpreted by someone who doesn't have strong feelings either way too? It was.

I suppose I can't get away with "just following orders" can I? Though this is tangentially in favor of the Jews.

Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.

Demands for effort are maximal on top level posts in the CWR thread, or standalone posts on the front page.

I would presume funny goat noises belong in the Friday Fun Thread, and I haven't seen anyone get policed for lack of effort there.

Oh man I just went back and had a second look at the exchange where you guys supposedly banned him for "single issue posting" a few weeks ago. Turns out @self_made_human didn't realize which parts of the mod system were publicly viewable and the listed reason for the ban was actually:

Jew-posting with a boner so hard that the fig leaf fell. Build off Amadan's recommendation to ban him if he did it again.

But gosh golly gee whiz, I thought he was impartially banned not for the content of his existing posts but for failing to post upon a wide enough variety of subjects? You know, that incredibly important rule about the number of subjects one posts about? The one that totally isn't an excuse to punt people who post about the wrong things.

While I'm at it, here's a reminder of how Zorba phrased it:

Just go post about something every week! Here's a nerd making goat noises! Here's some nerds comparing cards in a game they've never played! Here's another nerd taste-tasting AI-created cocktails! this is not hard

Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.

That’s quite the coffee moment *chef’s kiss*.

Yeah, for each woman it’s an opportunity to reiterate her Emotional Truth that she’s a good person, one that is desirable and vulnerable, yet simultaneously strong and compassionate, a constant victim of men and their shittiness.

A good person, unlike insentitive jerks who—instead of validating her Emotion Truth—miss the point and fail to read the room with their bear facts and expected value calculations, and definitely unlike those icky racists and misogynistics with their gross gotchas like “what about a bear vs. a black man”?

That question isn’t the same because… it just isn’t, okay?!

Governor Abbott ran for election on being married to a Hispanic woman. He was actually the moderate pro-integration candidate; the accusations of him being a white supremacist mostly come from deranged blue tribers who would say that about anyone with an R next to their name.

And although he's definitely a conservative Catholic who converted because of his wife, he's not religiously orthodox enough to be a tradcath. My sources in the Austin Latin mass community note having seen his wife frequently at religious events, but never him, and he does things like visiting the wailing wall and defending plan b(the birth control) which are very not tradcath. That's not to say his wife's religious beliefs have no influence over his policies; they do; but Abbott is a politician at heart and willing to make the kinds of compromises with Catholic doctrine for political reasons that keep him from fully sharing them.

Agreed that right wing Hispanics are key to Texas' redness and that the idea of an emerging demographic majority turning Texas blue is fantasia, especially when the local democrats exist mostly to waste out of state donations on far-left vanity runs.