Random Thought of the Day

[Nyctophilia]

My grandma (Silent Gen) was telling me stories about how girls had to survive in situations.

Apparently it wasn’t uncommon to corner a girl and threaten violence, and they did what needed to be done to diffuse the situation. Then were told boys will be boys.

I was born '94 in the suburbs but my boomer mom still had this mentality... it was like she just accepted that boys/men are allowed to do whatever the hell they want and us girls just have to accept it + know that we'll be blamed

Oh my mum is too aggressive for that. I think even moreso before my lifetime based on anecdotes I've heard.

It has a lot to do with class.

One of my daughters had a boy at school do the classic hit her/throw gum in her hair and we had a meeting about it with the school because she didn't want to go anymore.

They did the "oh, he just really likes her!" bullshit. I stood up and said how I like them to, and will slap them both across the face to show my affection. Both his parents just sat there and then it hit the dad, he said "I need to talk to him. I am so sorry". His mother kept defending it and the principal told them both that if their son keeps it up he will be expelled. She also said no rumors or trash talking will be tolerated and seen as bullying, and their son is never to talk to my daughter anymore.

The mom walked out of there furious, still not grasping how her son is in the wrong and it's everyone else's fault. Guess my point is that attitude is still being perpetuated by parents and it's really toxic.

You have to wonder if their relationship involves domestic abuse or if she has a history that involves that. I guess he kind of grasped it though and she didn't which makes me wonder about her upbringing. But some mums have this delusional level of defensiveness over their sons. Also it can be a narcissistic defence too.

[Nyctophilia]

I'm reading reviews on tripadviser of this lido and restaurant space with some spa facilities. There's some very mixed reviews especially about the restaurant. Then I noticed this one (feel like you could probably make a YouTube series or at least video out of this but I'm sure someone already has.)

This was booked as a spa experience birthday treat for myself and family. I had not read up on the venue before arriving Arrived with time to enjoy the pool, hot pool, sauna, steam room. Had a swim in a quiet pool but unable to use the hot pool or sauna as it was packed all of the time. The steam room was just warm. I got cold waiting for my treatment, there was nowhere to sit and wait comfortably. The package was booked for me so as I mentioned had not read up on the venue, so when it came to my treatment was VERY surprised to see a male "beautician". The Tapas was good Customers should have been made to have a shower and soap down before entering the pool I would not recommend

That seems a bit sexist lol?

[Nyctophilia]

Assuming this reddit story is real (a lot of these are AI generated) and there are elements of this one that have that surreal fake AI vibe. Like the repetition of certain things. I have some thoughts...

I think my marriage is over


I met a man who I thought to be charismatic, loving, caring, handsome, everything I could have wanted. We got on so well, we were inseparable. 3 months later we got engaged and 3 months later we got married. It was a fairytale wedding and our honeymoon was absolutely beautiful. Been married for 2 years.

I was a virgin and remember crying the next morning for some reason - I thought because I lost a sense of my innocence I wasn?t sure. I
noticed that my husband?s attitude towards me seemed different the morning after our wedding. I remember asking him what was wrong because he seemed slightly distant or cold. He said nothing so I brushed it off but ever since then I noticed a difference in his behaviour towards me - nothing major.

We lived in his parents house and then a few month?s later secured our own home. A few months after moving into our own home he started smoking weed everyday (a habit I thought he had quit a long time ago but something that started in his teen years). He also did other drugs occasionally for the fun of it which were experiences that we bonded over as I had never been exposed to these things in my life. He smoked weed for 1.5 years of our marriage. I tried getting him to stop but ultimately it was something that had to come from him.

My trust issues with him started when I noticed his change in attitude towards me - I didn?t understand how someone could just change suddenly so I naturally questioned things. Since the beginning of our marriage I saw increasingly suspicious behaviour over time. Starting from scratches and marks on his body, to marks on our bed and walls that could easily be explained away.

One day I saw a bank charge for something unusual. I asked him about it he said it was a game and then admitted he paid for a live online video chat with a woman. I made it clear that this was borderline cheating for me and it was not acceptable and that if cheating ever was to happen I would be out. A month later I found a lipstick stain on a glass in my dishwasher so I searched his car and found a pantyhose sock with the same lipstick colour underneath where his spare tyre goes and condoms underneath his driver seat. He said the lipstick on the cup could have been mine, the sock could have been his mums since it was his mums old car but we had cleaned it out and the condoms he said he wanted to use with me when we went on like a bush adventure. I believed him, well I tried to but it was difficult.

A few months later I went out for the day and he said he was going out with friends which he never did so I encouraged him. He only came home at like 1am that night and was crying saying that he had a lot of drugs, went to a massage parlour and there was a girl grinding on him but he didn?t end up doing the deed. He was worried that he might have herpes because he was seeing bumps on him but I didn?t see anything. I took all of my things and left the house. The next day he told me he couldn?t have done that to me and he was just hallucinating. He showed me $100 note that apparently was all that he had with him (we used joint bank accounts). I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt since he was definitely hallucinating the spots so maybe he had hallucinated the whole thing.

I went back home and things were good for a few weeks until he told me to stop asking him about it even though I was still trying to wrap my head around the whole incident. It obviously still affected me. He had his location on for a little bit to help with trust but it was occasionally off he said because his phone was dead and he eventually turned it off because he didn?t believe in that sort of relationship.

He started to become suicidal in October last year and was telling his parents that our marriage wasn?t working out anymore. He practically blamed his unhappiness on me. He eventually decided to quit weed and thought that going to Bali for a few days would be a good place to do that. He was looking at detox retreats as well.

He told me that he wouldn?t leave me at home alone if it wasn?t that bad and that he was only doing it for me and that was the only thing getting him through it. Little did I know that on top of four condoms that were missing from our bedroom that day, he had also been to the pharmacy to purchase condoms and delay gel.
He sent a long message to a girl on his way to the hotel, tried calling her 6 times and then facetimed me an hour after writing the message. He told me he was going to walk around the hotel and then go watch soccer.

He proceeded to ignore me the entire day while drinking and spending time at the pools. He then called me the next morning telling me that he doesn?t know what happened the previous night, that he had downloaded tinder, checked the cameras and a woman went to his room for 20 minutes, and was scared of having herpes on his lips which again I couldn?t see. He said he drank 36 beers and tried to swim out into the ocean to drown himself but a lady pulled him back out and he woke up on the shore. He then again ignored me the following day continuing to drink until he worried his loved ones. He said that he was trying to commit suicide and said goodbye to his family. The hotel reception staff told me that he was ok, he had just made a mistake with his wife. Above everything, all I cared for was his wellbeing and sent his brother to go and get him. The next day he was crying at the bar calling me to go and get him because he was in such a bad state and scared of himself. His brother went to get him.

When he got back I got him hospitalised for 2 weeks until he started antidepressants. We bonded a lot during that time and I was there for him everyday. I confronted him about the missing condoms from our house. He said he intended to cheat but when it came to it he didn?t end up doing it.

After a few weeks of being back home we started having arguments and he was threatening me with getting a second wife. I shut off towards him emotionally and decided to finally go through his phone which is when I found the message he sent to the woman wanting to commit to her. I took all of his things to his parents house but he came home and I confronted him about the message and he said yep. I asked him about the massage parlour incident and he said yep that day I embarrassed myself because I couldn?t perform I had too much drugs. For me that was it so I left.

Now a month later I have cut all contact but he is sending me emails saying that he never cheated on me and that he was drunk when writing that message and that he only admitted to the massage parlour incident because he was angry that day because my dad was threatening him.

Tldr; my husband keeps saying he cheated and then takes it back.

To be fair, she was a virgin. She seems to lack a lot of life experience. The second wife thing also made me think there were cultural influences at play. Couldn't be for certain. Doesn't mean any of the comments are wrong. it may mean that o girl likely needed to grow up and have some life experience before jumping into marriage. In other words, she didn't know any better.

So, as a cushion, I would say, forgive yourself, learn from the experience, and do better next time.

It's a stupid thing to do but unfortunately some young women think the world is operating according to their mating strategy of being sociosexually restricted and then make bad decisions but you've got to be more wary then that. This is also why having friends to vet people can be useful.

I know this kind of thing (moving in together and getting married after no time at all) is common in the sapphic/lesbian community and it works out sometimes like this couple but even then it's a rush:



Lesbian women are way more likely to be into hypermonogamy than gay men hence the differences in these cultures where gay men struggle to find long term relationships and open relationships are super common. (Some people boil this down to a sex difference or men and women thing and I understand why and it makes sense when limiting to heterosexual relationships most of the time but it's a lazy cognitive shortcut, ignores the mostly heterosexual and unrestricted bisexual women and men and really these differences are fascinating I think so flattening it to just male and female is so boring, and so I will not be doing so.) Though part of that is hypersexual unrestricted men saying they're gay who define the culture but aren't the whole of the culture. Feminine homosexual men are as a group more restricted. Eg this research:

Bisexual women exhibit personality traits and sexual behaviors more similar to those of heterosexual males than heterosexual women, including greater openness to casual sex and more pronounced dark personality traits. These are less evident or absent in homosexual individuals.

This reddit comment cracked me up so I'm including it:

That title really reads like being bi turns women into awful people. You know, like men.

Yes that is how society functions. Thank you for noticing.


They also included 'mostly heterosexual' women since a lot of women won't use the label bisexual. Which cracked me up too tbh (not the only study I've seen doing this recently. Though some find differences between bisexual and 'mostly heterosexual' women so they're not technically entirely the same group depending on what you're studying.)

When examining sexual orientation differences, the researchers found notable patterns, particularly among females. Mostly heterosexual and bisexual females demonstrated elevated levels of sociosexuality and sexual excitation compared to their exclusively heterosexual counterparts. They also scored higher in psychopathy.


"There are now several replications showing that mostly heterosexual women are higher in trait psychopathy than other sexual orientation groups," Semenyna noted. "Psychopathy in this context just means being less concerned with other people's feelings, social expectations, and having lower impulse control. Mostly heterosexual women score more like heterosexual men on this trait, but it's not clear why. It could just be that these women are less concerned about what others think of them, and less constrained by social mores that would view same-sex attraction or behavior negatively."

interestingly, exclusively homosexual females did not exhibit the same increases in sociosexuality and sexual excitation, indicating that mostly heterosexual and bisexual females form distinct groups.

Among males, the findings were somewhat different. Mostly heterosexual males showed higher levels of sexual excitation compared to exclusively heterosexual males. However, there were no significant differences in sociosexuality or Dark Triad traits between homosexual and heterosexual males.

Homosexual males did exhibit higher levels of sexual inhibition, aligning more closely with female-typical patterns. This indicates that while mostly heterosexual and bisexual males may be more sexually excitable, exclusively homosexual males show increased caution and inhibition in sexual contexts.

From wikipedia about some previous research:

Richard A. Lippa proposed that there exist two dimensions of sexual orientation: a gender typicality dimension, and a monosexuality dimension. With the gender typicality dimension being associated with the heterosexual-homosexual distinction, while the sociosexuality dimension has many behavioral effects. He proposes someone who would be at any point in the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum will become bisexual if they are high on the sociosexuality dimension. This dimension being associated with higher sociosexuality, higher neuroticism, lower agreeableness, lower honesty-humility, higher openness to experience, and a minor degree of gender nonconformity.[70] He proposes this as explaining phenomena such as increased juvenile delinquency among bisexuals,[71] increased mental health issues and substance use disorder among bisexuals,[72] and increased dark triad traits among bisexual women.[73] Critics of this theory have described elements observed as coming from experiences of biphobia,[70] but Lippa counters that these phenomena are present even among heterosexual identifying people with some same sex attraction, who would likely be heterosexual passing.[70][74]

And even in a sapphic relationship this is risky as hell. Plus there are lots of women who only look for casual sex with women and won't commit but then have long term relationships with men (hence the never ending discourse.)

You can see how varied people's experiences are here (despite evidence showing that bisexual men are more into casual sex, a lot of bisexual women have the idea that heterosexual men are more sexist, less willing to commit, more masculine and things like that which you can often find discussions about which don't really hold up to scrutiny when you look at research like the above or look on certain parts of reddit with people complaining LOL):

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/uha...eer-women-myth

It took me one month to tell my then girlfriend, now wife, that I love her. I'd been out and dating for two years by the time we got together but it was the first time I'd said it, or felt it, for anyone. While it was as true then as it is now, over six years later, the speed with which I aired my feelings has become a running joke. Set-up: "Why did I say 'I love you' so fast?" Punchline: "Because I'm a lesbian."

Lu, a 25-year-old [BEEP] woman, agrees, telling me: "I LOVE joking about the stereotype of lesbians and [BEEP] women buying a house together on their second date, especially with one friend who decided to go away with her girlfriend for a week on her second date." However she doesn't think it's necessarily exclusive to women dating women or non-binary people. "I know a hell of a lotta heteros who have done the same thing, and I also know a lot of [BEEP] women who have run a mile at commitment and broken a lotta hearts along the way."

There is even research to disprove the idea entirely. According to an American study done by Stanford University in 2018, lesbian couples did not shack up any faster than heterosexual pairs. They surveyed 3,000 couples (including 220 female couples) and came to the conclusion that "contrary to popular conceptions of lesbians as eager to commit, our results indicate that after controlling for couple age there are no significant differences in relative rates of cohabitation among couple types." However, almost everyone I spoke to said that, at least anecdotally, the stereotype holds up.

This also seems to be true for the bisexual women I spoke to. Miriam, 25, tells me: "In my relationships with women and non-binary people things have moved much, much faster... I don't think I've ever been in a relationship with a non-man where it's taken more than a month to say 'I love you' (usually less with women I've dated) but in my last relationship, which was with a cis straight man, we were together for nearly a year and he point-blank refused to say it... I think that evasion of commitment is pretty normal for men, particularly heterosexual men. My current partner is bisexual as well and actually with him it has been different, and I do think his sexuality is part of that."

It's actually the opposite lol. Think they started removing the posts from guys asking for validation for their desire to cheat on their wives with men because it became so prevalant on the bisexual subreddit and there were many threads complaining about the men doing this. They think they found a loophople to cheating because they're oppressed by homophobia....

I'm very biased because it would bother me more if someone I was in a relationship with had sex with a guy than a woman because I'm annoyed that the universe didn't give me a dick. Unless they topped then I don't care as much again. I also don't care as much if it's a trans woman because it's not actually about the dick part exclusively. This is all hypothetical too obviously and based on my imagination + reading posts and seeing what bothers me. This is possibly idiosyncratic though, or maybe it's not and people just aren't this honest usually lol. I think the reason it bothers most women more though (as it seems to,) is because they find it feminine (if it's a guy I mean obviously,) and I don't relate to/give a [BEEP] about that.

Also my first ex-boyfriend who was heterosexual (I assume,) said he loved me after 4 months or so? I didn't reciprocate though. The whole relationship didn't really feel right to me tbh which is why I broke up with him but he was the one escalating things most of the time (sexually and relationship wise,) not me.

Oh and I don't know that most bisexual women who argue these things even really believe that. I think part of the reason they do is that they have an identitiy thing where they don't feel '[BEEP] enough' because the community keeps telling them they're straight and so they date bisexual men as a way to feel more connected to the LGBT+ community. They do similar stuff with trans men. Which is understandable because of how Human psychology works and they probably have more in common (personality/interest/culture wise like you all like music 'art films,') you're goths and met at a Drab Majesty concert



You listened to My Chemical Romance as a teen.



You can't sit on chairs:



OK I'll stop.

But like ... They're not more likely to commit come on now lol.

Anyway by rushing things like that it's like you're operating in another era which the current low trust unrestricted dating landscape is not suited for.

It's a real pain though I know. The psychological differences and almost nobody gets what they want. And people are choosing bears over Humans and every generation is getting more mentally ill and-

It's very suspcious for someone to have done a bunch of drugs in the past which she knew, and then be rushing into marriage with you Suggests they are not from a conservative/restricted culture (and lack that temprement/personality type,) and probably aren't restricted but are instead impulsive, so then you shouldn't jump into marriage with them.

He's obviously mentally ill if true though and needs to cut out the drugs.

[Nyctophilia]

This is an amazing video because 🍋:





I've invested a lot into lemons. Not economically mentally.

[Nyctophilia]

I've fallen down a weird rabbit hole after getting suggested a video about the bassist in ZZ Top:



It's a gimmick and was initially a joke apparently so I can see why it apparently bugs him to have to bring it out everytime now.

"I said to Billy, 'We should order one of these, and I'll play it. It'll be hilarious.' Then it went viral. I hate playing that bass. Now I've got to play it every night": Elwood Francis on why he regrets his 17-string bass becoming a ZZ Top staple

"I did it to myself," Elwood laughs. "I hate playing that fucking bass. I found it late at night while internet surfing on one of those Chinese websites. I couldn't believe they were making something like that.

"I found this guitar, took a screenshot, and sent it to Billy, saying, ?We should order one of these, and I'll play it. It'll be hilarious.' And three months later, we fucking got it. It came in all the way from China, and Billy pulls out this big-ass yellow 17-string bass and is like, 'Okay, we'll play it for a song, right?' I said, 'Yeah, I guess I can do this?'"

One day bro will transform the entire universe into a guitar just to make a song

[Nyctophilia]

In the two weeks since US President Donald Trump's inauguration, Musk, the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has upended the federal bureaucracy, prompting questions about the scope of his authority and warnings of a constitutional crisis, or even a coup.

I quite like 柴犬 Have you not considered the negative impact you are going to have on this dog breed?

Just because Peanut Butter is better at playing video games than you...

[Nyctophilia]

Do they still exist as i have been a raver for many years and have not came a cross a single person that knows of any, if soo where can i find out about them, snapchat or instagram or something?

I'm an old git now and only rave a few times a year. Illegal Raves were a UK rite of passage in the 90's and it's a shame that has been reduced to small groups of friends these days hidden out in the woods etc. Last I heard of an actual crew was this lot [link]

I'm hoping the UK will get back to its tradition of illegal soundsystems and stop being so focused on soul sucking, corporate festivals featuring the upmost bullshit.

Yes there is the criminal justice act but there is also some of the most green and pleasant pastures in the UK where people wont be located for some time. With so little being given to young people it really is time to take up some space and make some noise.

There are a few crews who are legal but still have the beating heart of original Rave culture like Freerotation. I truly hope younger generations in the UK take back what rightfully belongs to them.

there's still loads of crews about mate get ur self back in the loop old boy x

I'm a woman and i've done my time on the front line thanks. However I'm still in the loop in my area and there are no crews. My kids go to festivals because the Free Party scene is mainly dead minus the odd squat party.

This happened in 2022:

Davidstow illegal rave: 'Thousands travel from all over UK'

Some angry locals have said the music woke them up in the early hours, while others have said the ravers should enjoy the one-off event

Don't see how you could have something really big happening in a city.

"There's cars everywhere," he said. "Every road and every corner is jammed solid with cars. I've spoken with a few of them, they said they've come as far as Scotland and Oxfordshire. One bloke getting out of his car said he's driven 400 miles and can't get in. There's cars, tents, people camping, people sat in their cars drinking, boots loaded with camping gear. I've never seen anything like it. The police are stopping people getting in, with officers apparently drafted in from Plymouth."

Mr Jasper said one raver told him he had found out the location by ringing a secret phone number. "I must say they?ve not been disrespectful," Mr Jasper added. "They're cheerful and happy, seem to be out enjoying themselves, I do get that."

Oxfordshire is far from Cornwall but when you've already said Scotland it feels kind of redundant lol. It's not further than or equivalent to that.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/co...travel-7164062

Aside from the fact that they're ruining a piece of Bodmin Moor that I know very well and love (nearly went for a hike from the airfield today, very glad I saw the news about this first!!!) and scaring horses, ponies and sheep, AND bringing nothing to the economy of Kernow - let's face it, we're full enough already without these knuckledraggers.... the music frankly sucks; most "rave" music is soulless droning for soulless drones. Had to listen to 7empest by Tool at earsplitting volume, twice, just to rid my aural memory of this filth...

But seriously, LEAVE BODMIN MOOR AND DAVIDSTOW ALONE!

I'll accept the animal point but the bolded is very gross. That's exactly why stuff like this exists r*tard.

This police officer seems kind of ambivalent:



Also I'm imagining that comment in this tune:



https://theconversation.com/why-we-s...l-raves-107378

In the accompanying text, Smith situates rave culture's roots in the hippy and traveller subcultures of the 1960s and 1970s, framing its development as the result of an alternative lifestyle with a particular set of values and beliefs. The communities depicted are not interested in owning a house or running successful businesses (in a monetary sense). Their choice of lifestyle challenges accepted land and property ownership practices. Instead, they live in communities of vans and buses, share their food, and make music together.

Clubs in the UK often have relatively high door and drinks prices and are packed out with crowds of people: the dance floor reduced to a heaving mass that is nigh on impossible to navigate. Young people are also sick of excessive health and safety and overbearing surveillance. Commercial nightclubs in the UK these days are full of bouncers telling you where you can and can't go.

Compare this to club cultures in other parts of the world, such as Berlin, where overbearing security is minimal (once you've got past the door), there tends to be space to move around the dance floor, and club-goers are often forbidden from taking pictures or videos. I would argue that the UK rise in illegal raves is in part a response to this commercialised club culture.

[some instagram post about Berghain]

Oh yeah Berghain seems cool. Aside from the outside looking like some kind of abandoned asylum and being very industrial looking (it's actually a former power station. I feel like they should have done this with Battersea in a way, instead of turning it into a mall,) they've definitely marketed themselves well by not allowing photography inside and the impression of exclusivity with no explicit rules (which is actually the complete opposite of rave culture but simultaneously what people are looking for because it creates the illusion of being clandestine because of the lack of explicitly stated rules so no one can figure out why they're allowed in on any particular night. It's based on vibes, but most likely fairly random.)

(Elon Musk was just denied earlier this year, an instance that flooded the internet with headlines and further spread the notion that some places on Earth are inaccessible even for the Man on Mars.)

Lol.

Honestly I could see him getting rejected based on 'vibes' though. I think if he went back several times he'd get in eventually unless they don't like that he's Elon Musk.

I was rejected twice. My husband and I were let in when we least expected it. On a Sunday morning around 8am. We were just walking back to our hotel after Watergate and we were just randomly trying our luck. And guess what? We were waved in. Got in and after 30mins, decided to head out home to get some rest. We returned in the evening.

Well, the music in both Pano and main floor that night were not really my cup of tea. However, I am glad that I got to experience the club. Would I go back? for Panorama, maybe. For the main floor, no.

Keep on trying! Good luck!

I love the fact that it's just open at 8am on a Sunday. I think it's open 24 hours on Sundays.

When I think of Berlin now (I did visit once a long time ago but not for clubbing,) I just think of IAMX cause he lived there many years and his music and aesthetic at the time just kind of matches my impression:

I'm in my 40s and can't find any raves these days, I used to love them when my kids where small and I wouldn't mind going to one last one , I'm a grandma now but still would love a rave 😂

Scumtek used to be a solid crew abt 10 years ago, today an old member tried to revive it by himself and it flopped, he now throws squat parties in London under the name of starbass, average age of attendance I reckon is no older than 16 hahaha.

There are plenty of real crews though, won?t leave any info on here but just searching sound systems on insta should yield what your looking for

scumtek is not starbass and whoever said we are doing parties under the name of starbass isnt me,

Nice try FBI

You got me good there 💯💯fyi only you yankies have fbi we are in the uk

Lol I love when people do this. I think I've seen people who live in the UK do this too...

Maybe follow rave collectives on social media. It's really through word of mouth so you got to make friends.

Yeah that's the hard part.

[Nyctophilia]

Wonder what's going on here lol:









Some kind of Jungian shadow thing lol?

Someone posted those images in response to something Grimes tweeted.

I think so much of what's been happening over the last decade is simply that the art of diplomacy, oration, and generally competent leadership has been lost.

The purpose of politics is to find solutions when the population can't agree - but both sides have stoked hysteria rather than provide mature competent leadership.

For whatever ways in which one wishes to complain about administrations before this - there was a sense of decorum by both republicans and democrats that - no matter what you think - showed at least the veneer of respect towards the people - that is part of leadership. and that counts for a lot with regards to maintaining stability and yes, mental health

It is very milquetoast liberal vibes tbf.

Also reminded of jreg lol (can't post all the videos there's a whole series):

Yeh so to clarify - a lot of jobs are about to disappear - many of them unpleasant - fine - but with no replacement you've got a lot of unemployed single men - already less educated and less employed than women.

Probably this is just a massive social failure for anyone to take responsibility from a macro pov but also if for some reason u want a civil war or an army this shud work

At what point do we all stop feigning incomplicity ?

AI isn't replacing garbagemen first. that's last. well, plumbers are LAST last.
it's the convenient slacker easy jobs - cubicles with 5 hours of productive work in a 40 hour week, that are going away. (first)

Those boys can barely LARP war when playing CoD so I'm not super worried

I'm really not, either. Men - if permitted- will go do men things.

You're going to meet them at a very strange time in their lives.





It's funny that you don't....

Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of both the Five Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior.[2] People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success, if they also score high on Big Five Agreeableness; otherwise, they are also more likely to engage in anti-social behavior and commit blue-collared crimes and crimes of passion.[3]

Robert Ritter, the head of Nazi Germany's efforts to track the genealogies of the Romani, considered them a "highly inferior Lumpenproletariat" as they were "parasites who lacked ambition and many of them had become habitual criminals."[70] The Romani were seen in post-World War II communist-ruled eastern and central Europe as an example of the lumpenproletariat and were, therefore, subject to an aggressive policy of assimilation.[71]

Ken Gelder noted that in cultural studies, subcultures are "often positioned outside of class, closer in kind to Marx's lumpenproletariat, lacking social consciousness, self-absorbed or self-interested, at a distance from organised or sanctioned forms of labour, and so on."[72]

"social degenerates, isolated from the forces of production and incapable of having a working-class consciousness." Svetlana Stephenson notes that the Soviet state "for all its ideology of assistance, cooperation and social responsibility, was ready to descend on them with all its might."

Due to a desire to keep clean the hands of the larger public, paramilitary groups are often used to commit atrocities and they often recruit mainly among criminals, said to be used to violence and brutality and wanting to enjoy an occasion to loot.[90] The lumpenproletariat has been described as being more likely to adhere to doctrines calling for ethnic cleansing and to organize in militias.[91]

Zheani Sparkes grew up in central Queensland, "super rural?really impoverished, low-socioeconomic," she tells me with grit. "Everyone's on government weekly payments. No one has careers and jobs, parents don't work. I'm going to public school, and all the adults are wrapped up in their own dramas rather than choosing to invest time in creation with their kids."

She likens her "shit hole country school? to a prison, "I'm not an art school kid," she says, "but shout out to kids that get to live that. It sounds like an amazing childhood. I was just another fucking mutt [BEEP] trying to make my way in the world, and getting caught up into a series of absolutey bizarre events."

"In my music, I come across ... like I wanna destroy, but there's the flipside of me [that?s] maternal and wants to protect ... I'm almost proving to the adults in my life that it?s not even fucking hard to take care of people," she says. ?Like, why was it so fucking hard for you to give a stable, nurturing environment where I didn?t have to watch horrible domestic violence ..."

Using music to purge her childhood trauma, Zheani says, "is the most embarrassing thing you could ever imagine." Prior to making music, she'd spent the past 28 years of her life hiding her upbringing. "My parents didn't even fucking work. I can't even say I was working class," she says. "But I was able to overcome that feeling of shame and turn it into pride and empowerment."

Oh well lol.

Cause you think everyone's going to become an artist or something or an 'influencer' I guess (that came up several times in the tweets like that won't be replaced by AI too anyway lol,) and I'm here to tell you they won't.

New music when? New music right now.

Surprise! Pathetic Waste is OUT NOW follow the link to watch the music video! PATHETIC WASTE is an internal monologue, the kind of self deprecating stream that runs through an ADHD mind in the face of failure. This river of vitriol flows for years eroding away at your heart more with each wasted day...

did you miss me? I missed you x

Zheani was featured in a Revolver article titled "SEE ZHEANI FACE DEMONS IN STUNNING VIDEO FOR NEW SONG "PATHETIC WASTE"".[2] The article featured a message from Zheani:

"My music is almost always defiant and affirmational", "Within it, I'm a warrior, a goddess. I am victorious in my art because I so desperately want to be victorious and for my victories to be loved. My fans see me this way, like an avatar, someone powerful and larger than life. But with 'Pathetic Waste,' I try to be more honest about the mundane struggle that my life can often feel like. The pain that my own inadequacy can cause the ones I love. The missed opportunities and squandered relationships. All of this falls in my wake as I drudge forward thinking, 'What if I'm one of the bad people?'"

It's not the best thing ever, but I like this stuff, but there's a lot of rage (it's like we have two emotions 'zombie' and 'rage'):









^ I love this symbolically because it doesn't even finish. It just fades into nothing like he didn't finish it.

Which is part of you know (the internet):



This is the music made by younger millenials and gen z. The stuff by the younger millennials/older gen z is the angriest sounding I think. Like the musicians in their late 20s-mid 30s compared to younger gen z. But not just now it was before as well (like when Halsey was younger):



Probably because:

Popular music is getting sadder and angrier and more fearful, new study finds after examining lyrics last 50 years

Imagine if I could read this BBC article but I can't because someone in the UK pays to not be able to read this (thankfully I don't pay for a TV licence anyway):

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...er-and-angrier

Is pop music really getting sadder and angrier?

13 May 2019-- Expressions of anger and disgust roughly doubled over those 65 years, for instance, while fear increased by more than 50%.

Page unavailable
We're sorry but this page is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Global News Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC (and just the BBC). The money made from it goes back to help fund the BBC's international journalism.

This is why music is like this lol.

We don't view people who lack ambition well. It's going to drive a lot of people insane - the level of contempt they're going to recieve. Like being plunged into freezing cold water too if they were previously employed and aren't part of the class that are either generationally unemployed (and often zombified though they do obviously have a higher crime rate cause that's often how you get out of the boring dystopia unfortunately,) or the recent generations who have just been gradually dropping out of the work force in early adulthood anyway.

People's entire identity and worth in society is built around their career. Cis men can't even give birth yet so they don't even have that (not really respected except by conservatives,) playing card.

And you haven't solved any of that before doing this.

The AI industry trusts, implicitly, that AI surveillance, AI military tech, and AI corporate defenses will protect them from any social or violent blowback from making hundreds of millions of young men unemployed globally.

They think their Skynet will protect them from the Mob.

If they're right, they're willing for Skynet drones to kill millions to protect AI corporate leaders and employees.

If they're wrong, they get lynched by the Mob.

Either way, a bad outcome.

They really have NOT thought this through.

[Nyctophilia]

Why do men not cry as easily as women do?

Growing up, I rarely saw my father cry, even when emotionally upset. This isn't true of all men though. One ex cried frequently, especially when drunk and discussing his difficult family life. Another ex, despite a far more troubled family history, never cried about it, though he was clearly uncomfortable and sad. Recently, my boyfriend and I had a difficult argument. We were both deeply upset but while I teared up, he didn't cry at all, even though I feel he felt worse than I did. I remember him telling me earlier that it had been years since he last cried. I'm confused about men and crying. I can usually control my emotions, even during arguments with friends, and while women are often perceived as more emotional, I don't typically cry in front of them either. Is there a biological reason some men cry more readily than others, or is this difference true of people of opposite sexes in general?

Does it make you feel weak?

Testosterone affects one's ability to cry. I stopped crying once I turned 13.

Yeah this makes sense. My baby brothers literally cry all the time, so annoying

Guess it does.

I'm not sure it's that simple like why did I cry less about fiction as a kid? I remember I'd see my mum crying while watching some TV show/film and being confused. I specifically remember being confused about that lol. But I tear up sometimes watching stuff now.

I was more physically violent as a kid too when I was angry (I mean pre-puberty late childhood at the latest.) Maybe my testosterone was higher as a child lol.

There are also studies like this one which are funny:

Women who receive a boost of the potent sex hormone act more generously than women on a placebo, a new study finds. But the hormone's reputation seemed to precede itself. Those who suspected they had received bona fide testosterone acted more selfishly than those who believed they got the bogus treatment, no matter what they actually received.

"Almost everybody believes that testosterone has these aggression-enhancing effects," says Ernst Fehr, a neuroeconomist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, who led the study.

This platitude may be true in some situations, but not all. The hormone's real role is to push men and women to seek higher status, says Fehr. His team tested this hypothesis in women because previous research had established for women how long an external dose of the hormone remains in the body.

They asked 121 women given testosterone or a placebo to play a simple game in which cooperation is paramount. Called the ultimatum game, one participant is given $10 but must offer some of it to another woman. If the second woman rejects the offer, the first loses her money.

Generous women

If testosterone plays a role in status-seeking, participants given the hormone should fear rejection more than others and so should make more generous offers, Fehr says.

That's precisely what the team found - but only after accounting for people's hunches about whether they had received testosterone or a placebo. Women on the placebo tended to offer $3.40, while those given the hormone tendered an average of $3.90.

Those who falsely believed they were on testosterone, however, offered about $1 less than women who believed they had taken the placebo.

When probed on their beliefs about testosterone, participants tended to buy into conventional wisdom, saying, "Oh, testosterone would make me more egotistic, more risk-taking and more aggressive," Fehr says.

I think it's illuminating to see in the comments how trans individuals are reporting that higher testosterone can supress crying. I never would have guessed that.

You can't really trust that because of research like the above.

45M here. Every girlfriend, fiancee, or my wife has left me within 2 weeks of seeing me cry. These days, I nurture my romantic relationship and I cry with my therapist.

You had a wife who left you within two weeks of seeing you cry once? Wtf?

The simple answer is...women are more emotional than men. Men don't experience emotion in the same way.

This is true men experience emotions like this:





I wanted to find a clip of him setting fire to barbie dolls lol but just found this:



"Sure 98% of the internet is just watching porn right now."

Ben, hearing you were "dragged [against your will] by your producers to watch the Barbie movie" was my porn.

The original was better:



And women experience emotions like this:

Same here, I've always thought it was something a bit more than just toxic gender norms.

There's nothing toxic about that, women aren't stupid or irrational, it's a normal thing. I'm still just as emotional as I was before, the same things make me sad, it's just my reaction has changed and that's okay. Don't ever let anyone tell you that you're weaker because you cry

Are they a trans guy? I don't think most people believe this. On a deep personal level I think only (some) trans women do.

There are a lot of trans guys who have some relationship with stereotypical femininity or the defensive thing people do which in women gets called "not like the other girls" and in cis men is called toxic masculinity where it's like "I could only appreciate that after I went on testosterone" or "after I came out as not cis" but cis women mostly don't get to have that experience. (I mean they could go on testosterone and certainly some have lol but that's another story.)

Some kind of weird alchemical androgynous exchange thing.

Trying to find these tweets I read before that seemed relevant...

i think its bc trans lesbians are too 'want to be femme and girly' for the stereotypical cis lesbians... its mostly bi cis women who like trans lesbians

maybe a similar thing happens w trans men who like the idea of manliness more than yr average twink

No but that's tangentially related..

Found it. Everyone involved in this conversation is a trans woman:

the average trans woman is more conservative and reactionary bc of the pressure to perform femininity than a right wing patriarch of the 1960s

if this were true why do cis women under the same pressures break progressive

why are cis women more progressive when they also feel the pressure to perform femininity

cis women are reactionary against the pressure to perform femininity. trans women are reactionary against the pressure to be male. different trajectories.

okay that's a different statement than your OP, and trans women both a pressure to be male and a pressure to perform female stereotypes so that their womanhood is not doubted

its congruent. (many, some, a subset of) trans women are reactionary and pro-feminine gender roles because its a cathartic escape from their existence as males. cis women find catharsis in defying those gender roles.

what do you mean by reactionary in this case.

is uncritical about participating in the reinforcement of gender roles because its the method by which their assimilation/survival in a cishet normative world is mediated

So you're saying it's unwoke for a trans woman to be feminine in a traditional sense, "uncritically". What if that's just what they want to do? What if they want to be feminine and do it because it's their life.

no im just saying i find the subset of trans women that whine about "incel trans women" and chide others for being masculine and socialized male are disgusting reactionaries who barely resemble cis women mentally

the most hyperpatriarchal beliefs congregate in the femme crowd that commonly repeats refrains like "trans women just be normal" or "trans women learn to tuck" or "trans women just have cis female friends" or something like "trans women stop being incels from 4chan"

I don't really think that's the case. Highly gender conforming cis women can police gender roles just as much as harshly, especially in conservative cultures

irrelevant because highly gender conforming cis women arent equivalent to highly gender conforming trans women. like i said they are on different trajectories

That sounds like something a man would say. Fighting for their rights would make you pass better

Social passing doesnt exist, passing is 100% a physical matter only
+ there are mysoginistic c?s women and they get gendered female too

Yeah there are misogynistic cis women who are treated as women, but they pass perfectly as a woman because they are one. A very slightly clocky trans woman who passes 70-80% of the time is probably going to raise more suspicion by being openly sexist

To play Devil's advocate I've seen people call Pearl Jenkins (why did I think that was her name? It's Pearl Davis lol,) a closeted trans man and tell her she should transistion because she hates women.

Well we know she's not gay:



I've also been on websites where misogynistic or otherwise bigoted female posters were assumed to be men. Sometimes even after posting photos of themselves (assumed to be fake.)

Which says a lot about how people view men, I guess.

Asshole = man.

Social passing is very real on the internet though.

[Nyctophilia]

Oh I see this is what all the white nationalists were talking about before on twitter that I mentioned in another post recently.



Why does he keep typing in all caps?

AINT NOBODY RAMPED UP EITHER IM CALM AS ICE.

Perhaps if you turn off caps lock.

Ice has emotion?

Also why [BEEP] Virgil? Someone had to show Dante through hell. Is it because he's a poet?

[BEEP] Virgil? Is Kanye struggling with Devil May Cry 3?

Haha I was going to make that joke but it was too obvious (I knew someone would,) so went for the original.

I don't think he's a nazi at least not on any deep level. I don't think he follows that ideology or that it's something personal for him basically. I just think his behaviour can be explained due a combination of the fact he's mentally ill and will say anything outrageous for attention.

When he does this he can try to piss off white nationalists on twitter (who make up a really large percentage of the userbase now,) and also women. And Jewish people. And black people.

I said my piece on this before though:

Liberal white women are a threat against western civilization!

Are the 92% of black women who voted against Trump also a threat to democracy or only the White women? Are you saying black women are too ineffective to be a threat, or that White women are uniquely more threatening, or something else? Just wondering.

I think the implication is that everyone knows the deal with black women so it doesn't need to be said. At least he added "liberal" to the white women bashing

I think the implication is you're willing to break the sexism taboo but not the racism taboo. Some of your ingroup think you're a bit weak and pathetic for that.

I don't really care as both those things suggest you're unintelligent and uncreative and why would I want that? You're not even nice - because you're posting on twitter so that alone means you're at least somewhat disagreeable and these days usually very disagreeable (and seeing as many intelligent people are assholes - especially online - that's usually some kind of hypothetical plus.)



#himborights

It's never like that on twitter (because they're not himbomaxxing. They're just tweeting about "Kanye humilating his 'Italian wife' (who seems to be Australian)" but I have no context for this story. And how white women deserve bad things or whatever for dating black guys.) Also I just realised Jason is Floridaman:



[...]

They found that low-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were both perceived as liberal and that people have little choice about whether they join, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and gays or lesbians.

Higher-IQ people tended to dislike groups that were perceived as conventional and that people seem to have more choice about joining, such as big businesses, Christianity, the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists​ and the military​. It was somewhat surprising to see prejudice among liberal-leaning people, Brandt said, as liberals tend to be high in the personality trait of openness to experience.

"Even people who are high on openness to experience, openness to new ideas -- they show this link between perceiving somebody as having different attitudes than them and expressing prejudice," Brandt said. "It's kind of depressingly robust." [How to Talk About Race to Kids: Experts' Advice for Parents]

[...]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6890261/

The total regression model indicated odd beliefs/magical thinking, trait Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy were significant, positive predictors of belief in conspiracy theories. No other predictors reached significance. Results of the current study highlight individuals who might be more susceptible to believing conspiracy theories. Specifically, these results indicate that the individual more likely to believe in conspiracy theories may have unusual patterns of thinking and cognitions, be strategic and manipulative, and display interpersonal and affective deficits.

Results provided partial support to the prediction that trait psychopathy would predict belief in conspiracy theories. Interestingly, results showed only primary psychopathy was a significant (positive) predictor of belief in conspiracy theories. As discussed in the introduction, primary psychopathy is characterised by traits such as social dominance, self-confidence, selfishness, manipulation of others, and a callous nature [26, 27]. This more composed, confident nature of primary psychopathy contrasts the impulsive, destructive, and volatile nature of secondary psychopathy (Evita March, Jordan Springer, 2019)

As characteristics associated with primary psychopathy such as social dominance, exploitation, and manipulation have all been associated with belief in conspiracy theories [14, 15, 19], it is not surprising that primary psychopathy was a significant positive predictor. The lack of utility of secondary psychopathy to predict belief in conspiracy theories suggests that such beliefs are less associated with impulsivity and emotional reactivity, and may underpin a careful, structured, and detached interpersonal style where relations with others are based on dominance and manipulation. This speculation is supported by the significant role trait Machiavellianism plays in predicting belief in conspiracy theories.

[Nyctophilia]

I've been listening to the @joerogan Experience for over a decade now, and have observed his transformation from militant Atheist to... Well, you'll see.

Here is a detailed history of Rogan's commentary on Christianity, through clips and debates from the podcast👇

Thread 🧵

In this early clip from the Joe Rogan Experience, we hear Rogan railing against Christianity.

He calls Christians dumb and confidently suggests that smart people are predominantly atheists because atheism requires a more sophisticated level of analysis.

This is classic New Atheist rhetoric, where intellect is seen as inherently opposed to faith. But this notion misunderstands what Christianity truly is. Faith in Christ is not anti-intellectual; it engages deeply with questions of morality, purpose, and truth. Christianity has inspired some of the greatest minds in history--from Augustine to Aquinas, from Newton to Pascal to C.S. Lewis and Tolkien.

--------

Here, Rogan shares (with @peterboghossian) his belief that humanity is in an "early stage of enlightenment," where progress will naturally lead to moving further away from God.

He even asserts that the New Testament was "made by Constantine," which is blatantly false.

Rogan's claim reflects a common misunderstanding about progress and religion. The idea that enlightenment means moving away from God ignores how much of Western enlightenment was built on Christian foundations. The scientific revolution, the moral framework of human rights, and even modern education systems owe a debt to Christian thought.

Additionally, the misconception about Constantine is a myth thoroughly debunked by scholars. As he will come to find out.

In this clip, Rogan confidently dismisses the notion that Christianity is evidence-based. He says he'd need to see a study to believe it.

Christianity doesn't rely solely on empirical studies; it's a holistic worldview that integrates historical evidence, philosophical reasoning, and experiential truth.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ, for instance, is supported by historical documentation, eyewitness accounts, and the rapid rise of the early church. Rogan's narrow lens on evidence prevents him from seeing this broader tapestry of proof.

------

Milo Yiannopoulos directly challenges Rogan, calling him out for being "too intelligent" to be so dismissive of religion. Rogan mocks Milo, but Milo doesn't let up.

By refusing to let Rogan off the hook, he forces him to confront his intellectual arrogance. What Milo points out--and what Rogan begins to realize some time after this episode--is that dismissing Christianity without truly understanding it is not intellectual but lazy.

Christianity is not just a set of dogmas; it's a worldview that has shaped civilizations and provides answers to life's deepest questions.

Milo's confrontation might not have changed Rogan's mind immediately, but it planted a seed of doubt in his New Atheist certainties

---

In a discussion with @RichardDawkins, Rogan calls Dawkins' claim that "all religious people are atheists" a "home run."

Hard watch.

This reductionist view conflates disbelief in specific gods with Atheism, missing the unique claims of Christianity. The God of the Bible is not one among many but the source of all being, the moral lawgiver, and the ultimate truth.

Rogan's endorsement of this idea shows how deeply entrenched he was in the New Atheist framework, which prioritizes soundbites over serious engagement with theology.

---

In this clip, Rogan's tone begins to shift. He acknowledges that religion, while human-made, could make the world a better place.

This is a significant moment. Rogan is starting to recognize the moral and social value of faith. Christianity's vision of human dignity, forgiveness, and redemption has profoundly shaped history.

Rogan's admission here suggests he's starting to recognize the moral and social value of faith, even if he hasn't yet embraced its truth claims.

---

In this clip with @RealMattFradd - Jordan Peterson names Rogan amongst recent Christian converts.

If there's anything we know about Dr. Peterson, it's that he chooses his words wisely... does he know something we don't?

Response from a British woman:

I would like to watch these videos as I believe that Christianity has stolen bits from each religion to get the people to accept it all and this is control as they wanted to get people to obey them instead of having their own belief system. This is why I don't accept Christianity

I also saw Rogan interview Mel Gibson and saw his honesty about how he received healing from a guy who used chi gung on him, its channeling energy through the body with Chinese medicine lol. That is also using other forms of their belief systems to justify their beliefs.

There are many forms of energy healing that is based on the same thing, but Christians say its demonic, yet they don't mind going for it themselves and call it something else. This is why I really struggle to get what you actually believe in

You probably shouldn't really trust people with extrinsic religious orientations and no one should trust Milo:

Extrinsic religious orientation is a way of using religion to achieve non-religious goals. People with an extrinsic religious orientation may not be as committed to religious principles, and instead use religion to meet their own needs.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886916300678

Highlights. Psychopathy and Machiavellianism negatively correlate with declared religiosity. Empathy mediates the relationship between two dark traits and religiosity. Narcissism positively correlates with extrinsic religious orientation.

Additionally, the results indicated that psychopathy and Machiavellianism were negatively associated with intrinsic orientation, whereas grandiose and vulnerable narcissism were positively associated with extrinsic orientation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/u...ion-gen-z.html

In a First Among Christians, Young Men Are More Religious Than Young Women

Men greeted visitors at the door, manned the information table and handed out bulletins. Four of the five musicians onstage were men. So was the pastor who delivered the sermon and most of the college students packing the first few rows.

"I'm so grateful for this church," Ryan Amodei, 28, told the congregation before a second pastor, Buck Rogers, baptized him in a tank of water in the sanctuary.

Grace Church, a Southern Baptist congregation, has not made a conscious effort to attract young men. It is an unremarkable size, and is in many ways an ordinary evangelical church. Yet its leaders have noticed for several years now that young men outnumber young women in their pews. When the church opened a small outpost in the nearby town of Robinson last year, 12 of the 16 young people regularly attending were men.

"We've been talking about it from the beginning," said Phil Barnes, a pastor at that congregation, Hope Church. "What's the Lord doing? Why is he sending us all of these young men?"

The dynamics at Grace are a dramatic example of an emerging truth: For the first time in modern American history, young men are now more religious than their female peers. They attend services more often and are more likely to identify as religious.

"We've never seen it before," Ryan Burge, an associate professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University, said of the flip.

Among Generation Z Christians, this dynamic is playing out in a stark way: The men are staying in church, while the women are leaving at a remarkable clip.

Church membership has been dropping in the United States for years. But within Gen Z, almost 40 percent of women now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, compared with 34 percent of men, according to a survey last year of more than 5,000 Americans by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute.

In every other age group, men were more likely to be unaffiliated. That tracks with research that has shown that women have been consistently more religious than men, a finding so reliable that some scholars have characterized it as something like a universal human truth.

I don't think so really. Women tend to be drawn to the femdom/androgynous dom religions instead lol and don't necessarily label their beliefs or commit too much (lots are into astrology etc too):



Christianity (as with Islam - I'm less familiar with the Jewish religion,) is a religion that emphasises male dominance so obviously will appeal more to men.

The men and women of Gen Z are also on divergent trajectories in almost every facet of their lives, including education, sexuality and spirituality.

Young women are still spiritual and seeking, according to surveys of religious life. But they came of age as the #MeToo movement opened a national conversation about sexual harassment and gender-based abuse, which inspired widespread exposures of abuse in church settings under the hashtag #ChurchToo. And the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 compelled many of them to begin paying closer attention to reproductive rights.

Young men have different concerns. They are less educated than their female peers. In major cities, including New York and Washington, they earn less.

At the same time, they place a higher value on traditional family life. Childless young men are likelier than childless young women to say they want to become parents someday, by a margin of 12 percentage points, according to a survey last year by Pew. The young men at Grace and Hope churches "are looking for leadership, they?re looking for clarity, they?re looking for meaning," said Bracken Arnhart, a Hope Church pastor.

"I'm not sure what church life looks like with a decreasing presence of women," he said, pointing out that they historically have been crucial forces in missionary work and volunteering. "We need both spiritual mothers and spiritual fathers."

I assume gen z men have converted to Christianity either because they want to control women or because they are very lonely because of the guys who want to control women and a significant percentage of gen z women not trusting any men now. Hopefully they will find some friends and something besides women to focus on as with lesbian nuns etc in the past.

That's the best you can hope for now.

Done With Debating

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest Protestant denomination to which Grace Church belongs, continues to fiercely debate the place of women in leadership and family life. The denomination's statement of faith says that only men may serve as pastors, and that a wife is to "submit herself graciously" to her husband. At its annual meeting this summer, delegates voted to condemn the use of in vitro fertilization.

Young women, it seems, are moving past the debates -- and out the church doors.

About two-thirds of women ages 18 to 29 say that "most churches and religious congregations" do not treat men and women equally, the Survey Center on American Life found.

I'm in a really pissed off mood today for hormonal reasons and I'm trying really hard right now.

I'm trying really fucking hard right now lol. (And not in my previous two posts at all - actually they could have been even worse. I've removed on now anyway.)

Like I said I hope they meet some male friends.

"Hagrid you're pushing me over the fucking line."

Edit: I'm reading the comments on the article and the opinions are all the kinds of things you hear over and over:

Hmm? Instead of the headline reading that young men are more religious than young women, why doesn't it say that evangelical churches are losing young women at a higher rate than young men? If it said that it wouldn't really be a 'surprising' first but a predictable consequence of the patriarchy embedded in most evangelical churches.

Yeah lol...

Hmmm, a religion that pours resources into fighting to keep women's bodies a public commodity is losing respect from women.

What a shocker.

If Christianity keeps morally devolving, the trend will continue until there are no women left to oppress.

This world is facing a shift away from patriarchy, and is morally righteous in doing so. It's up to religious leaders to help their flocks adapt, or dig in their heels and let nature do for them what they can't even do for Jesus.

Women aren't less religious. They just have a new secular one that better caters to them. "Wokeness" or whatever it is called lately is an evolving ideology that provides many of the structures and comforts of religion. However, it only provides grace based on your ancestors' level of oppression without hope of forgiveness for the oppressor.

As hopeless woke oppressors, it makes sense that men would need to look elsewhere for salvation perhaps an old church that promises that love is unconditional and that all may hope to be forgiven for their sins.

You can't just call every ideology a religion though. It has to have a spiritual component to it. There are features beyond just an 'ideology' otherwise fascism is a religion, and communism, and anarchism etc. Hell you could probably argue being a goth is a religion using this logic. I could see the people who insist on this trying to argue that as it helps with attracting converts to Christianity, but it makes no sense.

And Christianity definitely doesn't promise unconditional love.

Men, mostly unemployed and/or poorly educated (degrees don't matter), are becoming more religious than women in most democracies. Traditionally, women are always more religious in every country and every society. Now women, at least in some countries, are waking up to the reality of their exploitation by every religion where men enjoy an undue privilege. Abortion controversy, started by the Trump party with the active help from Christian fundamentalists support base of the party, helping this reverse trend among sensible women. That section of religious political support, not just in America but in most countries, are also more racist and divisive. Right wing Political parties led by incompetent politicians like Trump, Erdogan, Modi etc, are exploiting those people to the fullest.

I am saddened by many of the comments I read here. I am the mother of three twenty-something sons. I didn't have daughters. It wasn't a choice we made, but I was and still am thrilled to have been blessed with three healthy children.

Unfortunately, most readers seem to assume they must be selfish people who merely want to subjugate others. They aren't. They aren't perfect, but they all had jobs and worked hard in high school, and the older two have full-time jobs. They treat their girlfriends with respect and celebrate their accomplishments. The message they are getting from this readership is that they are worthless.

It's unsurprising that women are moving away from misogynistic institutions that marginalize, objectify, and infantilize them. I'm glad to see women gaining greater autonomy and guiding their own lives. Understand that this is one of the main reasons why the Republican party, with their Project 2025, is working so hard to eliminate women's rights and narrow and obstruct their opportunities. Republicans and conservatives really don't like the fact of women having freedom and independence. All of us should remember that when we vote in November.

As far as the number of men gravitating toward this church, I noticed an undercurrent of entitlement toward relationships with women, especially with the repellant subservient role of women as crafted in religious structure. Do these young men see women as equals to build partnerships with, or do they see them as a type of possession to achieve as a check-off on a list of social requirements? I don't assume to know, because each person is different. I will say, it's worrying how conservative religion is pulling in numbers of highly impressionable young men, and most especially radically extremist conservativism on the internet and social media, which makes flagrant and horrific misogyny one of its prime tenets. This disconnect creates potential for dangerous radicalization.

It's crucial that we vote in November for Harris and Democratic candidates to strengthen and restore what's been taken from women.

The traditional church tells young men who are wiithout much direction in their lives and who are feeling challenged by women's new found focus and drive, that they are meant to be in charge and women following quietly behind them. So of course this is appealing. You don't have to do anything to earn this status, just be born male. The male bonding that takes place around the subjugation of women is justified in the name of religion and gives a respectable cover.So why wouldn't women flee from this arrangement, now that they have learned it is not just the way things are?

I was waiting. Waiting for this take:

This is interesting. I recall hearing someone (Southern, for sure) say that "Church is where God and women come together to do something about the men of this world". Maybe the evolving gender bias in church is a symptom of creeping feminization of American men?

I knew it would be there somewhere lmfao.

God we've all become so incredibly predictable.

And well it depends on the guy really and their motivation for doing that. The ones who actually want to have a bunch of kids (for non narcissistic/status based reasons,) are maybe more 'feminine' technically. But I think they are still more masculine than feminine identity wise.

Otherwise they'd be into role reversal (the subreddit,) or something like that. Which makes more sense as a relationship dynamic than the one in the Bible if you're a feminine guy. Or just femme4femme type stuff but either way I think the Christian religion is very against non-conformity in roles and aesthetics and so on.

Probably the biggest reason I think is just loneliness and lacking any goal/direction in life.

[Nyctophilia]

The younger generation has powered through a lot of upheaval in their short lives but it's taken a toll on their mental health. A new survey finds that an astounding 42 percent of those born between 1990 and 2010 - Gen Z - have been diagnosed with a mental health condition.

In fact the majority - 85 percent - of the respondents say they are worried about the future. Their top concerns unsurprisingly center around finances and the economy. But they're also stressed out about things like politics, the environment, violence and work issues. Nearly 90 percent of Z's say they don't feel set up for success and 75 percent of them believe they are at a disadvantage compared to the older generations.

Lol I'm now young/gen z again (born in 1991.)

Well I am mentally ill and I think for that kind of 'cultural shift' it probably makes sense to include people born then as early examples. I feel like I noticed two different cultural attitudes though like even though I had lifelong anxiety when I was 14~ people were a bit more optimistic in some way (including myslf,) relatively speaking but by the time I hit my late teens/early 20s it had shifted. Firstly with the recession and the kind of things teachers would say about that.

Now I'm back to being a millenial haha (this website is from 2022 btw):

Despite so many wrestling with psychological challenges, 79 percent of Gen Z believe their age group is best at addressing mental health; 82% of Gen Z feel Baby Boomers (aged 55-64) are the worst at talking about mental health but took a more positive view of Millennials (Ages 26-41) and their approach to discussing mental health.

Of the survey respondents, 47 percent were men, 45 percent women, 6 percent nonbinary, and 2 percent transgender. They ranged in age from 18 to 24 with an average age of 22. Gen Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in U.S. history, according to Pew Research Center.

My dad who is a boomer's take is that everyone is just 'exaggertaing things these days' he knows I'm messed up though from being around me and is empathetic (to a point,) but he's biased against people who aren't related to him. Classic low trust culture disagreeable kind of guy in that sense.

Also I'll tell you right now that that survey is not representative because in the census data for the UK which was filled in by people aged 16+ only 30,000 people were non-binary (and then another 18,000 just didn't enter anything - many of those would be gender critical people who disagreed with the question politically because I saw some discussing it online. There were also a number of trans women and trans men - 48,000 each. They even think due to the geographical distribution of respondants and their religious background that the UK results were lower than that and some people just couldn't understand the question due to poor English etc.) But yeah 6% is really high it's 0.06% in the UK lol but tbf our country is really transphobic.

Also unrelated stuff:

I was reading the plot section of the parent trap wikipedia page (I have watched it before as a kid but not since then,) and you know the beginning is kind of dumb. Like how do they not realise immediately that they're twins? They're identical lol.


Also I watched the film Where the Crawdad's Sing and was reading the wikipedia page for that:

Aspects of Kya's life and the novel's narrative choices, including its attitude towards its black characters, are said to be reminiscent of Owens's time in Zambia, where she, her then husband, and his son are still wanted for questioning in the killing of an alleged poacher captured on film in a 1996 report by ABC News. Owens is not a suspect, but is considered a possible witness, co-conspirator or accessory.[7] The Los Angeles Times comments that the novel "seems to draw from [Owens'] own involvement in the 1995 murder", describing the story of her time in Zambia as a "tumultuous history".[8]

Damn lol.

I don't know what to make of that film honestly. I agree the cinematography was good and I liked the concept a lot but the execution not so much. I feel like it could have been amazing but was just OK instead because of various choices made and the writing/acting/casting etc. The end was kind of good as there were a few different directions I had seen it going in that it didn't end up going in.

For me there were many things that just didn't make sense like why did her entire family abandon her? And how did she manage to escape the state for so long? Very unrealistic. Felt like something I would do in the Sims (lots of people do,) which is why I kind of enjoyed it but like very unrealistic. Requires too much suspension of disbelief really even for the time period I think...

Also cause I re-watched the pilot of Brooklyn 99:

Season One

In the Pilot, Daniels is described by Terry as someone who is better at desk work and making coffee than her actual job. She is friends with Norm Scully and Michael Hitchcock.

She is presented as an important character, though she only appears in the Pilot episode.

Dan Goor, Brooklyn Nine-Nine co-creator, claimed that she was set to return in Season Six, but was not seen in any of its eighteen episodes.

Mysterious. I've re-watched Brooklyn 99 a few times but for some reason this is the first time I've ever noticed this character or it occured to me that this character never pops up again lol. I think they should make a spin off. I don't think it would work she didn't have much screen presence/identifiable interesting aspects to her in the moments she was there but would be cool if I was wrong.

[Nyctophilia]

"I suspect the economy is already a form of alien intelligence that serves itself as a primary goal & survival of humans is secondary at best."

Isn't this just common sense? What am I missing here? How is this new thinking? (Seems implied.)

I feel like there has to be something.

Grimes if you actually knew how to read the Manifesto instead of just taking a photoshoot with it you'd realize many people have been saying this for a very long time.

I've not read it myself - this is not an idea that's hard to imagine though lol?

Isn't it just kind of obvious that it's being prioritised over Human life? An end to itself? Even the quality of many things appears sacrificed. Especially creatively.

Maybe you have to be unemployed and mentally ill (not thriving,) for some time to notice...? I know it can't be that come on guys.

nick land is wrong, technocapital serves man

doesn't seem to be, human mental health is doing pretty terribly, and trending worse.

This take is clearly influenced by the gradual disempowerment essay. Why not reference it?

Never heard of it

My bad! Others have pointed out that this was likely the case. In case you're interested https://gradual-disempowerment.ai :)

Sweet thanks will check it out. If this idea is coming up in multiple places it (sadly) speaks for it being true, or at least plausible

???

This idea neither originates with Nick Land nor whatever that recent thing is. It's not specific to AI either.

The surrealness has returned once again (it never really leaves.)



I am skimming parts of the website mentioned:

Past technological shifts like the industrial revolution or the development of electronic communication have substantially changed the world of work, but crucially they have always done so either by making humans more efficient, or by automating away specific narrow tasks like weaving, washing clothes, or performing arithmetic. Unlike previous technological transitions, AI may fundamentally alter this pattern of labor adaptation. As [4] argue, while past technologies mainly automated specific narrow tasks, leaving humans to move into more complex roles, AI has the potential to compete with or outperform humans across nearly all cognitive domains. For instance, while the calculator automated arithmetic but still required human understanding to apply it meaningfully, AI systems can increasingly handle both calculation and the higher-level reasoning about when and how to apply mathematical concepts.

Yeah. I mean that's an obvious risk. It could increasingly replace everything and even before that the assumption that people will be intelligent enough to move into incraesingly more advanced and complicated roles is incorrect.

I recently discussed in another post that it requies a lot of motivation/drive alongside luck to suceed creatively surrounded by demotivated people (generations of unemployed people,) and then try to become a famous artist or something (proposed future job,) too (the anecdote of Zheani,) many also turn to crime to get out of that. And once again this is being automated early on so. A lot of people argue that creativity is one of the more rewarding Human things and yet.

Most 'influencers' (new media entertainment figures,) are also mentally ill now or have ADHD etc. I don't think that's mostly because of their job (in fact it would be impossible for you to 'develop ADHD' in theory. That's not how that disorder works.) I think people who are mentally ill or have ADHD etc find that kind of work works better for the way their mind works or otherwise drift towards it (I have a YouTube channel with neurodivergent symptoms/motivation issues and anxiety etc, my brother had one years ago and he has lots of ADHD symptoms and diagnosed dyslexia,) and a tiny minority get lucky. It's very high risk/reward imo.

Actually I'm not sure it works better. I think it's just preferable to working under a boss and dealing with other's disapointment/criticism for a lot of people.

Every day on that website there's some video like this (I know this is 9 months ago but I only saw it today):



And it's not great to say this but it's like 'water is wet.' I think it's like every popular goth YouTuber I can think of now too lol. One is also autistic. Well maybe not everyone but like 50+% easily. Those are just the ones who have been diagnosed as well.

AI risk scenarios usually portray a relatively sudden loss of human control to AIs, outmaneuvering individual humans and human institutions, due to a sudden increase in AI capabilities, or a coordinated betrayal. However, we argue that even an incremental increase in AI capabilities, without any coordinated power-seeking, poses a substantial risk of eventual human disempowerment. This loss of human influence will be centrally driven by having more competitive machine alternatives to humans in almost all societal functions, such as economic labor, decision making, artistic creation, and even companionship.

A gradual loss of control of our own civilization might sound implausible. Hasn't technological disruption usually improved aggregate human welfare? We argue that the alignment of societal systems with human interests has been stable only because of the necessity of human participation for thriving economies, states, and cultures. Once this human participation gets displaced by more competitive machine alternatives, our institutions' incentives for growth will be untethered from a need to ensure human flourishing. Decision-makers at all levels will soon face pressures to reduce human involvement across labor markets, governance structures, cultural production, and even social interactions. Those who resist these pressures will eventually be displaced by those who do not.

Still, wouldn't humans notice what's happening and coordinate to stop it? Not necessarily. What makes this transition particularly hard to resist is that pressures on each societal system bleed into the others. For example, we might attempt to use state power and cultural attitudes to preserve human economic power. However, the economic incentives for companies to replace humans with AI will also push them to influence states and culture to support this change, using their growing economic power to shape both policy and public opinion, which will in turn allow those companies to accrue even greater economic power.

Once AI has begun to displace humans, existing feedback mechanisms that encourage human influence and flourishing will begin to break down. For example, states funded mainly by taxes on AI profits instead of their citizens' labor will have little incentive to ensure citizens' representation. This could occur at the same time as AI provides states with unprecedented influence over human culture and behavior, which might make coordination amongst humans more difficult, thereby further reducing humans' ability to resist such pressures. We describe these and other mechanisms and feedback loops in more detail in this work.

Though we provide some proposals for slowing or averting this process, and survey related discussions, we emphasize that no one has a concrete plausible plan for stopping gradual human disempowerment and methods of aligning individual AI systems with their designers' intentions are not sufficient. Because this disempowerment would be global and permanent, and because human flourishing requires substantial resources in global terms, it could plausibly lead to human extinction or similar outcomes.

Perhaps people will be OK inside their own perfectly created personalised virtual realities where everything can be simulated seamlessly and with hyper realism. Someone on another forum I was on once seemed to be OK with that. Fiction like The Matrix portrays simulation world in a dystopian way but that might just be because it was never that well developed anyway - people noticed something was wrong and they felt like Edward Norton's character in Fight Club.

It's hard to say. If people can't thrive in this world, maybe there's another world they could thrive in. That's the promise of virtual reality for those at the bottom of the hierarchy. But the inbetween period is not working so far for increasing numbers of people as mentioned.

Edit: Also it's not like people necessarily want to give you a choice about virtual reality. More on that later.

On a tangential note (about people's 'worth' I guess. I wrote most of this before the above. I've edited this a few times now though):

Thinking about this again cause I stumbled on a quote a few weeks ago:

Intelligence is associated with the "effortful control" that permits you to force yourself to believe something; in other words, you are better able to come up with ways to convince yourself of the veracity of it.85 The women who are likely to reject feminism are those who are, for genetic reasons, highly religious and patriarchal, precisely the kind of females who predominated under conditions of harsh Darwinian selection. They are more inclined to breed, and, indeed, they do. And, as discussed, traditional religiosity is associated with genetic health. Thus, "feminism," for females, is a new crucible of evolution. It recreates Darwinian pressures and removes genetically unhealthy females. In a quite ironic way, it is a return to nature.

Feminism is a crucible of evolution for males, too. It creates an intense evolutionary mismatch. From a young age, men are told that masculinity is evil; they are encouraged to be female-like (and thus unattractive to females); they are forced to live in a society increasingly dominated by women and feminine interests, such as "empathy" and "equality." Monogamy is undermined. An evolutionary mismatch creates stress, and it has been found that stress, particularly about low status and losing--with males being constantly told that masculinity is bad-- reduces testosterone levels, making more males behave in a more feminine way, reducing their drive.86 To make matters worse, a society that focuses on "equality" plays down, among males, the need to win in competitions and feel dominant over other people, from a very young age. It is, however, the knowledge that you have won, and the feeling of dominance, that boosts testosterone.87

This results in more and more males not being able to obtain females, with the collapse of restrictions on female sexuality also meaning that these females either have fleeting relationships with promiscuous higher status males or turn to lesbianism in their absence, so strong is their revulsion for lower-status men. Males are, anyway, preoccupied, if not overwhelmed, by highly realistic porn. The kind of males that will get through this abusive environment will be those that are highly resistant to absorbing left-wing ideas about feminism, because they are genetically highly traditionally religious. They will also be those who are not prone to mental illness and the resultant dysphoria, and those who have a genetic strong desire to have children. In other words, only males who are strongly adaptive, for genetic reasons, and thus cannot be pushed awry in this manufactured hellscape, will end up passing on their genes.

In this narrow sense, feminism is effectively eugenic, though its overall effect is massively dysgenic, due to it persuading intelligent women to heavily limit their fertility. Regardless, feminism, and all that goes with it, will have dramatic demographic consequences in the West. Future polities will have a dramatically different character than the ones in which feminism flourished.

I'm sorry how is this anything to do with feminism realistically? It's really more technological and the sexual revolution wasn't predominantly a feminist movement imo it was just young people in general rebelling - if anything I assume mostly men were involved as they tend to be most effected by restrictive culture and have a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation (like casual sex more so it actually suits them better,) they also statistically have more fetishes on average (though female fetishes are massively downplayed and not discussed so the gap there isn't as big as most people think.) A lot of feminism is actually quite sex negative which is part of my issue with it. Hilarious that right wing writers have to blame everything on 'feminism' and women though lol.

Also I think most people do this at some point or another but the absolute hubris to sort of sit here like 'I'm God and this is dysgenic' when you think about it. Look what you did to Snowball (Humans that is):



Well I thought the religious women who are reproducing are 'genetically healthy' so who cares then lol?

But Western males are not only discouraged to compete in these ways, but society tells them that they have "lost"-- something hammered home with every commercial where a White female has a non-White husband or every time they see a foreign male or woman in a position of power, something which the media heavily exaggerates. With female dominance of the workplace, work becomes a less competitive space, at least in the overt male sense, creating an extreme mismatch and reducing male testosterone. To make matters worse still, females in the workplace interfere with sexual selection because they cause so many females to be themselves of higher status than so many males, when females sexually select for status.

Mysteriously it's just white men vs everyone else everytime. Not just white men either I guess. Heterosexual, cisgender white men (can probably throw in a bunch of other modifiers there until you get like only 30% of the population or something) and then everyone else.

The population is increasingly in an "evolutionary mismatch." We are evolved to be with genetically normal humans, who are mentally healthy, and shun those who are not. We are evolved to a situation of hierarchy, often with hereditary and religiously sanctioned leadership. We are evolved to live in a religious society, as well as a patriarchal society, with clear sex roles. We are evolved to live in a homogenous society. This is our "evolutionarily familiar" environment, and animals tend to become unhappy and stressed if placed outside familiar structures, leading to depression and anxiety, which leads to infertility--a sense that nothing is worth it.37 People do not enjoy living in an "evolutionary mismatch," no matter what they might feel they should say in public.

Shunning 42%+ of the population might be difficult but people are certainly doing their best by increasingly not having friends lol.

And I'm skeptical as you burnt a lot of people who disagreed with you before. Centuries ago. He has an entire book about that too as you can imagine.

Speaking as an infrequent visitor, one can't read more than a post or two before the oddly insistent refrain starts that women's rights will (sadly) have to be curtailed to ensure survival of our own particular misogynistic culture.

Which could soon be overtaken by other more virulently misogynistic cultures. So we'd better hop to and ban women from college.

Users like me, who point out that if humans cannot figure out a better system than one where 50% of the group abuses and oppresses the other half in order to get them to breed, it's probably best if that species goes extinct with all the rest.

I completly agree.

But then that's what (some people,) are worried about.

Got distracted by other points while finding the other quotes:

Once they've got this far, what is the next step? With the breakdown of traditional religiosity, the society is already strongly sociosexual. So, perhaps the next "oppressive structure" they should question is the adaptive distinction between "adult" and "child." They can use the same tactics that you might with "race." What do we mean by "child"? Is there a clear border between "adult" and "child"? Do not different societies have different conceptions of what constitutes a "child"? Is not "child" a very "Western" concept? Children are oppressed, shouldn't we liberate them from this oppression? Didn't you know that there is evidence that even very young children have sexuality? Shouldn't expression of sexuality be a "human right"?

We've now reached a point where even age gap relationships between adults are seen as abusive and some people want to push the age of legal adulthood to 25+, so I doubt we're heading in that direction anytime soon honestly.

Whenever I discuss civilizational collapse, I often encounter rejection, denial, and magical thinking. In the face of evidence, many people adamantly declare that it simply "can't happen here." Their arguments take a number of forms. One of note evinces a certain "Gnostic" mentality, which relates to QAnon and the conspiracy theories of the American Right.

In effect: The world is run by highly intelligent, evil people. They are going to institute eugenics for themselves and create a super-race. World government is real; elite tyranny is imminent, and the rest of us might end up enslaved or exterminated.18 Or something to that effect.

I don't think it's that dramatic - I think we're just going to have to increasingly fend for ourselves as everything is increasingly automated and people who consider themselves part of the elite will (are really,) attempt(ing) to build disconnected city states with the eventual plan to use machines to protect them. (Elon being the richest decided taking over the US instead would do.)

I also know that people in positions of power and influence are split on this like Grimes and Geoffrey Miller:

Yeh so to clarify - a lot of jobs are about to disappear - many of them unpleasant - fine - but with no replacement you've got a lot of unemployed single men - already less educated and less employed than women.

Probably this is just a massive social failure for anyone to take responsibility from a macro pov but also if for some reason u want a civil war or an army this shud work

At what point do we all stop feigning incomplicity ?

The AI industry trusts, implicitly, that AI surveillance, AI military tech, and AI corporate defenses will protect them from any social or violent blowback from making hundreds of millions of young men unemployed globally.

They think their Skynet will protect them from the Mob.

If they're right, they're willing for Skynet drones to kill millions to protect AI corporate leaders and employees.

If they're wrong, they get lynched by the Mob.

Either way, a bad outcome.

They really have NOT thought this through.

It's kind of a testament to the fact most people aren't on social media sites and/or discord reading and listening to what people in these circles are saying that civilisation has not already collapsed.

Tbf though there's nothing most people can do about anything so....

How can one respond to this? First, there is no evidence whatsoever that "the elite" is doing this, so it is just religiously motivated speculation. Secondly, what evidence would falsify this hypothesis? If it cannot theoretically be falsified--which it seems it cannot be--it is not scientific and should be dismissed as speculation at best.

Mm OK. I am notoriously lazy but... It's not really farfetched or reaching too much except I don't think anyone would ever be so brazen to just say 'intelligence' is what they're selecting for:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ania-candidate

The couple, who have four children, were approached last year by an individual posing as a wealthy donor willing to finance their work. In response to his request, they created a 15-page slide deck entitled The Next Empire: Leveraging a Changing World to Save Civilization. It contained ideas that seem plucked out of a dystopian science fiction movie. According to their presentation, the city-state they envisaged would become a magnet for "no-holds-barred" medical research, which in turn would open the door to the"mass production of genetically selected humans".

The voting rights of citizens of the city-state would be linked to their value to society, according to the Collinses' presentation. The proposed city-state government would have "incentive systems that grant more voting power to creators of economically productive agents" and would be run by a single "executor" - which the proposal also called a "dictator" - with full control of the government's laws and operational structure. The executor would be replaced every four years by three "wards", according to the slide deck. Wards would be elected by previous executors.

^ It appears to loosely be inspired by Curtis Yarvin's writing about patchwork:

The basic idea of Patchwork is that, as the crappy governments we inherited from history are smashed, they should be replaced by a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents' opinions. If residents don't like their government, they can and should move. The design is all "exit," no "voice."

(I'm not aware of any specific writer that has proposed exactly this, but it is certainly not an original or interesting idea in and of itself. I?ve certainly read about six zillion science-fiction books in which this is the general state of the future. The devil, however, is in the details. We will go into the details.)

This paradox is just one more stimulus for a complete replacement of the State. We have had enough. We are done with the present system of government. We want a reboot. And, anarchy being both impossible and un-reactionary, we can?t even talk about a reboot until we?ve specified what operating system to boot next.

So we can think of Patchwork as a new operating system for the world. Of course, it does not have to be installed across the entire world, although it is certainly designed to scale. But, it is easier and much more prudent to start small. Innovations in sovereignty are dangerous.

He's a programmer btw.

But how should realms be administered? The answer is simple: a realm is a corporation. A sovereign corporation, granted, but a corporation nonetheless. In the 21st century, the art of corporate design is not a mystery. The corporation is owned and controlled by its anonymous shareholders (if you've ever wondered what the letters SA stand for in the name of a French or Spanish company, they mean "anonymous society"),1 whose interests in maximizing corporate performance are perfectly aligned. The shareholders select a chief executive, to whom all employees report, and whose decisions are final. In no cases do they make management decisions directly.

It is at least probable that this joint-stock design maximizes corporate efficiency. If there existed a more effective structure--if firms were more productive when managed not by a committee but by an executive, or by the collective decisions of their customers or employees, by separate legislative and judiciary branches, etc., etc.--we would know. Someone would have found a way to construct a firm on this design, and it would have outcompeted the rest of the stodgy old world. (In fact, I think one of the most plausible explanations of why the Industrial Revolution happened in England, not in Sung China or the Roman Empire, was that the latter two never evolved anything quite like the joint-stock company.)

Here we face a slight predicament. There are quite a few people presently in San Francisco who do not meet the second constraint, are pretty iffy on the first as well, and have no labor skills to speak of. What do we do with them? Sell their slums out from under them, obviously; demo everything, spray for roaches, rodents and pit bulls, smooth the rubble out with a bulldozer or two, and possibly a little aerial bombing; erect new residential districts suitable for Russian oligarchs. Next question?

But where do they go? Since their customer-service contract gives them the right of exit, these people--call them bezonians--can of course emigrate to any other realm in the Patchwork. This presumes, however, that said realm is willing to accept them. And why would it be? If our design does not provide for the existence of a large number of human beings whose existence anywhere is not only unprofitable, but in fact a straight-up loss, to that realm, it is simply inconsistent with reality.

Strong identification and tracking of residents also mitigates one of the most obvious problems with the Patchwork approach, the inconvenience of constantly crossing borders in a world of small sovereignties. What does a resident do if she lives in San Francisco and wants to drive to Berkeley, which is a different country? Is there a checkpoint on the Bay Bridge?

Not at all. She just drives to Berkeley. Her car knows who is in it, and the authorities of both SF and Berkeley know where it is. If she is for some reason not authorized to enter Berkeley, all sorts of alarms will flash. If she persists, she will be of course detained. Having a scalpel, Patchwork feels no need to whack anyone with a club.

There is one problem, though, which is the problem I mentioned in Chapter 1: the problem of adults who are not productive members of society. In our little Newspeak we call them wards of the realm. A ward is any resident who is not capable of earning a living, is not accepted as a dependent by any guardian, and is not wanted by any other patch.

The initial conversion of our present, democratic, and of course completely dysfunctional San Francisco into the realm of Friscorp will produce quite a few wards. At least relative to the number we would expect to emerge in a healthy society. But there will always be black sheep, and there will always be wards.

As Delegate of San Francisco, what should you do with these people? I think the answer is clear: alternative energy. Since wards are liabilities, there is no business case for retaining them in their present, ambulatory form. Therefore, the most profitable disposition for this dubious form of capital is to convert them into biodiesel, which can help power the Muni buses.

Okay, just kidding. This is the sort of naive Randian thinking which appeals instantly to a geek like me, but of course has nothing to do with real life. The trouble with the biodiesel solution is that no one would want to live in a city whose public transportation was fueled, even just partly, by the distilled remains of its late underclass.

You know like how people argue a right wing libertarian is incoherent because they worship capitalism like a state? And Mussolini famously said this: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Well he was kind of like "oh yeah true, it is incoherent. Let's do cyberpunk dystopia feudalism."

Oh dystopian Matrix world was also Yarvin's plan to avoid genocide but I never actually got that far before (and without factoring in how that will eventually be most/all people):

However, it helps us describe the problem we are trying to solve. Our goal, in short, is a humane alternative to genocide. That is: the ideal solution achieves the same result as mass murder (the removal of undesirable elements from society), but without any of the moral stigma. Perfection cannot be achieved on both these counts, but we can get closer than most might think.

The best humane alternative to genocide I can think of is not to liquidate the wards--either metaphorically or literally--but to virtualize them. A virtualized human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies. This would drive him insane, except that the cell contains an immersive virtual-reality interface which allows him to experience a rich, fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world.6

The virtual worlds of today are already exciting enough to distract many away from their real lives. They will only get better. Nor is productive employment precluded in this scenario--for example, wards can perform manual labor through telepresence. As members of society, however, they might as well not exist. And because cells are sealed and need no guards, virtualization should be much cheaper than present-day imprisonment.

Wow it's literally The Matrix after Humanity became the underclass.

I like virtualization because it can be made to scale. I don?t think there is any scenario under which San Francisco is burdened with more than a few thousand wards. Many other regions of the earth, however, contain large numbers of human beings whose existence may well prove an unequivocal liability to the owners of any ground on which they would reside. If so, they can be virtualized, creating giant human Wachowski honeycombs of former bezonians, whose shantytowns can be cleared and redeveloped as villas for retired oil-company executives.

Of course, virtualization is a drastic alternative and itself unlikely to happen. Charity is just too popular these days. Before anyone becomes a ward of the realm, any person or organization is free to adopt him as a dependent as a matter of mutual agreement. His new guardian is (a) responsible for his actions, and (b) free to tell him what to do: the ideal relationship for any attempt at rehabilitation. (It's basically what the Salvation Army does now, I believe.) If all else fails, there's always the honeycomb.

This is why I'm pro-abortion.

Lol imagine if I wrote this in some kind of debate/essay for school on being for vs against.

"I think people should have the choice to not participate in the honeycomb."

And people were just like. 😐

Of course things were simplier when I was in school. I mean I finished high school the year before he wrote this crap for one lol (although I was still in sixth form until 2009.)

This is all also a great argument in favour of antinatalism (often coming from people who claim to be pronatalists haha.)

Anyway back to the Collins'

It may appear that the Collinses' views are so far outside the mainstream that one could shrug off pronouncements as eccentric and alarmist. But the Collinses are part of a movement they call the "new right", which rejects some aspects of traditional conservatism and bills itself as pragmatic, family-oriented and anti-bureaucratic. They staunchly support the Republican ticket, Donald Trump and JD Vance, and billionaire Elon Musk.

Last year, Malcolm Collins said he thought the Isle of Man would be the best place to begin.

"I actually think that's the most viable place to do it. You're near the center of Europe, you're in a rapidly depopulating area, you can tell them look, this will obviously bring a lot of technology and investment to your country. But the great thing about a proposal like this is even if they turn it down, you can take it to other countries," Malcolm told the man purporting to be an investor at the time.

The funding never materialized and the proposal was never pitched to the Isle of Man, a British crown dependency located in the Irish Sea, because the man who claimed to be a wealthy investor was actually an undercover researcher with Hope Not Hate, a UK-based anti-racism group. It shared video recordings of the encounters with the Collinses - and a copy of their presentation - with the Guardian.

Asked about the slide deck in an interview with the Guardian last week in their home in Audubon, Pennsylvania, Simone and Malcolm, who work together and appear rarely to be apart, acknowledged that their proposal "wasn?t supposed to be public". But Simone Collins nevertheless said she stood by its core tenets "100%", including the idea of mass-producing embryos, and of giving people who they deem to be less productive members of society less voting power.

"If you are draining resources, you should have less influence," she said.

Asked about how it felt to be the subject of undercover research, Malcolm Collins said: "The experience was quite validating for both us and our movement." He added: "Now I think it is pretty clear that despite us not socially isolating people with toxic views, the worst views we actually have are being slightly elitist and weird eccentrics (which isn?t exactly surprising to anyone)."

*stripping democratic rights from an increasing underclass that could be 30% of the population easily (I assume more as time goes on,) who have been automated out of civilisation.

He has personally spoken to this couple in videos lol. Tbf I can't remember when this book I'm skimming through was published. Before he talked to them most likely. June 2022 so yeah, but also not long enough to be ignorant of people who think like this considering his social circle.



The only thing limiting them is power really.

In the end, post-industrial civilization has followed, and continues to follow, the precise same pattern as all other civilizations, and it has all the markers of being in "Winter," after which all previous civilizations met their ends. Fourthly, even if "the elite" is pursuing a secret eugenics policy, it wouldn't work. As we discussed, very high intelligence correlates with autism and thus
low empathy) low empathy; the non-empathic mind excels at systematizing, which better allows you to solve problems. It also correlates with being hyper-sensitive to stimuli and even with asthma, because those who can take in more information, and be more sensitive to their world, will better make sense of it.19 Breeding for super-high intelligence would thus eventually create a society full of people with serious psychological problems. Worse still, as people become more intelligent, their intelligence becomes narrower in focus, meaning that a superintelligent person often has trouble looking after himself, and he is low in other weak correlates of IQ, social skills being a good example. These high-IQ autistic people are rather like Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory: he is brilliant with computers but can never find his keys.20 A society full of people like this would fall apart and, low in instinct, such people would likely not breed much anyway. Societies can't function without the hoi polloi.

This is out of step with everything else you are saying (which sounds like it was ripped from an unreleased film script of an x-men movie tbh.)

I think really he just hates the people 'on the bottom' though tbh.

"There are too many bad weirdos (not genius) and not enough genius weirdos >:["

Why these conspiratorial arguments are popular is a fascinating issue. Due to increased meritocracy and centralization, our society has become increasingly cognitively stratified, with people tending to attain the position of which they are intellectually capable in a way that would not have been the case when society was more nepotistic.21 This, in turn, leads to greater genetic stratification, and there is clear evidence, for example, of social class differences in dominant blood type.22 This, in turn, would lead to distrust between social classes and people of different social classes decreasingly interacting and seeing the world increasingly differently--in a way, becoming "races."

Nevertheless, it is clearly simplistic to make a binary, essentialist division between "the elite" and "the rest," as if the two never cross-over. This takes its most extreme
form in perceiving the elite as, somehow, a different species, something predicted, as discussed above, not just by declining trust levels but also by declining intelligence. These arguments are clearly the stuff of paranoid fantasy. As somebody who went to an "elite" university, I met plenty of students who were, without question, part of the British "upper crust." Indeed, I often met their parents as well, some of whom had not been born elite. I lived with, and was friends with, an Old Etonian who was the grandson of a baronet on one side and the great-grandson of a peer-ofthe-realm on the other. He went on to be assistant private secretary to Prince Philip (1921-2021). He's not a lizard and, he has assured me, nor is Prince Philip.

I'm not sure why he assumes this would be reassuring to someone who doesn't trust people like him.

A related argument is that the elite will halt societal collapse by changing the conditions that are causing dysgenics. But these have been known about for centuries, and this all-powerful managerial class surely knows what's happening, yet they have done nothing. Such people will exploit the collapse and ensure that they are insulated from the chaos--like African despots--but they show no evidence of doing anything about it. Moreover, the elite is becoming less intelligent along with the broader population, and have long been doing so. Thus, they are decreasingly able to do anything about it and are increasingly short-term in their outlook and strategy.

They plan to do this whether they agree with you or not.

Your thinking isn't actually that removed theirs is just a fantastical exaggeration of real attitudes people have.

People who espouse views like the ones outlined above are, in many ways, the new Gnostics. They see the world as run by Satan or, in secular terms, by an evil cabal of super-intelligent people.

The fact that this is an evolved cognitive bias should, itself, make us highly skeptical of it and of any hypotheses that appear to rationalize it. They are wild, unscientific speculations that reflects a paranoid personality where the world is, in effect, haunted by Demiurgic demons.

The film Waterworld (1995) foresees two castes of human.23 Another work in this genre is a young-adult science-fiction novel, The Guardians (1970). Here, the England of the year 2052 is an authoritarian regime divided into two completely separate areas: the modern and overpopulated "Conurbs" and the wealthy "County"

And The Time Machine. That's a common cognitive bias too though..

These may be fairy tales for adults. And, like the original fairy tales, they help us negotiate the crucibles of evolution. And with modernization, they might tell us something important that they older tales missed. The crucible of evolution have moved from warfare to Wokeism; from measles to Marxism. We?the noninfected? find ourselves like the little gang of noninfected in 28 Days Later. We must make our way to a safe area, find other non-infected, and keep the light of civilization burning.

Seeing everything as a virus is also a common cognitive bias and I'd guess has some connection to parasite stress?

Parasite-stress theory, or pathogen-stress theory, is a theory of human evolution proposing that parasites and diseases encountered by a species shape the development of species' values and qualities, proposed by researchers Corey Fincher and Randy Thornhill.

The differences in how parasites and diseases stress people's development is what leads to differences in their biological mate value and mate preferences, as well as differences across culture.[1] Parasites causing diseases pose potential ecological hazards and, subsequently, selection pressures can alter psychological and social behaviours of humans, as well as have an influence on their immune systems.[2]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1607398113

People who are more avoidant of pathogens are more politically conservative, as are nations with greater parasite stress. In the current research, we test two prominent hypotheses that have been proposed as explanations for these relationships. The first, which is an intragroup account, holds that these relationships between pathogens and politics are based on motivations to adhere to local norms, which are sometimes shaped by cultural evolution to have pathogen-neutralizing properties. The second, which is an intergroup account, holds that these same relationships are based on motivations to avoid contact with outgroups, who might pose greater infectious disease threats than ingroup members. Results from a study surveying 11,501 participants across 30 nations are more consistent with the intragroup account than with the intergroup account. National parasite stress relates to traditionalism (an aspect of conservatism especially related to adherence to group norms) but not to social dominance orientation (SDO; an aspect of conservatism especially related to endorsements of intergroup barriers and negativity toward ethnic and racial outgroups). Further, individual differences in pathogen-avoidance motives (i.e., disgust sensitivity) relate more strongly to traditionalism than to SDO within the 30 nations.

But it definitely seems connected to genocide (people also discuss fetuses as parasites which is something most conservative people take issue with despite viewing post birth humans as parasites after they're born though the writer I'm quoting does not fall into this group afaik, I think he's in favour of progressive women - most really - not reproducing):

The body-parasite metaphor is a figure of speech that compares a person or group to a parasite that lives in or on another person or group. It's often used to describe people who are freeloaders or exploiters.

https://www.libraryofsocialscience.c..._metaphor.html

Musolff's fundamental argument is that the metaphor of the German people as a body--and the Jew as a deadly parasite within this body--had "cognitive significance:" providing a "conceptual basis" for Nazi ideology and genocidal policies that culminated in the Holocaust.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl...rmin-parasites

Devastating atrocities often accompany dehumanizing rhetoric that evokes disgust. As recently as the 1990s, the Rwandan genocide was preceded by Hutu propaganda describing the Tutsi as cockroaches. Members of the Hutu militia set up roadblocks, checked identification cards for ethnicity, and murdered Tutsi Rwandans. Neighbors slaughtered neighbors with machetes. Children were massacred. By the end of the war, an estimated 1 in 10 Rwandans, mostly Tutsi, had been assassinated.

According to psychologist David Matsumoto and his colleagues, combining feelings of disgust with contempt and anger is particularly potent. Leaders who generate these three emotions at once can engender violence against the targets of their dehumanization.

It's also obviously how some women talk about men.

I think what disgusts me the most on a civilisational/species level is how, everytime this ends up happening people act later like it was this terrible atrocity that they don't want to ever happen again. And then it happens again. Because people aren't being 'economically resourceful' enough or are too weird.

Consistent with this, among bisexual females--though not lesbians--involvement in a homosexual community is positively associated with depression and suicidal ideation, implying that their sexuality is a manifestation of an underlying confusion.33

Do you think part of that might be that homosexual communities are homosexual (not bisexual?)

A parallel evolutionary theory of lesbianism is that female sexual fluidity has evolved because males are sexually aroused by females, all else being equal, who have a tendency towards bisexuality or towards temporary lesbianism. This would possibly be because if a sexually unsatisfied female had the capacity to become homosexual, this would decrease the probability that this female would cuckold the male.15

Oh no as a group bisexual and 'mostly heterosexual' women have sex with more men according to research not less (I could be wrong but this is what I remember.) Also more sexually adventurous on average and less restricted than homosexual or heterosexual women (this is just on a group level obviously. I'm not exclusively attracted to one sex but I'm boring af irl and lazy too.) Some elements of personality seem to be closer to heterosexual men. That's why bisexual women get stereotyped as being slutty which they hate because of social rules/norms and tbf they're still not as slutty as men.

Men hide their sluttyness by being mostly into women who are heterosexual. But I see you over there. Making subreddits.

I wrote this the other day (I'm editing this post a lot. So close to never posting this):

r/letboysbemanipulated Exists so we don't clog up r/letgirlshavefun and for a place for them to find prey.

'Prey' I like that.

That's very considerate of you.

how it feels to scroll through r/letgirlshavefun knowing i wont meet girls like them irl

I am in deep pain. Sad reality is that they dont leave their house.

I don't really either.

crazy thing is i know plenty of women like this they're just not like this *to me* (most of them are lesbians)

Makes sense I guess.

I'm in the unfortunate position of being socially anxious and lacking in social/sexual scripts. Basically a robot (also non-binary ( but I'm into submissive guys from a distance.)

As a woman who has made the first move several times I can tell you that a lot of men like the idea of being asked out a lot more than actually being asked out

True lol. Well also the idea that no guy will reject you. I've been rejected by guys I didn't even ask out/express interest in.

Me interacting with women from r/letgirlshavefun 🥺👉👈

I thought boys weren't allowed over there?

Moids aren't

But... but rule 2 clearly states:

> IF I SEE ANY OF YOU CHUCKLEFUCKS IN THAT SUB BEING ANNOYING I'M GONNA FUCKING KILL YOU

Easy fix, don't be annoying

With some of them it literally is... But I feel like a lot there just hate guys, so I'd gladly avoid direct discussions there

I've had some even dm me after I said something nice. But yet. I feel like there are deff some misandrists there

Lol well I looked at the other sub and it's a spin off of a femcel sub which seemed somewhat tounge in cheek (the femcel sub,) and the other sub was created to be even less like that but considering the roots yes there would be and somewhat odd these guys are congregating around that space lol.

Especially if you're shy and struggle with women anyway.

Not a member of this place but it'd be safe to assume they don't like people from here, no?

Seems it'd be one-sided

There seem to be women coming here to interract from somewhere... I found this sub by looking at someones recent post history from the role reversal sub...

It seems like an unstructured space though. I haven't found what I'm looking for. I liked the subreddit description.

Im always getting that sub reccomended on my feed and lately also this one , why that might be 🤔.
Funny to read tho , sometimes even a bit scary.

I'd comment there more often as some of the girls there do indeed like getting dm's but they looooove ghosting guys over there. I had better luck femboys on other subreddits.

Someone said that 7-8 guys messaged her when someone asked her, so I can imagine that'd be too much to deal with.

I thought part of the point of this sub was to be a place for them to claim us

I only make the effort to respond to guys who post photos with amazing long hair so far.

It's super effective apparently.

The post on some subreddit possibly fake by the catholic guy whose girlfriend wanted to turn him into a catboy and who said he was very neat and tidy so couldn't find clothes to wear after she replaced his robe with a dress in the middle of the night was very cute though. But when I found that it was an old post + not what he was looking for + he wasn't single.

Maybe that's why all the guys are joining the church in the US now to make themselves more suitable for corruption 🤔 no lol.

And you know, the unposted thing went on like that.

But I don't actually want to have sex with people. They're scary. I don't like the idea of bottoming during piv either really. I'm just perverted and have corruption fetishes etc. It's important people understand that and don't get annoyed. Someone was annoyed cause I talked about sexual stuff so much but said I'm grey-sexual but I based this on my behaviour and lack of desire irl. Grossed me out during sexual stuff with my ex-bf. I still think about/worry about that lol. Even when I'm just talking to myself. It goes back to when I was 7 (no I was 8) and gave this younger boy a lapdance without knowing what I was doing (just in hindsight guess it was sort of like that,) then when he asked me to do it again because he was into it I got grossed out. Or maybe it has nothing to do with that at all.



I'm not trying to trick you though. I won't put out or [BEEP] you.

I'm non-binary though. There aren't studies on people like me really lol.

Bisexual women expect to have an orgasm with women more than with men

As they should. (According to research again.) That's what you get for being annoying and writing books like this.

You've let your entire team down. The Tumblr council will be discussing this at our biannual performance review and we will consider creating a new gender just for you.

We stopped inviting people to their performance review after the incident.



Anyway that distracted me from finding evidence of what I'd previously heard.

Bisexual women exhibit personality traits and sexual behaviors more similar to those of heterosexual males than heterosexual women, including greater openness to casual sex and more pronounced dark personality traits.

This doesn't specify with men though (also this study looked at bisexual women and 'mostly heterosexual' women seperately but found similarities there and differences from the exclusively heterosexual group,) but I'm sure some studies have looked at that and found that. There was also a study suggesting that since 2008 or something increasingly more (gradual increase,) of bisexual women have had exclusively male sexual partners in the previous few years or so or something like that.

Among men ages 18-44, homosexuality correlates with sex acts as you'd expect. The gayer the man, the less likely he is to have had any kind of sex with a woman.

But this pattern doesn't hold among women? women who say they're attracted mostly to men are even more likely to report having had vaginal sex. Isn't that odd? A woman who's mostly rather than entirely straight presumably diverts some of her sexual energy away from men. How does she end up more likely to have had vaginal intercourse?

Move on to anal sex, and the pattern gets even stranger. Again, women attracted mostly to men are more likely to say they've had anal sex with a man than are women attracted only to men. And in the case of anal sex, the gap is huge: While 30 percent of the totally straight women say they've had anal sex, 55 percent of the mostly straight women say they've done it. But get this: Among women who say they're attracted equally, mostly, or exclusively to women, the figure is 41 percent. Lesbian and bisexual women are more likely than totally straight women to say they've had anal sex with a man.

Bisexual women also disproportionately write gay male fanfiction (which features anal sex more often,) and heterosexual women really love watching lesbian porn so there's something going on with them too.

?Here's my best guess: In many if not most cases, openness to experimentation is driving everything else. Adventurousness makes a woman more likely to try various sex acts with men. And at the same time, it makes her more likely to express interest in other women. This factor would have to be strong enough in bisexual women, on average, to overcome the statistical effects of clear-cut lesbians who do nothing sexual with men.

For bisexual people yeah definitely. It's true for bisexual men as a group as well compared to heterosexual men.

It doesn't necessarily translate to behaviour - lots of people never have sex and just use porn/fiction or whatever.

In terms of understanding exclusive lesbians, known as "butches," the evolutionary explanations seem to crossover with those advanced for male homosexuality, which we will examine below.

Oh, your first mistake was thinking all the butches are exclusive (though I think when they're not they often like drag queens and femboys,) the second was assuming exclusive femme women don't exist, and the third that bisexuals don't significantly differ from heterosexual women.

It gets pretty complicated.

Actually there were many other mistakes/issues before and after lol but yeah. The entire ideology is on a spectrum of genocidal thinking etc.

Another manifestation of developmental instability is lefthandedness, as it implies a highly asymmetrical brain. Lefthandedness levels are increasing across time, consistent with increasing mutational load.66

It worked out pretty well for my mum who is left handed. I would say she's been the most succesful person in her family (of her four siblings who are/were right handed,) and the rest of my immediate family (who are right handed.)

Lol #mutantgenes 💅

As previously explained, in 1800, the child mortality rate was 50 percent; it is now 1 percent in Western countries, as already noted.50 Before the Industrial Revolution, those
who had mutations (which are almost always detrimental to health) were purged from the population every generation. These mutations of the body, which led to a poor immune system and dying from childhood diseases, were comorbid with mutations of the mind, such as inclinations towards maladaptive sexuality.51

As I have explored in an earlier book, At Our Wits' End, the first group that breeds is people with low intelligence. There is a -0.2 correlation in developed countries between fertility and intelligence, and the relationship exists even when controlling for socioeconomic factors. This may seem like a small relationship, but the result is that Western Europe lost about 15 IQ points between 1880 and the year 2000; this is the difference between a policeman and a high school teacher, or between the same teacher and a science professor. Such a change means that the percentage of the population with very high intelligence--an IQ of above 130: the highly influential and leading academics, lawyers, doctors and politicians-- falls from 14 percent of the population to just 2 percent. Those directing the society, in other words, become dramatically stupider. And it is a society where more people need to be managed and directed, because those who are mentally retarded--with an IQ of below 70--increases from 2 percent to 14 percent.

You can always tell he's very unhappy about this:

With the Industrial Revolution, more and more people with more and more mutations--that would have caused them to die in childhood and thus not reproduce under harsher conditions?began to survive and pass on their genes. They walk among us. This is leading to an increasingly genetically sick population. This process is known as "dysgenics."61 The result has been a rise across

There are billions more people so even if there are less as a percentage of the whole there are probably still more. What could be stopping them?

Here's a good example. In the UK paganism and shamanism are the fastest growing religions:

Shamanism is expanding faster than any other religion, with the number of people saying they practise it rising from 650 in 2011 to 8,000 in 2021 in England and Wales. The result might prove controversial, as the Shamanism UK website asserts "it is not a religion, more an authentic expression of mankind's spirituality".

More established are pagans, who number 74,000 people (up from 57,000 in 2011) and who gather most in Ceredigion, Cornwall and Somerset, and wiccans, who number 13,000. Wicca is sometimes described as a witchcraft tradition whose roots lie in pre-Christian religious traditions, folklore, folk witchcraft and ritual magic.

How many people have noticed this or discuss it at all? Are these groups more influential than Islam and Christianity?

There was some discussion after the census but not really on an ongoing basis. There was also some discussion about radicalisation in prisons like one article I found. There are some far right pagans so that bothers some left wing people but 'the left (tm)' and social progressives seem to love Paganism so they're not willing to let that go. The same thing happens with weird far right LGBT+ groups online - it just becomes completely incoherent (like tumblr vs 4chan.) The right hate Islam though so there's nothing stopping them there.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-armed-forces/

Beard-loving pagans are fastest growing religion in Armed Forces

Numbers have more than doubled in five years as the Army lifts its century-old ban on facial hair

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglob...security-risk/

Germanic Contemporary Paganism and radicalisation in English and Welsh prisons: An overlooked security risk

Since the 2011 census, paganism has more than doubled in the UK. Here, Risteard McDonald outlines how elements of paganism are being uniquely wielded for far-right radicalisation in prisons, and what could be done about it.

Germanic Contemporary Paganism (GCP), the academic term for Norse Paganism, has seen a complex and controversial history, especially in its misappropriation and deployment by far-right actors for nefarious purposes. Often being used as a symbolic treasure chest for fascist groups to recruit disaffected white men, it has been linked to a rise in radicalisation in the Anglosphere, playing a unique role as a tool for radicalisation within English and Welsh prisons. To unravel this issue, we need to delve into the intertwined narratives of religious identity, political extremism, and prison culture.

Reddit discussion from 3 years ago:

Asatru and its growth is largely associated with Nazis. I can't comment on the motivations of Icelanders, but generally speaking, if you run into someone online preaching Asatru, they'll tell you something about how it's a reclamation and expression of their superior white heritage.

Anecdotally, I've encountered it a couple dozen times, and never in any other context.

Nazis hijack religions. Dont demonize a religion because nazis ruin everything.

No they're very weird - the far right in general I mean. Like any outlier thing at all that's what I'm saying - video game groups, LGBT+ groups, minority religions and spiritualities, other subcultural stuff. I think they're trolls.

Also this of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

COINTELPRO (a syllabic abbreviation derived from Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert and illegal[1][2] projects conducted between 1956 and 1971 by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations that the FBI perceived as subversive.[3][4][5][6] Groups and individuals targeted by the FBI included feminist organizations,[7][8] the Communist Party USA,[9] anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists in the civil rights and Black power movements (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), environmentalist and animal rights organizations, the American Indian Movement (AIM), Chicano and Mexican-American groups like the Brown Berets and the United Farm Workers, and independence movements (including Puerto Rican independence groups, such as the Young Lords and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party). Although the program primarily focused on organizations that were part of the broader New Left, they also targeted white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan[10][11] and the National States' Rights Party.[12]

Anyway that about sums that up. You could say the presence of polarising extremes within a movement is a sign of bad faith actors fucking about and psychopaths but meh. Maybe it's healthier in a sense?

The fact that governments have done stuff like this repeatedly and then they're like 'people are so paranoid' like well *points* It's not like it's never happened.

In addition, there would be two kinds of homosexual male. The stable kind, that there had always been, and the "mutant" kind, who may be becoming more prevalent. In line with this, as we will explore in more detail below, younger brothers are more likely to be homosexual, due to the pregnant mother's immune response to proteins emitted by the male fetus. This results, in effect, in feminizing the fetus--and the mother's response strengthens with each male fetus. Accordingly, if the mother had an overactive immune system, due to mutation, then she would be more likely to produce a homosexual son, even as her first son.52

"They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I'm not a 'good person.' I'd wager something like 50% of the population aren't 'good people' - troubling. I don't think Trump or this writer are good people either though, although I'm sure they think they are.

So who is?

Also given the things he writes, and the things others in his sphere say, people are ultimately right not to trust any of them...

I actually had a pretty high opinion of intelligence until coming into contact with certain intelligent people lol.



It seems closely related to class and the concept of 'glamour.'

I'm sure people are similary disenchanted by contact with religion because it employs this (cathedrals and such.)

[Nyctophilia]

twitter: puppygirls are just trying to not grow up and don't take responsibility and are apolitical and also it's a fucking disgusting fetish
the puppygirl hacker polycule:
there aren't enough hacks against the police, so we took matters into our own paws

I don't think anyone accused them of being apolitical tbf. Niche subcultures on twitter with lots of trans women in tend to be infamously very political.

Hackers leaked thousands of files from Lexipol, a Texas-based company that develops policy manuals, training bulletins, and consulting services for first responders.

The manuals, which are crafted by Lexipol?s team of public sector attorneys, practitioners, and subject-matter experts, are customized to align with the specific needs and local legal requirements of agencies across the country.

But the firm also faces criticism for its blanket approach to police policies and pushback on reforms.

The data, a sample of which was given to the Daily Dot by a group referring to itself as "the puppygirl hacker polycule," includes approximately 8,543 files related to training, procedural, and policy manuals, as well as customer records that contain names, usernames, agency names, hashed passwords, physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

Among the manuals seen by the Daily Dot, agencies include police departments, fire departments, sheriff?s offices, and narcotics units.

"Today in the cyberpunk world."

[Nyctophilia]

What fictional character was your gay awakening?

You know I can never answer this question easily. Aside from never having a moment where I had some kind of epiphany I also can't really remember the first fictional character who was male or female.

I also guess it depends if you're counting fetish stuff or not. Because some moments in childhood were more about my interest in corruption-adj/transformation type stuff. I don't feel it was really about any specific person and more certain other themes.

I'm going to be more creative and say Loki because he's genderfluid and the first person I read fanfiction about with various different gender expression/body types etc. Can literally shapeshift and so on.

Do custom-made video game characters count? Because it was my Sims lol

Yeah I've had a bunch of moments with Sims too and custom clothing I downloaded. I think at some point I also downloaded some 18+ mods as a teenager.

YES I BELIEVE PEOPLE when they say what their sexuality is. Might as well be a requirement of being bi. But I can't help but wonder when thinking about some of my monkey-brained straight homies.. how hard is it to trick yourself? Are you sure you aren't ruling things out prematurely? Are you REALLY deriving all your attraction from "bottom up" processing of your feelings? Or is there a bit of "top down" bias that is ruling stuff out?

Based on research straight guys have some 'response' to femboys but less than for trans women (with breasts,) which is in turn less than for cis women.

There are guys who prefer trans women (some id as bisexual and some don't,) and they're not really bisexual (there's a sexological term for this sexuality,) since in research they don't have much of a response to more masculine guys. Probably they might be more into femboys sometimes too.

Meh. In my experience, people who talk about liking femboys are online folks who watch a bunch of porn and hentai but not irl people. Irl, femboys are often young guys, many are teens even, and as they age, their feminine features go away. And to remain femme, if they don't actually take the steps to transition like mtf/trans femmes, they have to put in the work to stay shaved, to dress femme, to not gain too much weight or muscle mass, etc. And in my eyes, its not a real thing. If you cant like the guy unless he is putting 300℅ efforts to feminize himself, then you don't like the guy. Like, imagine the guy is sick for a few weeks and does not have time or energy for shaving his face and body, to do his make up or to wear cute outfits. Well if thats your bf, congrats, youre with a dude. Plus, femboys are never above the age of 30. So what about that? You date a guy and get rid of him when he ages because he loses his femme features? Frankly, in my eyes, as a femme man, i always dodges bi men who say they like women and femboys. No no, i want to date a bi man who likes women and MEN because I dont want to be discarded the moment i lose my feminine traits.

Probably.

I'm not very into people irl but from a distance I like a variety of guys preferably with long hair and slim. They don't have to be femboys and pass as women though, in fact it's unlikely I'll be into them if they pass that well and if they're not androgynous at all. But it might be splitting hairs a bit I dunno. I assume some guys I've been into are kind of younger looking. Just a lot of the guys who are femboys, post online trying to get male attention won't really be my type and the anime characters where they're overly cutesy.

Though with that being said I posted photos of musicians I found attractive on another forum once and a straight guy once said 'it's weird when a guy is pretty enough that he tricks my brain into being into him.' He wasn't like a 'femboy' though which in any case wasn't a thing that existed back then.

Actually one of those guys was this guy (but not this gif):



^ he was like 42 or something here I think? It's unusual for guys in their 40s and 50s to stay androgynous looking though yeah.

The gif was taken from this music video I believe:



I personally find him more attractive with long hair though. But when I got into him initially and his music he had shorter hair like that.



I find the distinctions/lines kind of interesting. Because there are subtle differences between the kind of androgyny straight guys can be into and they also are more into neoteny. But then sometimes it goes out the window especially with 2D characters lol. I was surprised to hear someone's landlord assumed Sephiroth was a woman (also Cloud but I think he's more androgynous looking despite the short hair,) and then Jeff Goldblum was confused about his gender recently in an interview I watched too..

My sexuality is super fetishistic. I'm very into nerdy looking people with glasses (again) atm. It's one of my several types.



I also really like lots of different voices but not all voices. That's something I like about audioporn. I found this woman with a Northern English accent which was hot but I'd never found that hot before lol so that was interesting? I've liked guys with pretty low voices before but I also really like high pitched voices like:





^ His voice seems to be a very aquired taste with people.

And also in general (listen to guys with high pitched voices lol.)

I found someone on twitter recently but she was a trans woman. I say that like I was searching (I'm too lazy for that generally.) I stumbled on her account while reading some tweets lol. She was 20 though... She had many recent tweets about topping guys and getting them pregnant and being into trans men. Hmm... It's not really my thing. (Bottoming. I dunno never liked the idea.) But I think femdom is more hot conceptually then dominant guys in this stage of my life.

I can read and enjoy romance stories more masculine guys in too but it's like the focus of the appeal will be purely the plot/romance stuff and no attraction to them as a 'object.' Often I'll even pretend they look like guys I find attractive while reading. Which actually is a problem though. On rare occasions in my life I've been attracted to more masculine guys though.

I dunno. I'm just being honest in this post really. I'm always aware that it sounds perverted, creepy and problematic attraction etc

I don't like the aspect of femboys that are closer to trans girls than they are to continuing to be male. Something strange hits me somewhere. It is possibly my lack of understanding about their own gender identity, as someone non-binary amab myself, I have gone through a lot of exploration to settle where I am.

But I'll continue to chat to the people I like irl and do the vibe checks 😄 another reason I say demi sexual most of the time, I need to get to know the person more even if I do find them asthetically attractive.

That seems presumptious though. It kind of annoys me when people keep pestering someone to come out as a trans woman just because they pass as female and look really feminine.

I think a lot of people who identify as femboys are young but personally, as i am aging, I prefer to look at older gay men who are feminine. I get inspired by their fashion choices for example. There is no age too old to do make up, paint nails, wear dress. But there is a style thats age appropriate and fitting. I think that as I age however, the men who once said they liked me because i was feminine will not like me anymore even if I still wear womens clothes, because then, ill just look like a gay crossdresser, and they dont actually like men so :v

I mean if the guys you are dating now are straight, then yeah you will age out of that market and it does seem like a lot of other gay guys like guys to be very masculine but perhaps not all.

Respectfully have to push back on this just for the sake of discussion because I think there are some assumptions made here too boldly. (Warning: yapping incoming)

Masculinity and femininity are not just presentations it is also energy. Someone who is attracted to a femboy is likely also going to be enamoured with generally a feminine guy even if they have like a moustache or something.

I can find masculine and feminine 'energy' attractive but no I won't be attracted to someone with a moustache. Whether their body language is masculine or feminine or anything in between or anything at all (cat and rabbit guys >.>)

A person who ends up on a relationship with a femguy is absolutely not going to lose interest if they like... don't shave for a week because most people would not do that with the women they date. If they did, being incredibly shallow would be the common denominator here, not a lack of true attraction.

I don't care too much if they have some stubble but I really am not into moustaches. I don't think most guys attracted to women would be OK with their girlfriend having a moustache either honestly.

I think it's probably even an aquired taste for straight women. This was a terrible example lol.

They tried really hard in the early 2010s with the finger tattoos and hipster stuff and all but it's just never stuck imo.

Im saying all this because a significant amount of people find out they are bi or gay by running into stuff like this online. And initially I dismissed it as some kink, I contextualized it as just something fantastical and that my immersion would be broken if I actually ran into a feminine guy in real life and the "guy" part of that ended up turning me off because I would have to come to terms with a potentially masculine voice and/or the unavoidable dick between their legs.

But as it turns out, that was not a deal breaker for my brain when this actually happened irl. Unfortunately the tools to navigate through this are basically never going to be created. Hetero is seen as the default, and even their guidelines are a pamphlet with very vague instructions for how to navigate their sexuality. The advice given to you as a [BEEP] person is honestly that you shouldn't even be queer, and it often ends up having people discover that through fetish-y means which makes it easy for people to interpret it that way or pass it off without much introspection.

And I...don't know how to condense the TL;DR part lol.

I'm kind of the opposite. Because I'm genetically female and was attracted to guys in fiction and famous guys etc I assumed it would probably work out irl with guys I had crushes on as that's just 'the norm' but instead had issues with relationships with real men and started questioning if I was asexual during my second relationship. I'm not sure if it was them or in general though. I think there were numerous issues going on there including my first boyfriend moving too quickly and pushing too many boundaries I had.

I think I'm both very picky, and also find it very easy to lose attraction irl.

I usually just show straight people Tatianna from RPDR and then they... aren't completely straight anymore all of a sudden lol

I'm not really attracted to drag queens typically so I assume this won't work for me.

Let me see.

I can see why this would work and her hair and makeup is sometimes attractive in some images and I haven't seen her in video, but it's just like in the way that women are hot you know? So I wouldn't count it for guys.

Not my cup of tea, but that makes it all the more funny that it can be straight kryptonite and not compute for my bi [BEEP] 😂

Not that you have to agree with me but:

"Tatianna Lipsyncing Do It Again at Town" is the name of the youtube video if you'd rather not click the link.

https://youtu.be/QfTpc1sl4-U?si=lGnB0yfoq1B1yR2A

I can't find the video I usually show friends! It was hotter. Maybe the person took it down :-( I'll have to find an even better one than the one I linked for my bi awakening schemes.

No I went to see if she'd lipsynced to a Doja song because she almost reminded me of her in one image or two, but it was just some other drag queens on the show lipsyncing to Boss [BEEP] that came up. I'm disapointed now. I had a dream.

Doja manages to be pretty attractive to me with very short hair for a few moments in this video. That's impressive considering my obnoxious hair thing from like 1:22 to 1:41:



This is a great track like musically lol:



B̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶u̶y̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶k̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶p̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶n̶g̶.̶

Bruh this reminds me of my bi-cycle I've had recently where I started to question if I don't actually like girls because a woman I like I only felt attracted to her as her role but not the actress herself in her role she was more masculine so I started to think what if I don't actually like girls and I only like her because she is styled boyish?

Was that Rosa from Brooklyn 99 lol? I mean she doesn't look masculine though, but her persona is. She actually auditioned for the part of Amy initially.



I guess there are a bunch of others like that though. I don't watch a lot of new TV shows. I don't think there are a lot of butch or androgynous actresses either, but they should try to hire some where possible for those parts considering the lack of representation.

The ones who do exist don't often get cast in more feminine roles... I think Kate Moennig (who is more androgynous than butch anyway,) was cast in stuff a couple of times relatively speaking but it requires too much suspension of disbelief to pretend she's straight in that one minor role I'm thinking of that I saw some scenes of. Though maybe she prefers to play sapphic roles (or roles where relationships aren't relevant,) anyway I dunno.

This was her most feminine role lol:

This reminds me of a TikTok series where this woman created a matrix with elf, human and dwarf on the side and prince, warrior and king across the top.

Elf prince is essentially femme boy. She talked about how difficult it is to stay an elf as you grow up. She gave Leonardo DiCaprio as an example. I imagine Timothy Chalamet may also follow this path.

It is creepy to think essentially 'child like' is a quality that's often attractive to large portions of society.

Well neoteny is attractive to people who are attracted to women typically, and sometimes to others. For evolutionary reasons most likely but also because it makes it easier to have protective feelings I think connected to romantic attraction. I think a lot of people were sharing the term 'twink death' too when talking about him at one point which is pretty messed up. I mean I don't feel bad for him - he has no issues finding a never ending stream of young women to date and then break up with allegedly. (He's kind of become infamous for that and that might even be connected to why he was chosen for the other discourse.) But you know in general, for other guys who aren't rich/high status. It's pretty mean and lots of women don't care as much about physical appearence but people who are into 'elves' are pretty loud I am aware.

It's because elves don't exist irl.

Leonardo Dicaprio's exes have all joined the chat

That's what I was saying haha.

I'm trying to decide whether this or the 'puppy girl hacker polycule' group is the most peak cyberpunk very online moment of this month so far:

twitter: puppygirls are just trying to not grow up and don't take responsibility and are apolitical and also it's a fucking disgusting fetish
the puppygirl hacker polycule:
there aren't enough hacks against the police, so we took matters into our own paws

I don't think anyone accused them of being apolitical tbf. Niche subcultures on twitter with lots of trans women in tend to be infamously very political.

Hackers leaked thousands of files from Lexipol, a Texas-based company that develops policy manuals, training bulletins, and consulting services for first responders.

The manuals, which are crafted by Lexipol?s team of public sector attorneys, practitioners, and subject-matter experts, are customized to align with the specific needs and local legal requirements of agencies across the country.

But the firm also faces criticism for its blanket approach to police policies and pushback on reforms.

The data, a sample of which was given to the Daily Dot by a group referring to itself as "the puppygirl hacker polycule," includes approximately 8,543 files related to training, procedural, and policy manuals, as well as customer records that contain names, usernames, agency names, hashed passwords, physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

Among the manuals seen by the Daily Dot, agencies include police departments, fire departments, sheriff?s offices, and narcotics units.

"Today in the cyberpunk world."

One thing I'll say about them is a lot manage to live their polycule puppygirl life in real life as well. So good for them.

I dunno everything has already been said about this topic endlessly so whatever. Summarised in this video really:



My favourite parts conceptually were:

'generational sexualities'

and

'simplistic boomer sexuality'