Page 48 of 228 FirstFirst ... 3846474849505898148 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #471
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    A week after the election? I have no idea, saving his backside?
    Before. He reopened the investigation a week before the election.

    It's just amazing how consistent you are at rewriting reality for your own comfort and taking the corresponding political position...as far as I can recall, you've done it for every issue we've covered
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  2. #472
    last i checked mueller was prosecuting people.

    so ....

    also, according to the public timeline, comey's investigation into collusion with russia started even before trump was the GOP nominee. and many aspects of the investigation started long before that too, such an investigations into illegal dealings with micheal flynn (2010ish), and paul manafort (mid 2000s). we also know that both the state of NY, and the treasury has been investigating the financial dealings of the trump empire since the early 1990s. even convicted him several times.

    so, if you think mueller wrote his case before he got his evidence, we are going back DECADES mueller wrote up his claims.

    what will be interesting, is to see how far through the GOP the rot really goes. pretty obvious paul ryan knew much of what happening as early as spring 2016, which is probably why he won't seek re-election, to avoid prosecution. McConnell is probably cleaner, though maybe only slightly. Nunes certainly is involved, thats why he one of the loudest voices for "its a hack job"
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-05-2018 at 11:21 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    Actually interested to see the responses to that last bit from Gordon, because I think there is room for 4 dozen or more shades of grey in that discussion.
    kinda sad actually no one took it on to actually discuss this either.

    the relationship and sexual economy is fascinating and understanding it is very useful to understanding one's own place in the universe and why they are there, making those decisions. frees one up of angst and insecurity.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-05-2018 at 10:25 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #474
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    I'll take a crack at it:

    Biologically, there exists asymmetric risk for sexual activity, between men and women. This is because the investment a man makes in procreation is extremely low, whereas it is a massive demand on a woman's resources. I think this is pretty uncontroversial, but if you don't believe me, ask my 8-months pregnant wife.

    This is coupled to the fact that women are fundamentally the limiting reagent in making more humans. The number of males in a population is, in fact, irrelevant as long as it exceeds zero and sufficient water and zinc supplements are readily available. To wit: genetic analyses based on mitochondrial DNA suggest that we have, on average, twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Meaning that only about half as many men were reproductively successful as women.

    This biological construct maps (historically) onto social constructs in different ways. First, and most obvious, is that the relative scarcity of females creates a power discrepancy with regards to mate selection - this is the basis for the "female gatekeeper, male conqueror" model of sexual interactions. The male is winning the affections of the female. This also shows up in psychological literature as the matching principle (external values, such as financial success, in males being matched by physical desirability in females). Obviously this model has some toxicity in a gender neutral society, but it is/was rooted in biological pragmatism, and path dependencies are a bitch.

    The other implication of the sexual asymmetry is that males are more likely to engage in dominance hierarchies, with the dominance hierarchy representing an avenue for future reproductive success. This implies the assumption that women value whatever the parameters of the male dominance hierarchy are as a proxy for reproductive fitness.

    What I think is interesting, and feeds into the progressive/conservative dichotomy, is that the Sexual Revolution completely upends the basis of the biological assumption. In the past 60 years, women have access to reliable birth control, and have reached close to educational and fiscal equality (fiscal depending on how you control for job factors such as seniority and maternity periods.). Put succinctly, Free Love is about gratis, not libre.

    In short, this submarines the systems in which a man can be considered reproductively attractive by engaging in purely male pursuits (without regard to whether they've pleased a woman). I suspect that this is Gordon's charge for the F-250s parked on either side of his miata. His belief might be that the truck is a symbol of engagement in a male dominance hierarchy that has no relevant in a modern sexual marketplace, in which value is determined almost entirely by the quality of interaction between the 2 parties.



    This may seem obvious, but the psychosexual circumstances around couples have been previously indicated first by social interactions, and then by interpersonal compatibility - couples generally met through church, mutual friends, parental arrangements, etc. Some of these are still popular vectors, but the elephant in the room, and the power in the space, is now online dating. Essentially a pre-screen of personal compatibility, coupled with double opt-in selection. (See also Black Mirror Season 4: Hang the DJ). Clearly, the outward desirability of new systems that are less entrenched in biological motivators seems to work for at least some fraction of the population.

    What's interesting to me, at present, is how these systems interact with and affect each other. Anthropological research suggests stable coupling times of 7 years for raising kids - I think it's a somewhat open question whether pairwise lifetime bonding is always natural in humans, and it may come down to individual disposition. (For my opinion, you can reference ryanandkaitlin100years.com) If males are predisposed to seek multiple couplings to maximize genetic success (the average successful male historically having a partner number of ~2), then the sexual revolution, by creating less female cost for sex, makes sex a more readily available commodity. In short, sex is cheaper than it's ever been. The general trend seems to suggest a rise in # of sexual partners before stable coupling, with delayed marriage and childbirth trends.

    Ultimately, how these trends interact with happiness is a metric of their utility. I think that it's entirely possible that coupled with social media, the sexual marketplace could swing too far to serve women well (men, who cares). Happiness trends since the 2007 introduction of the smartphone are highly troubling, particularly for young women.

    I hope that I haven't outed myself in some way as a bigot (or have been influenced by erroneous sources), but I suspect that we're not on an ideal course wrt the sexual marketplace for the happiness of women in particular. I do NOT think that a return to any kind of patriarchy is productive. One technological solution that explicitly places the power with females is Bumble. Higher adoption of similar systems (as opposed to Tinder, which tends to encourage a screening -> pooling approach) might increase the coupling satisfaction of women without constraining their matches negatively.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  5. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    I'll take a crack at it:

    Biologically, there exists asymmetric risk for sexual activity, between men and women. This is because the investment a man makes in procreation is extremely low, whereas it is a massive demand on a woman's resources. I think this is pretty uncontroversial, but if you don't believe me, ask my 8-months pregnant wife.

    This is coupled to the fact that women are fundamentally the limiting reagent in making more humans. The number of males in a population is, in fact, irrelevant as long as it exceeds zero and sufficient water and zinc supplements are readily available. To wit: genetic analyses based on mitochondrial DNA suggest that we have, on average, twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. Meaning that only about half as many men were reproductively successful as women.

    This biological construct maps (historically) onto social constructs in different ways. First, and most obvious, is that the relative scarcity of females creates a power discrepancy with regards to mate selection - this is the basis for the "female gatekeeper, male conqueror" model of sexual interactions. The male is winning the affections of the female. This also shows up in psychological literature as the matching principle (external values, such as financial success, in males being matched by physical desirability in females). Obviously this model has some toxicity in a gender neutral society, but it is/was rooted in biological pragmatism, and path dependencies are a bitch.

    The other implication of the sexual asymmetry is that males are more likely to engage in dominance hierarchies, with the dominance hierarchy representing an avenue for future reproductive success. This implies the assumption that women value whatever the parameters of the male dominance hierarchy are as a proxy for reproductive fitness.

    What I think is interesting, and feeds into the progressive/conservative dichotomy, is that the Sexual Revolution completely upends the basis of the biological assumption. In the past 60 years, women have access to reliable birth control, and have reached close to educational and fiscal equality (fiscal depending on how you control for job factors such as seniority and maternity periods.). Put succinctly, Free Love is about gratis, not libre.

    In short, this submarines the systems in which a man can be considered reproductively attractive by engaging in purely male pursuits (without regard to whether they've pleased a woman). I suspect that this is Gordon's charge for the F-250s parked on either side of his miata. His belief might be that the truck is a symbol of engagement in a male dominance hierarchy that has no relevant in a modern sexual marketplace, in which value is determined almost entirely by the quality of interaction between the 2 parties.



    This may seem obvious, but the psychosexual circumstances around couples have been previously indicated first by social interactions, and then by interpersonal compatibility - couples generally met through church, mutual friends, parental arrangements, etc. Some of these are still popular vectors, but the elephant in the room, and the power in the space, is now online dating. Essentially a pre-screen of personal compatibility, coupled with double opt-in selection. (See also Black Mirror Season 4: Hang the DJ). Clearly, the outward desirability of new systems that are less entrenched in biological motivators seems to work for at least some fraction of the population.

    What's interesting to me, at present, is how these systems interact with and affect each other. Anthropological research suggests stable coupling times of 7 years for raising kids - I think it's a somewhat open question whether pairwise lifetime bonding is always natural in humans, and it may come down to individual disposition. (For my opinion, you can reference ryanandkaitlin100years.com) If males are predisposed to seek multiple couplings to maximize genetic success (the average successful male historically having a partner number of ~2), then the sexual revolution, by creating less female cost for sex, makes sex a more readily available commodity. In short, sex is cheaper than it's ever been. The general trend seems to suggest a rise in # of sexual partners before stable coupling, with delayed marriage and childbirth trends.

    Ultimately, how these trends interact with happiness is a metric of their utility. I think that it's entirely possible that coupled with social media, the sexual marketplace could swing too far to serve women well (men, who cares). Happiness trends since the 2007 introduction of the smartphone are highly troubling, particularly for young women.

    I hope that I haven't outed myself in some way as a bigot (or have been influenced by erroneous sources), but I suspect that we're not on an ideal course wrt the sexual marketplace for the happiness of women in particular. I do NOT think that a return to any kind of patriarchy is productive. One technological solution that explicitly places the power with females is Bumble. Higher adoption of similar systems (as opposed to Tinder, which tends to encourage a screening -> pooling approach) might increase the coupling satisfaction of women without constraining their matches negatively.
    well said. i agree with most of this, and esp the part that is often called "the theory of the disposable male" that men are reproductivly pretty much valuless, as a result, we have historically defined ourselves based on what we do for society, thats how we generate value in ourselves' and based on that (which bring with it money and power), societal blessings in the form of a wife and family. thus, valuable skills bring to a man outward signs of success and value: a wife (or wives), and kids (kids are proof you had sex).

    there are many reasons why we are still genetically and societly bred to understand the above system, while actually operating in a different system:

    economics: the key to economic and political success for thousands of years was effective reproduction. now, the opposite is true, children esp hurt economic freedom and political success. simple economics make child-rearing a choice in limiting ones economic and political potential. this will only get worse as human knowledge expands, as it takes longer in someone's life to come up to speed with an adult (this is not just academically either, this includes mental health, emotional maturity etc etc)

    brithcontrol: we actually have a method to reasonably live a full life as a reasonable adult, and not have children. this is new to humanity as of the last ~100 years, and really only tolerated by societal norms within the last 30ish years, and really, choosing to not have children at all is still socially quite taboo. the trend is towards a large minority of folks choosing to live there lives without children. unless we re-do the economic equation in child rearing, we will continue to see a drop in brithrate (as we see with most modern first world countries and there negative birthrates).

    feminism: as lurker pointed out, the advent of even more female-centric systems has changed the equation. dating and mating was already largely defined by women (something some feminists deny), but what is interesting is that modern dating is still very female centric, but the traits females select to reward are not what they have selected for in the past (ie, power and money). men don't seem to understand what women's selection process is outside of tradition, this has changed because the needs of the modern person are not the same as they have been. men and society finds the notion of woman "going rouge" to be dangerous, because we don't as a group know how to understand and deal with sexually available and powerful women.


    many people see re-establishing tradition as the solution. red pill and mens rights activists see the solution as going backwards, undoing what science, economics and culture has given us in our modern world. but history teaches us, that is pretty much only a recipe for failure. you can't go backwards ... plus, why would you want to?

    instead we need to come up with systems of value. with new roles in society, and with new structures in society to reward value in human beings, and establish new norms for dating, relationships, marriage and procreation.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #476
    i was recently in a discussion with my friend with benefits about women and power in society, she is very feminist and i like her a lot. i started down a path, and she warned me "don't just tell women to not fuck republicans" which, by the way, i totally 100% endorse. there wouldn't be republicans if women got there shit together.

    but thats not a realistic solution, and i understand her frustration with it.

    the reality is much more nuanced. assholes like trump and "the patriarchy" exist because of, not in spite of women. here me out. the drive to acquire money and power in men is because we are otherwise pretty valueless in reproduction. the money and power makes us more valuable in reproduction, and being at the top of that food chain is where you will be the most valuable, in sexual reproduction.

    thus the drive to acquire wealth and power, is typically linked quite directly to the desire to fuck women. "when you are famous, they just let you" after-all right? if no one fucked trump he would just be an ugly orange asshole right? no one would give two shits about him. even more to the point, if women didn't "let him" sexually assault them, trump wouldn't have wanted to "win" at that game at all, he would have done something else entirely.

    this is where non-traditionalism comes into play. as women change what they reward sexually, men's power structures will change accordingly.

    its not as simple and women shouldn't fuck conservatives, its about women rewarding a different set of values, and thus creating a new male structure.

    women have far more power than they believe, they control the definition of what it is to be a man. they do this by rewarding sexually traits and structures. now, these do feedback off one another, women wanting power and money in there mates, creating a structural hierarchy of males, and then those males enforcing there will on women (some of whom are not consenting), and then women aspiring up the structure and rewarding it because it exists ... thus, "the patriarchy" a byproduct of the sexual economy.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-05-2018 at 01:55 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #477
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    This conversation just took a hard turn into disgusting.



    Also, christ Gordon... straighten out your homonyms.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  8. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    This conversation just took a hard turn into disgusting.
    wha?
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #479
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    I followed Lurker's post, but I'm not sure I fully understand it enough to agree or disagree yet. I also followed Gordon's first post, with the same comment of I'm still trying to formulate whether I agree or disagree.

    Gordon, not just for the their/there issues, but I'm completely lost on your followup post to your original comment. What traits and structures do you currently see rewarded? Are you describing this as an active, or even conscious system?

    What different sorts of values would you like to see Women reward, and I'm curious if you'd venture a guess on why they aren't currently discussing or encouraging these values instead?

  10. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    I followed Lurker's post, but I'm not sure I fully understand it enough to agree or disagree yet. I also followed Gordon's first post, with the same comment of I'm still trying to formulate whether I agree or disagree.

    Gordon, not just for the their/there issues, but I'm completely lost on your followup post to your original comment. What traits and structures do you currently see rewarded? Are you describing this as an active, or even conscious system?

    What different sorts of values would you like to see Women reward, and I'm curious if you'd venture a guess on why they aren't currently discussing or encouraging these values instead?
    i think that most of the issues we see today are due to the traits women rewarding are changing. traditionalists are scared, and lashing out over it. thinking its the end of civilization, because women can and are choosing differently than traditional roles would dictate them to. they don't know the rules of the new game (none of us really do), and there coping mechanism is to try and go backwards.

    I am less interested in attempting to argue what i think should happen, much more interested in understanding what is happening and why. I don't really know what i think should happen. i think larger numbers of woman are looking for different traits than tradition dictates in there partners, some are finding them in women, some in mature men. immature or insecure men's response to this change, is the where we get into the F-ive never pleased a woman-50 trucks, male safe spaces like "man caves" just pretty much suburban false masculinity in general ....

    I do know how I am personally dealing with what is happening. its interesting that a woman who is sexually empowered and making her own choices in her values is feared by society because we don't know how to understand it, but a man, who is sexually empowered and making his own choices in values is pitied by society, because he lacks the traditional status symbols of masculinity ..... but thats a discussion for another post ....
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 01-05-2018 at 05:11 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •