Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
“Enjoy” this Wronger explaining human sexual attraction
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ktydLowvEg8NxaG4Z/neuroscience-of-human-sexual-attraction-triggers-3
I have but skimmed it, not plumbed its depths for sneers.
Ugh what is it with misogynists and compulsively writing out this nonsense again and again? Just want to punch him on the nose. Make it stop.
…
kys
WTF is wrong with these people
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HbkNAyAoa4gCnuzwa/wei-dai-s-shortform?commentId=wFmCveaxA5EnNtuCj
Man doesnt get to do everything he wants, this means woman has all the power. Problem with seeing everything as a hierarchy means you cant see partnerships.
The old chestnut that really these days it’s women who hold all the power is as old as times. I saw an instance in Perrault’s introduction to the tale of Griselidis (1691) and I’m sure you can go much further back. Not sure why we ever even bothered with voting rights, reproductive freedom, or personhood.
Sorry darling, but according to my game-theoretical model this discussion ends in my victory in every possible combination of moves, so can we just skip to the point you apologise?
Where… where are you going
Are they drawn to the cult because they are obsessed with status, or does the cult foster this obssession? Yes.
lol. lmao.
What a coincidence! I read this post quickly and without thoroughly considering much of anything.
This comes shockingly close to self-awareness.
I think that goes without saying on LW but glad someone put it in writing
From the other reactions, dont have the energy to read it atm (it was this or orcas), looks like he is recreating heartiste from first principles.
it’s just this with more words (context: someone dead serious tweeted that speedrunning is communism and brought into it peterson’s mouth noises on sex somehow, and all in 14 tweets)
Relevant
(that’s the same link)
Ah fuck. I didn’t click it cos I assumed it was the original tweet. I’ll just leave it there so you can all witness my crimes
the original tweets were deleted and only survive as screenshots
Ugh reading more of this and it’s awful.
He writes that women are attracted to men who could beat us up or control us. He writes that the reason for this attraction is so we have a chance to marry the man and prevent these bad things from happening.
His “science” assumes that women think like they do in shitty erotica written by men for men. Even by rationalist evo-psych standards this is pretty poorly thought out.
OK other straight ladies here, raise your hand if you’ve ever felt that middle aged congressmen, as a whole, “radiate animal magnetism”. Anyone? Anyone?
Having now read it (I have regrets), I think it’s even worse than you suggested. He’s not trying to argue that women are attracted to dangerous men in order to prevent the danger from happening to them. He assumes that, based on “everyday experience” of how he feels when dealing with “high-status” men and then tries to use that as an extension of and evidence for his base-level theory of how the brain does consciousness. (I’m not going to make the obvious joke about alternative reasons why he has the same feeling around certain men that he does around women he finds attractive.) In order to get there he has to assume that culture and learning play no role in what people find attractive, which is just absurd on it’s face and renders the whole argument not worth engaging with.
It’s almost endearing (or sad) that he believes (or very strongly wants to believe) his experience is “typical”, exploring the boundaries of what you are attracted to typically doesn’t involve this much evo-pysch psychology, or even this much fragile masculinity.
I feel like this is some friggin’ Kissinger “power is an aphrodisiac” nonsense. Which is hilarious because while yes Kissinger spent more time out on the town with beautiful women than you would expect for a Ben Stein-esque war criminal, when journalists at the time talked to those women they pretty consistently said that they enjoyed feeling like he respected them and wanted to talk about the world and listened to what they had to say. But that would be anathema to Rationalism, I guess.
Imagr description: Steven Pinker, Lawrence Krauss and Jeffrey Epstein, posted as per tradition when either of the latter two are mentioned
Don’t they just radiate animal magnetism
Are we sure this isn’t an SCP entry?
We should have a cognitohazard tag