this week's LW chud who is the sort of anti-wokeist who says he isn't right wing writes about human interaction from first principles. 100 upvotes.
this week's LW chud who is the sort of anti-wokeist who says he isn't right wing writes about human interaction from first principles. 100 upvotes.
Epistemic status: Speculation. An unholy union of evo psych, introspection, random stuff I happen to observe & hear about, and thinking. Done on a highly charged topic. Caveat emptor!
oh boy
archive: https://archive.is/uOP4y
But… I mean, think of a bakery of all (straight) men.
Then think of the same bakery, but it's all (straight) women.
Then imagine the same bakery, but it's mixed sex.
Can you see what happens?
no, not really. bakeries you say?
Even if there's no attraction going on in the last case, the fact that there could be dramatically changes the unspoken dynamics. It's just not as stable as the other two.
Things like… if a man notices a female coworker struggling with a flour sifter, and he comes in one day with a device he purchased to help her out… it raises questions that just wouldn't have arisen if the two coworkers had been the same sex.
oh. ok. flour sifters, man, yeah, those things are crazy.
I just can't get over the "struggling with a flour sifter" bit. Like ... what's there to struggle with? What accessory would help a person locked in combat with a flour sifter? Another flour sifter, to intimidate the first with the knowledge that it can be replaced?
A Tactical Flour Sifter, made for men.
“with a device he purchased to help her out” is such an extremely load bearing sentence in there
The whole goddamn example is batshit, but that one really did it for me
It continues to amaze me these people are real
also, if you do this in a bakery you’ll probably get written up for violating food service regulations cause you brought in a random consumer-grade prep item that could’ve easily contaminated everything with bacteria or allergens. plus if you procure the item through work, everyone gets to use it instead of just you and the coworker you’re trying to fuck on top of a birthday cake???
but “I got written up for an obvious health code violation” hits a lot different from “woe is men, everything is sexual harassment now”
felt like it started off relatively normal, gradually got weirder and more reactionary, and then the bakery bit was where it was clear this dude is from another planet. imagine a bakery... but with both men and women in it. imagine the roiling, all consuming sexual tension. fuck! we can't handle this
@sc_griffith It's true. The bakery just down the road has both male and female staff and it's really pretty inconvenient that every time I go in I have to ask if they'd mind taking a quick break from the constant fucking in order to serve me. And don't mention the time I asked if they had "a couple of nice floury baps for me".
I don't know, I worked at a Dunkin' Donuts when they still did baking in store, and there were male and female employees. I'm not saying there was NO fucking going on, but I wasn't lucky enough to witness any let alone participate.
Sexual tension in a bakery was a plotline in season 1 of tuca and bertie.
This has major “because of the implication” energy.
I was not clicking op, this is the kind of comments I came for, you made me actually lol, thanks! 😂
Also, is there a /MenAndFemales yet? 🤔
Dude had to specify everyone was straight to get this because yeah in the real world anyone could be attracted to anyone and yeah. Make everyone gay and the situation reverses.
it is well known that interpersonal conflict only happens between potential partners. and in bakeries.
Never, under any circumstances, sift this guy's flour.
Feel like the very beginning of this is not completely crazy (I've also thought in the past that straight people often perform "attractiveness" more for the approval of their same-sex friends) but it seems to kind of jump off the evo-psych deep end after that, lol
Also you can't build a bunch of assumptions about "we should organize society this way" while ignoring the existence of LGBT people, and then go "yeah I know I ignored them but it simplified my analysis." Like yeah it simplifies the analysis to ignore a bunch of stuff that actually exists in reality, but... then that means maybe your conclusions about how to structure society are wrong??
edit: also this quote is choice:
I don't know if this really happens. But even if not, the fiction does a great job of highlighting the dynamic I'm thinking of.
I’m not convinced this person has had any kind of social interaction beyond making purchases in years. I’m equally convinced this person has lived infinite lives in their head with every female service that made the mistake of smiling.
I recognize I've been very cis/hetero normative here. I liken this to removing friction from physics. There's no such thing as actually frictionless physics in the real world (as far as I know)… but friction is derived from principles that are easier to see from the imagined frictionless case.
Okay so in order to explain how the world works you have to remove gay people because the principles are only visible if you remove gay people. Or if you have gay people this whole theory seems like a house of cards?
Imagine how efficient our romantic entanglements would be if we got rid of all the homosexuals
infinite lives in their head with every female service that made the mistake of smiling
The basilisk is real!
Men will literally write a 17 minute article before asking women 'hey how can I become more attractive'
And I'm adamantly against pretending real things aren't real. I think that's actually more fundamentally toxic than is homophobia, transphobia, etc.
Euh, well at least all the red flags will attract tankies.
Makery: The bakery ... for straight men! Now with scones in monster truck and shark testosterone flavors! GRAAARRR
Instead of bear claws they have actual bear claws
btw, this is the top mind who previously asked "where's the economic incentive for wokism coming from?"
he's also the cofounder of CFAR, in case anyone ever tries to make out he isn't a normative rationalist
Jesus Christ, without looking at who was writing it I presumed it was just some random edgelord.
it is, just one who was in the right place at the right time
Two lines into his little disclaimer and I already knew this guy was a god damn occultist
What tipped you off? The phrase "unholy union"?
Anyways the occultism stuff is pretty common among "post-rats".
Yes, and the whole phrasing, combined with the theme and title, typical semantic field of the socalled "schizoposter" (abhorrent euphemism for "bit of a weird nazi")
a monkey trying to fuck a football, written equivalent
He should really attempt to be less wrong about everything
I’m too sick to read all that. Can the chuds pause their chudding for a bit so I can sneer later? Thanks
Heard a joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's cheerful. Says life is enjoyable and pleasant. Says he feels just fine in an unthreatening world. Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. The great clown Sneerclub is in town tonight. Go see him. That should fuck you up." Man bursts into tears. Says, "But doctor... I am the Torment Nexus." Good joke.
jesus christ