Ray Peat Intersectional Feminist Facebook Group

[Such_Saturation]

Can this please not be r/incel away from home

 

[Such_Saturation]

All of the controversy about the proper way of men getting with women may become moot or optional if female sexbots are indeed a revolution at our door step:

"Omega and beta males in a rut will be the primary users of sexbots. This will unleash tremendous shock waves on the sexual market, placing enormous pressure on the sub-HB7 Western woman who will experience an accelerating decline in the number of thirsty men willing to entertain her feminism, anti-femininity, and even garden variety coyness. Sexbot brothels will be the predominant service until prices drop low enough that private sexbot ownership is feasible for the masses. We are far from end game in the sterile jizz pens of the sexbot brothel."

"The entire market structure of dating will shift seismically in the direction of men becoming choosier and less willing to please and women becoming looser and more willing to please."

Sexbot Revolution Update
Sexbot Revolution Update

Sexbots
Sexbots

This just out - early warning intel that revolution mentioned above is almost here:
Austrian brothel buys a SECOND sex doll after its first became more popular with customers than real women
Austrian brothel buys a second sex doll due to high demand | Daily Mail Online

I think "HB" means "Hot Babe," and this means white women from Europe and US, and those under a 7 (1-10, 10 being hottest). See:
Updated Glossary of Terms and Acronyms • r/TheRedPill

 

[DaveFoster]

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Exit polls are not objective data. People can say anything to the pollster.

"College educated" is a useless term. There are many useless degrees that a person can have and still call themselves "educated."

The candidates are besides the point. Malkin's main point has nothing to do with HC and DT. If you take HC and DT and replace them with other people Malkin's points are still valid against MO race-baiting, identity politics and her hatred for the US.

 

[DaveFoster]

Exit polls are not objective data. People can say anything to the pollster.

"College educated" is a useless term. There are many useless degrees that a person can have and still call themselves "educated."

The candidates are besides the point. Malkin's main point has nothing to do with HC and DT. If you take HC and DT and replace them with other people Malkin's points are still valid against MO race-baiting, identity politics and her hatred for the US.

Everything you said is true.

It's unlikely that the actual results vastly differed from exit poll data. Do you have evidence for this?

Hilary Clinton race-baits because tribalism appeals to voters.

For men, "college educated" offers less information than in reference to women.

"Among Asians/Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites, the number of female voters in recent elections has exceeded the number of male voters. While the difference in voter turnout rates between the sexes is greatest for Blacks, women have voted at higher rates than men among Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites in the last eight presidential elections..."

Source: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

It's interesting that both younger men and women vote blue, but this dramatically changes for men as they get older and changes for women only to a minor degree.

There's no such change with the black vote:

The change in voting trends of Hispanics resembles that of white male voters, and it also happens to Hispanic women to a greater degree white women, but the change still results in a Democratic turnout, and the shift toward Republicanism may be due to Catholicism:

Here's voter turnout by marital status, where married women likely vote to preserve the income of their husbands:

Here's a significant negative correlation between Republican voting and single motherhood:

 

[Kyle M]

That sounds pretty miserable, but at least it's an ancillary field. I had similar problems doing biochemistry; inorganic chemistry bores me to death, and added to an intense workload (to weed out underperformers for health-related professions), an accelerated tract, and regular labs, and I considered killing myself for a while. The information did not seem hard, but the whole experience seemed contrived and serotonergic.

If I wanted to study biology, then I would have to dip into genetics and all that autism finding the particular allele that codes for the toenail protein in the naked mole rat to employ some GTF who has an intense interest in sea anemones for some God-forsaken reason. No thanks.

Yeah that's about the gist of it. I have plans for using it as a springboard for something I really want, but it will take a lot of work to realize the plans.

 

[Amazoniac]

My doctor has said repeatedly that I should enter into academia

Probably while thinking "why this desk is turned to me" or "get yourself a diploma so that we can responsibilize the university for your gigantic head" or "why is this guy carrying a sword? I better be nice to him"..

 

[schultz]

This is why we need feminism

Is that a joke? We were talking about alpha/beta males in another thread and I criticized the terms... in any event, that's a beta male lol

 

[Kyle M]

Is that a joke? We were talking about alpha/beta males in another thread and I criticized the terms... in any event, that's a beta male lol

I believe the photo is a real "like campaign" that the guy was doing.

 

[schultz]

I believe the photo is a real "like campaign" that the guy was doing.

I almost feel bad for him. Almost. I would leave the woman if I were him.

 

[DaveFoster]

Probably while thinking "why this desk is turned to me" or "get yourself a diploma so that we can responsibilize the university for your gigantic head" or "why is this guy carrying a sword? I better be nice to him"..

"To contribute to the field" actually. Sadly the field needs to be re-plowed.

 

[LUH 3417]

In other words it has to do with a physical wiring of the optic system. Good to know. Do bees not have abstract thought because they aren't wired that way, or because of a social construct?

I emailed RP to ask about hard wiring. If humans are hard wired then why do so many things go “wrong” during child birth. Part of his response includes the following:

I don’t think there’s any hardwiring, our whole being is involved in everything. A punitive culture starts introducing the interstitial dirt whenever it can, introducing gestures, symbols, and attitudes that build up an experience that seems to fit with the mechanical wiring ideology.

 

[Kyle M]

I emailed RP to ask about hard wiring. If humans are hard wired then why do so many things go “wrong” during child birth. Part of his response includes the following:

I don’t think there’s any hardwiring, our whole being is involved in everything. A punitive culture starts introducing the interstitial dirt whenever it can, introducing gestures, symbols, and attitudes that build up an experience that seems to fit with the mechanical wiring ideology.

I think this is a false dichotomy. It's so hard to talk about this stuff over text on a forum. Just because something is physically wired to run a certain way, doesn't mean it isn't able to be altered. It's just not infinitely alterable, or able to be altered with no energy input, or a "social construct." It's a real physical system with parameters.

I guess the reaction is to older thinking that it's hard wired like plumbing, with thick steel structures that cannot be even slightly diverted in their setup.

 

[LUH 3417]

I think this is a false dichotomy. It's so hard to talk about this stuff over text on a forum. Just because something is physically wired to run a certain way, doesn't mean it isn't able to be altered. It's just not infinitely alterable, or able to be altered with no energy input, or a "social construct." It's a real physical system with parameters.

I guess the reaction is to older thinking that it's hard wired like plumbing, with thick steel structures that cannot be even slightly diverted in their setup.

I understand what you are saying but if we are electric beings than the only parameters are our charges and skin.

 

[Kyle M]

I understand what you are saying but if we are electric beings than the only parameters are our charges and skin.

Skin? That's the only tissue you believe yourself to be composed of?

Seems like we're talking past each other, and I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you give an example of what you mean? How would you demonstrate this infinite flexibility of charge and skin?

 

[LUH 3417]

Skin? That's the only tissue you believe yourself to be composed of?

Seems like we're talking past each other, and I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you give an example of what you mean? How would you demonstrate this infinite flexibility of charge and skin?

You’re comparing the body to an enclosed physical system. The variety of human expression, experience, and appearance is a testament to its alter-ability. Seems like we’re splitting hairs here. Maybe it’s soft wired instead of hard wired?

 

[Kyle M]

You’re comparing the body to an enclosed physical system. The variety of human expression, experience, and appearance is a testament to its alter-ability. Seems like we’re splitting hairs here. Maybe it’s soft wired instead of hard wired?

I am *comparing* the human body to a system in the sense that I said that the brain is wired in a particular way. I didn't say it was closed, obviously it requires external factors to work at all, and it responds to those factors.

However, there are elements of any tissue or the body as a whole that are less mutable than others. You can change your body composition through exercise, as the nervous and muscular system respond to the stressors by changing and building tissue. You cannot, however, respond to falling from an airplane (even if you somehow manage to fall for years) by growing wings.

Biological entities are like games, chess or checkers or something similar. Some are more complex, some more simple. They all have rules of what can and can't happen, but *within* that rule set there is a lot of variability. Within chess, for example, there are only 7 types of pieces and they can only move in specific ways, yet there is for practical purposes an unlimited amount of possibilities in how a chess game can play out. It can't play out, however, with you making an illegal move.

The confusion, I think, comes about because we (scientists, interested people, society in general) have incomplete knowledge of the rule set. We don't know what the possibilities are, and as a result many of the times a claim is made about an impossibility, an exception is discovered. People use that as evidence that there is no limit to possibility, but if that were true then why don't they just grow wings already?

Perhaps there is no limit to possibility when sufficient technological understanding is achieved, but that is many ages into the future. The fact that knowledge and technology in specific have to be leveraged to achieve greater possibility itself is testament to the limits of the system. A system with no limits at all wouldn't require knowledge of how to manipulate it or outside technology to change it, it could just change itself with no problem.

 

[LUH 3417]

I am *comparing* the human body to a system in the sense that I said that the brain is wired in a particular way. I didn't say it was closed, obviously it requires external factors to work at all, and it responds to those factors.

However, there are elements of any tissue or the body as a whole that are less mutable than others. You can change your body composition through exercise, as the nervous and muscular system respond to the stressors by changing and building tissue. You cannot, however, respond to falling from an airplane (even if you somehow manage to fall for years) by growing wings.

Biological entities are like games, chess or checkers or something similar. Some are more complex, some more simple. They all have rules of what can and can't happen, but *within* that rule set there is a lot of variability. Within chess, for example, there are only 7 types of pieces and they can only move in specific ways, yet there is for practical purposes an unlimited amount of possibilities in how a chess game can play out. It can't play out, however, with you making an illegal move.

The confusion, I think, comes about because we (scientists, interested people, society in general) have incomplete knowledge of the rule set. We don't know what the possibilities are, and as a result many of the times a claim is made about an impossibility, an exception is discovered. People use that as evidence that there is no limit to possibility, but if that were true then why don't they just grow wings already?

Perhaps there is no limit to possibility when sufficient technological understanding is achieved, but that is many ages into the future. The fact that knowledge and technology in specific have to be leveraged to achieve greater possibility itself is testament to the limits of the system. A system with no limits at all wouldn't require knowledge of how to manipulate it or outside technology to change it, it could just change itself with no problem.

I would say techne and technology are two completely different things. As are knowledge and understanding. If humans evolved in such a way where knowledge (mind) was gained incrementally and in relation to understanding (body) acquired, we may in fact grow wings when falling from an airplane.

What discipline are you trained in?

 

[Kyle M]

I would say techne and technology are two completely different things. As are knowledge and understanding. If humans evolved in such a way where knowledge (mind) was gained incrementally and in relation to understanding (body) acquired, we may in fact grow wings when falling from an airplane.

What does that mean? What are the parameters in plain language by which a human could phenomenologically grow wings to adapt to falling in real time?

Techne and epistime are different, technology has a few definitional connotations.

What discipline are you trained in?

molecular biology and biochemistry

 

[LUH 3417]

What does that mean? What are the parameters in plain language by which a human could phenomenologically grow wings to adapt to falling in real time?

Techne and epistime are different, technology has a few definitional connotations.



molecular biology and biochemistry

Here’s an example and it may be fantastical but I’ll try:

On an intellectual level you understand the function of a cell and it’s anatomy. But have you ever had a perceptive experience of one of the cells in your body metabolizing and transmuting energy?
You know what happens on a cellular level, but it’s impossible to understand it implicitly or to feel it happening in your own body. Isn’t that weird, that your mind can wrap itself around a concept related to a bodily process, but the very body that’s experiencing the process can’t feel it or understand it intuitively?

Knowledge not based on understanding is meaningless because we can’t use the knowledge in a way that relates to the whole, and understanding without knowledge is useless because we can’t apply what we know to affect change. I used the mind body dualism for the purposes of expressing myself but there really isn’t a language abstract enough to articulate what I’m trying to say.

Children understand a lot of things but they don’t know them per say. Adults know a lot but they don’t necessarily understand. I know it’s not the best analogy but maybe one day I’ll be able to put it more succinctly.

The thing about wings, maybe davinci had a diagram in his notebooks or something.