logicbomb @ logicbomb @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

673

Joined

2 yr. ago

I said it was about effort. Do you think "effort" means "easy"?

The reason the term “involuntary” is used is to differentiate from voluntary celibates, like Catholic priests, who the cultural zeitgeist most readily associates with the word “celibate”. You’re reading too much into it.

People often intentionally use the wrong words when describing themselves when using the correct words makes them sound bad. "pro life" "national socialism" are a couple of well-known examples.

The first person who used the term "involuntary celibate" was using it for sympathy, not accuracy. "Involuntary" was never the correct word because "celibate" wasn't the correct word, as "celibate" has the connotation of being a choice. They used the wrong term because something like "sexless" doesn't get sympathy.

Like, seriously, I’m giving you my personal lived experience, and you’re putting words in my mouth and calling me names.

I probably shouldn't have talked about "you" so much, but the reason I did is that you are talking not only about yourself, but about the subject, and I realized that you haven't actually changed, and that you still need help. And I don't remember calling you any names. And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I am literally quoting you. I am using your choice of words to expose you to yourself.

If I am walking through the forest and a sink hole opens up underneath me, and I fall in and can’t get out, I am involuntarily in that hole.

That's not how we use the word, though. Nobody calls that "involuntary" if it's just a hole that happened to be there. If somebody put you in the hole, then it's involuntary. The way "involuntary" is used in English, there is a connotation of an entity with a will that overrides your will.

If How to Win Friends isn't a good book, then read a different one. There are even ones about relationships for autistic people now. Don't complain that there are too many. That's why we have ratings. When you say "the floodgates are open", you're just trying to blame somebody else for your lack of effort.

But from your description of it, I can tell that you didn't actually try How to Win Friends. IIRC, the first lesson is "smile". Then, there are other lessons like, "practice giving genuine compliments" and "use people's names when talking to them." Literally, all you have to do is follow the instructions, and you'll have better results. But it sounds like you rejected the advice without trying it. Or in other words, no effort, blame the author and the people who recommended it. It's really the same thing over and over.

I never blamed women for my sex life.

You literally described it that way in your first comment: "trying to figure out how to get women to have sex with me". You could have said, "trying to figure out how to have sex with women," but you didn't. You phrased it that way because that's how you think about it. You blamed the women, and you still do.

But boy howdy. You really want to compare yourself to starving subsistence farmers in Africa?

Overall, there is a lot of dishonesty in your last comment. I'm trying to figure out whether it's that you simply refuse to admit the truth to yourself, or if you're doing it intentionally.

I was talking about effort being key, and these questions obviously come from somebody who didn't even try. All you have to do is lift your head up and shift your eyes slightly and actually look at what other people are doing. I know this stuff doesn't come naturally to an autistic person, and so it requires even more effort. Did you try to find a self-help book for how to improve your social skills? It's not like this is a new problem. Dale Carnegie wrote How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1936, and I doubt you're older than that.

Can you really say that spending 5 years overcoming social anxiety, while agonizing over your lack of a sex life is a voluntary lack of sex?

It's not about voluntary/involuntary at that point. In my original analogy, if you practiced basketball for 3 weeks, you might not make the team, but you wouldn't call that "involuntary". You just hadn't put in the required effort. Calling it "involuntary" makes it somebody else's fault, as if it wasn't up to you. But it's not the basketball coach's fault that you didn't make the team. And it's not women's fault that you were unhappy with your sex life. It was your own bad previous decisions that caused it. If you failed a math test because you didn't study, you wouldn't say that you "involuntarily" failed it. This is true even if you didn't understand that you needed to study. We simply don't use the word "involuntary" in that way.

Seriously, the idea that there is no such thing as “involuntary” celibacy because you can just work on yourself completely misses the fact that these people have real problems.

The truth is the truth, whether it makes people feel bad or not. Almost everybody has problems, and they all still have to figure out how to live their own lives. Because most people realize that they need to do something themselves to achieve their goals, and they can't simply shift the blame on to others.

Saying that it is voluntary assumes that the steps needed are straightforward and obvious.

This is a social problem, so the solution is to look at what successful people do and copy that. If that's not straightforward and obvious, then nothing is straightforward and obvious. This is exactly the same thing primitive tribes did, and every one of your ancestors did. It is a process of learning, which makes it similar to science, but it requires no knowledge that you can't get from just personal observations, completely unlike electricity.

You say that you couldn't talk to anyone IRL about your problem, because of your social anxiety and autism, but that's also a matter of effort. Rather than working on overcoming your social anxiety first, you went straight to seduction. That's skipping all of the groundwork, and you knew it at the time. Choosing a plan that is guaranteed to fail is a voluntary choice.

The term "incel" doesn't really make sense. It's not involuntary, by any definition of the word that I've seen.

Almost anyone can find a partner simply through effort. Diet, exercise, hygiene, etiquette, dressing nicely, socializing, actively seeking a partner. Notice something about that list? Pretty much everyone can do those things. It's just a matter of effort.

Yes, there are some exceptions, for example from people with severe disability, but those people rarely call themselves "incels." The majority are people who are perfectly capable of doing these things.

If you don't practice basketball and you don't even go to the tryouts, you don't get to say that your not making the team was "involuntary."

Now knowing for sure that this is AI, as I can see the evidence myself, it makes me think about other ways that I could have known, even if AI didn't leave telltale artifacts.

In my imagination, if the Soviets did design a vehicle in this range, it would be boxier and have fewer or different windows. Like, at the very least, the roof wouldn't taper down towards the back.

For a vehicle of this type, you probably want more horizontal surfaces. The ease of construction and consistency of materials would probably be more important than any aerodynamic efficiency. Or aesthetics, if you can even use that word when talking about a cyber truck shape.

Other AI sorts of artifacts I noticed are a complete lack of door handles, and the fact that not only is the vehicle needlessly very dirty, but the room is needlessly quite clean. You'd think that they'd want to clean it up if it was being presented like this, and that if it was dirty, some of the dirt would get on the ground.

Every wealthy donor who doesn't want the government packed full of fascists should be pushing their representatives for significant and meaningful campaign finance reform.

It's too bad that they'd be giving up some of their influence, but at this point, everyone should be able to see that it's becoming a matter of physical safety.

I had graduated college before I ever met somebody who called soda "pop". I remember before that somebody telling me that some people called it "pop," and I was sure they were wrong. My mistake was thinking that just because I hadn't experienced something, that meant that it didn't happen.

I think mid-twenties was probably too old for me to have made such an elementary mistake.

Speaking of MAGA, I recently heard a history professor say that, regarding fascism, your society is in trouble when you feel the need to assure yourself that you're not going to be targeted because you're in a "safe" group.

It really depends on the movie, but I think most movies that people see as "universally loved" are children's movies, and the people who love them the most are those who watched them when they were kids. Sometimes, they're not very good if you see them outside of their intended demographic.

On top of that, everybody has their own tastes. I know a person who doesn't like Shawshank Redemption because she feels uncomfortable with enclosed spaces. And I'm personally not fond of movies with people who act like gangsters, so I've never felt particularly affectionate towards Godfather movies.

A character acting out of character may not technically be a plot hole, but for the consumer of the media, it is tantamount to the same thing. The character's previous characterization is equivalent to "the existing rules of the story".

Not to say that characters cannot change, but you can tell when a character suddenly does something out of character simply because the author decided that some event has to happen for the plot to work, and it makes the plot seem impossible.

"Entire Trump team hated Elon Musk"....

If you'll recall, after Trump's first term, it was revealed that the entire Trump team hated Donald Trump.

Basically, any marginally competent person will hate working with people like Trump or Musk who make drastic changes without any reason or even any idea of what they're doing.

"The more people I kill, the fewer who will be alive to resent me."

How to turn your dinner into a business expense

I wouldn't be surprised if he did this primarily to make the news.

Serial killers often have this desire to be remembered. The same desire that Trump has.

Trump and serial killers have a hell of a lot in common, right down to their pathologies.

Probably the most significant difference between Trump and your garden variety serial killer is that Trump is responsible for countless more deaths.

Well, that, and when you hear their neighbors talk about serial killers, they always say, "I never would have believed it was him." But if you opened a closet at Trump's home, and found it stacked with dead bodies, you'd say, "I always suspected he had a closet like this."

This is how you get past the problem of Senate confirmation hearings when the person you want to appoint is so horrible that the process could expose things like how they're less of a Nazi sympathizer and more of an actual Nazi.

Similarly, Trump's team has repeatedly denied that Elon Musk was the head of DOGE in order to reduce the amount of congressional oversight that he receives.

If all of these Republicans, including members of congress like Rand Paul, are complaining, where are their actual teeth?

If they have even the tiniest bit of integrity left, they should be saying, "If he accepts this plane, which would be a huge crime, I will personally do everything in my power to ensure that he is impeached and removed from office."

The problem is that he doesn't have the authority to do this via executive order. So if he does create this illegal order, it will almost surely be struck down by the courts, just like the previous one was.

But in doing so, he can claim credit for trying, despite never doing anything.

It's easy to assume that Witkoff is, to quote the article, "a bumbling fucking idiot," but it's not outside of the realms of possibility that this is a deliberate act of a Russian asset.

If you assume that Witkoff is a Russian asset, then he'd want fewer intelligent Americans in the room when he speaks with Russians. It would be silly to think that he'd be getting orders or giving a report in a meeting with Putin, as there would be other less high profile opportunities, but assuming he's heavily compromised, there's a good chance he'd give something away to his American team. Fewer people means a smaller chance of being exposed.

I'm not saying that it's off the table that he's "a bumbling fucking idiot." Just pointing out that there are other possibilities. Witkoff is described as a real estate tycoon and a cryptocurrency trader, so there would have been plenty of chances for him to be targeted by Russia in the past, similar to how they targeted Trump long ago.