1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
bambamramfan
bambamramfan

SSC’s latest seems like a classic case of letting gender politics obfuscate power and class issues that cut across gender.

He quotes some PUA:

Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value dudes hording all the pussy.

And then he uses both his intuitive experience and his LW survey data to show that men and women in polyamory date about the same number of people. There’s at least no clear cut numerical advantage to men. My experience also agrees.

But what if we neuter that sentence, and look at it again:

Polyamory — multiple and simultaneous sexual relationships — means, in practice, a few high value people dudes hording all the dates.

Which is to say, charismatic and confident people of either gender, dating a lot of people, and awkward and introverted people of both genders dating no one, only one person, or being a hanger on in a larger polycule that doesn’t get a lot of attention from the partner regardless.

That sounds… less implausible. It doesn’t exactly match my observed experience, but it’s not super far from it either. I’ve certainly seen in nerdy groups a Queen Bee that is dating half the men, in a way that seems parallel to the alpha-males that PUA’s fear/worship.

It’s not at all clear that this is bad. This seems just as likely to be the result of “some people want more partners, and are more socially outgoing to find them, while some people want less or are less willing to put themselves out there to meet them,” which would be fine. Or it could be this high-value thing. (I detest rat-tumb’s focus on high-status-males as the evil beneficiary of social engineering, which seems both empirically and ontologically unsound, but from a capitalist-critical perspective, “liberalizing trade regimes” often means “the rich people get more stuff and poor people somehow have less.”)

But, I’m also not going to be surprised by the subjective perspective of people low on the social totem pole. Before, they had hope in this pigeon-hole thing, where each person could get at most one partner, so eventually the people as attractive as them would realize their best chance for a life long relationship was with fellow low-class dates like themselves. It was a bad model, but I’m aware people believed in it. Now they worry no one will be left waiting for them, and they’ll be entirely alone forever. So there’s some people who seem to be having a lot of sex (stealing their jouissance) and they aren’t reaping the benefits.

The answers they come up with are usually dumb, but they are at least seeing/feeling a thing.

mitigatedchaos

Bambam honey darling kun, and also @slatestarscratchpad friend,

I love weird nerds but weird nerds aren’t a representative sample for the behavior of typical relationship norms.

A better example for normies applying this would be all the other countries, territories and communities where polygamy is practiced, as well as communities within the US where one man will have 11 kids by 8 different women.

No full poly until Tranhumanism makes it possible to ‘defect’ from both your sex and sexual orientation, pls.

gender politics
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

In the future, everyone will be a garbage millennial.

mitigatedchaos

I mean, to be honest, you’re right, they’re failing to properly contextualize existing technology because it’s changing so fast.  I’m just saying that if they were more future-oriented, they’d skip right past it to the next set of plausible technologies.  I mean, I’m not running on all pistons and I can come up with this stuff easily enough.

mitigatedchaos

The problem is you end up predicting a portable fax machine.

That’s still a more interesting failure mode and it doesn’t look dated the moment it’s published.  TOS has actually aged reasonably well. 

collapsedsquid

I don’t really think of TOS as reaching that far in terms of predictions, at least in terms of the everyday technology used by the crew. 

mitigatedchaos

It did reach relatively far for its day. But it occurs to me - anything that can be displayed with paper could be displayed with a screen. So what decade would actually predict the portable fax machine? It would have to be 50s or probably earlier.

collapsedsquid

That’s what I was getting at with the storage. You can display something on a screen, but if you want to send something to someone in a way that can be stored, you would want something like a fax machine.

mitigatedchaos

Computer storage already existed not that long after computers were created, though, so the one to predict a portable fax machine would be from automated telegram machines as a projection, which actually *would* be insightful.

collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

In the future, everyone will be a garbage millennial.

mitigatedchaos

I mean, to be honest, you’re right, they’re failing to properly contextualize existing technology because it’s changing so fast.  I’m just saying that if they were more future-oriented, they’d skip right past it to the next set of plausible technologies.  I mean, I’m not running on all pistons and I can come up with this stuff easily enough.

mitigatedchaos

The problem is you end up predicting a portable fax machine.

That’s still a more interesting failure mode and it doesn’t look dated the moment it’s published.  TOS has actually aged reasonably well. 

collapsedsquid

I don’t really think of TOS as reaching that far in terms of predictions, at least in terms of the everyday technology used by the crew. 

mitigatedchaos

It did reach relatively far for its day. But it occurs to me - anything that can be displayed with paper could be displayed with a screen. So what decade would actually predict the portable fax machine? It would have to be 50s or probably earlier.

mitigatedchaos
collapsedsquid

In the future, everyone will be a garbage millennial.

mitigatedchaos

I mean, to be honest, you’re right, they’re failing to properly contextualize existing technology because it’s changing so fast.  I’m just saying that if they were more future-oriented, they’d skip right past it to the next set of plausible technologies.  I mean, I’m not running on all pistons and I can come up with this stuff easily enough.

mitigatedchaos

The problem is you end up predicting a portable fax machine.

That’s still a more interesting failure mode and it doesn’t look dated the moment it’s published.  TOS has actually aged reasonably well. 

Source: collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

In the future, everyone will be a garbage millennial.

mitigatedchaos

I mean, to be honest, you’re right, they’re failing to properly contextualize existing technology because it’s changing so fast.  I’m just saying that if they were more future-oriented, they’d skip right past it to the next set of plausible technologies.  I mean, I’m not running on all pistons and I can come up with this stuff easily enough.

collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

Continuing the theme of that Star Trek discussion, I’ve heard of smart phone apps for calculating artillery trajectories (used in Ukraine) and calling in Airstrikes (used in Syria), but think of how it would look in a piece of fiction to have people use that.  Would they be technically minded serious resourceful Heroes or garbage millennials who are too lazy to calculate their own artillery strikes?

mitigatedchaos

Ah, but obviously they aren’t being serious, or they’d put it in augmented reality glasses as part of a total integration of tactical information in the battlespace.  :)

collapsedsquid

Actually I do remember someone trying something like that.

Yeah, let’s pretend that never happened.

mitigatedchaos

Only television writers would be dumb enough to think that your total immersion AR should involve shooting at your enemies by kickboxing them.

I’m thinkin’ about infantry though.  Honestly, just looking like an FPS UI would be a step up.  It shouldn’t be that hard.