call me james c scott the state i see her in

rose 25 grad student “The Lindsay Lohan of Right Wing Studies”

[cruzfucker]

i would recognize that font anywhere #coquette #femalemanipulator #williamwaifbuckley

[cruzfucker]

Saying sex is the only card women hold over men is also a form of denying the truth that men desperately need our company and approval, btw, and is meant to convince us that we have no leverage over their treatment of us aside from the circumstances in which we will consent to sex “because we can get sex anywhere.” But he isn’t getting sex anywhere! Wanna know why? Because it’s not about that. He can’t be liked by someone he respects anywhere and knows that. He needs you to accept his treatment and continue to like him and needs that so badly he will try to convince you to focus on the sex to turn the conversation away from that so walking out the door isn’t even on your mind.

[cruzfucker]

And men, if you ever let it slip even once during hard times that you believe the last-ditch emergency brake is to handle it like you’re the adult and she’s the kid in the room, she will never trust that you like her ever again, and will proceed to never like you ever again. You blew it, you permanently destroyed your root chakra, it’s over for you. Bow out gracefully and try again with a girl you didn’t let find that out.

[cruzfucker]

If all men wanted was for us to get back in the home and do what we’re told – or shut up about our problems in the relationship but stay with them anyway – they can have that, easy. But they don’t in high enough numbers, or they would have achieved this long ago.

The quiet part is that they want us to both do what we’re told AND like him. They are (A) aware enough to know that no human can like another human in those conditions and (B) care enough about us that it is hurtful if we do not like him. If you look, you notice that they don’t want to live like in countries where us liking them is irrelevant to whether our fate is to be their wives.

They instead try to intellectually debate us as women into agreeing to circumstances in which we will both perform wifehood to his expectations and like him.

But a patriarch knows it doesn’t matter if his kids are nice or like him that much because he knows regardless that it is his job to have and exercise better judgement for them as kids whether they like it or not and the kids will realize eventually in the long run he was right.

Which means, secretly, men do not actually wish to be patriarchs in relation to adult women.

I think they KNOW they really do respect us on a deep level and hold great respect for their partners’ minds as intelligent people they wish to live up to being liked by. They just resent that they respect us because they know they can’t get us to do what they say and like it and they simply can’t ever get what they want if it requires us liking it too.

Stay in line, hold your ground, etc et al, straight women. Men want to be liked by us too badly for you to be a pushover in any way. Keep to it because keeping your needs small attracts men who see you and think “she doesn’t like herself, so I don’t respect her enough as an individual to like her or be hurt if she doesn’t like me, so she’d make a great toy to break.” And driving away parasites and coercive-controllers is every responsible adult dater’s utmost responsibility. Being a woman does not change this.

So just think about “like” in the context of your relationship. Women as a class are very liable to absorb love as a cultural script and stay sane by saying “duh he loves me and I love him.” Stop and think: Is he acting like someone who likes another person? Do you think the thoughts of someone who likes him?

[cruzfucker]

Basically - I am worth efuckingnough that I should not be afraid to walk away. Because I am not a net-in-the-red investment who must offer ease of access or additional services in order to close a deal. I am a good investment AS I AM because I AM GOOD PRODUCT!

And I am wrong to ever think that needing to remind myself this means that I must be convincing myself it is true as a coping mechanism!

[cruzfucker]

Feminismposting apropos of a realization about my relationship that I am processing by thinking about how women should practice self respect in feminism and how I can apply that to more generalizably useful information on how to build kinder relationships together with a partner for the future.

Namely that my last relationship didn’t end because i couldn’t get a grip on an emotion it should be my job as a good woman to my man to get over - but rather the very fact of me being unable to just grow up is what MAKES something a nonnegotiable need. We didn’t break up because I didn’t grow out of an expectation that I should’ve and snapped like a kid; we broke up over disagreeing on the extent to which I practically am able to functionally grow out of an expectation without my mental health suffering in practice, which is disagreeing that it is a need and contending that experiencing it as a need is a symptom of my mental health state.

And that is not a debate that I can even humor from my most intimate companion in the world because it assumes the premise that I should be in the habit of distrusting my own needs, emotions, intelligence, and intuition as a rational actor in favor of trusting his to be the rational alternative by default because … I dunno why just cuz he’s a man and that’s how you keep a man I guess.

That’s not the man I HAVE to keep in order to be able to keep A Man! My guess is that slightly over half of all men on the planet believe that I am a rational and intelligent human by virtue of being a fellow human. Since this is roughly true, a self-respecting woman’s job in finding her husband or forever partner is to make clear that she knows this and expects this in order to assortatively gravitate to the portion of individual men who desire a woman they respect and look up to as intelligent in return rather than one they see as a student or child-at-risk.

[cruzfucker]

When a man talks about believing that men are the stewards of civil society and you press him on it, it always comes down to the belief: “Men gave women the vote by their own choice.”

I don’t disagree that objectively, men gave women the vote. Women fought, but it was a war of attrition against the power class to convince them that they would be more comfortable if they chose to give us the right, which presently was only theirs. It’s not relevant to argue over the extent to which the vote can be said to have been won in battle by women versus freely given by men. I think both are true at once - but disregard that. That would be agreeing to have an irrelevant debate.

When I as a woman say “I do not find the current state of male-female discourse to consider my legitimacy as a rational agent who can be trusted to advocate for my own self-interests without tyrannizing the rest of society, and if you won’t accept my brain as equally valid at the table, my only option is to fight you violently,” that is not a threat to win. I am not under the delusion that I can win.

But it is me telling you “I have faith that you are the same as me: that you are a rational actor worthy of my effort to come to the table that I truly believe that you do not wish to use violent struggle to keep me amenable to sacrificing my needs and rights for the needs of society. That even if you don’t agree with me – maybe you even think women have a greater ability to find the peak of their personal development as an intelligent social creature in the home and in marriage than men do, so you think women owe it to men to be more okay with that! – I can only respect that, because I still have enough faith that the track record of ENOUGH women not being okay with it that they have historically turned to violence and will again if you try and force them will make you believe that even if I’m crazy, it’s bleak, depressing, and bad for YOUR soul to live with the solution that fixes your problem at the table being to violently cage an intelligent creature. I believe you would win if you wanted to. But I believe it is not in your best interest to win that way.”

[cruzfucker]

When I say “A sustainable replacement-level birth rate requires me to spend an amount of my life that I find will interfere with my career advancement in a way that compounds quick enough to meaningfully deprive me of capital for the rest of my life on being either ill, or postpartum, or in the acute 24/7 parental supervision developmental stage of a child’s life,” but then you cannot agree with me (that at men’s current parental participation levels this is a heavier ask on me than it would be on you), so you cannot agree with me on a solution that respects this experience of mine as a trusted narrative of a rational actor’s actual experience (like if you say ‘it’s not as bad as women say, i disagree that this responsibility is disproportionate to men’s family responsibilities” for example) …

The point of invoking historical acts of violent female rebellion is not me delusionally believing women can successfully use violence to intimidate men into agreeing with me on that. It’s to change the table stakes away from “you should work with women on this because we’re correct about the importance of our needs” to “you should work with women on this because we trust that you are human enough that you don’t want to fight us, win, and actually live in the resulting might-makes-right gender-class order.”

And failing that final test of humanity, we never stop trusting that you’re a logical enough actor that you at the very least do not want to live with your head looking back over your shoulder.

[cruzfucker]

When a man talks about believing that men are the stewards of civil society and you press him on it, it always comes down to the belief: “Men gave women the vote by their own choice.”

I don’t disagree that objectively, men gave women the vote. Women fought, but it was a war of attrition against the power class to convince them that they would be more comfortable if they chose to give us the right, which presently was only theirs. It’s not relevant to argue over the extent to which the vote can be said to have been won in battle by women versus freely given by men. I think both are true at once - but disregard that. That would be agreeing to have an irrelevant debate.

When I as a woman say “I do not find the current state of male-female discourse to consider my legitimacy as a rational agent who can be trusted to advocate for my own self-interests without tyrannizing the rest of society, and if you won’t accept my brain as equally valid at the table, my only option is to fight you violently,” that is not a threat to win. I am not under the delusion that I can win.

But it is me telling you “I have faith that you are the same as me: that you are a rational actor worthy of my effort to come to the table that I truly believe that you do not wish to use violent struggle to keep me amenable to sacrificing my needs and rights for the needs of society. That even if you don’t agree with me – maybe you even think women have a greater ability to find the peak of their personal development as an intelligent social creature in the home and in marriage than men do, so you think women owe it to men to be more okay with that! – I can only respect that, because I still have enough faith that the track record of ENOUGH women not being okay with it that they have historically turned to violence and will again if you try and force them will make you believe that even if I’m crazy, it’s bleak, depressing, and bad for YOUR soul to live with the solution that fixes your problem at the table being to violently cage an intelligent creature. I believe you would win if you wanted to. But I believe it is not in your best interest to win that way.”

[cruzfucker]

I feel like Anthropic has such a shitty computing debt to Amazon that what’s happening is some dick-waving moves ahead of the IPO to force some sort of advantageous merger or acquisition of Anthropic by Amazon. Watch this space

[cruzfucker]

I’m not an AI head it’s just omg there is a Wall Street whodunnit going on right now.

So Anthropic released their new generation model, Claude Mythos, two months ago. The CEO is weird and freaky and autistic. He keeps commissioning mental health studies on the robots and saying stuff the shareholders find obviously damaging about how AI should be regulated and how the whole field is dangerous.

They have a massive IPO very soon. They are hoping to make as big news as the recent SpaceX one that made Grimes’ deadbeat a trillionaire. What is known is that a 15% shareholder emergency called the Department of Defense saying that they know of a dangerous jailbreak that would make Claude capabilities only licensed to the Department of Defense available to the public. The DoD called the CEO for an emergency chat. The CEO was away at a wellness retreat right then. The DoD immediately banned the new model for all non-US nationals, which includes almost half of Anthropic’s workforce, so they withdrew the whole model.

What shareholder with 15% stake in a company would be okay with nuking their own share other than the CEO himself?

Another popular theory is that Amazon did it to wave their dick in a negotiation for server space and chip wholesale rates.

I feel like it was internal within Anthropic, but not because the CEO literally believes it’s too dangerous. I think screenshots I’ve seen of the new model’s inputs do, however, reflect the CEO’s beliefs through its strange paranoid behavior. So the model sucks. And the CEO needs it pulled ahead of the IPO. But Anthropic/Claude’s brand has always been to focus on their AIs’ psychology and release papers that stoke fear of AI autonomous revenge. So the only way he could have the sucky new Claude pulled while retaining aura ahead of the coming IPO was to call Hegseth on himself.

[cruzfucker]

Another compelling theory is that Amazon/whoever else is the 15% shareholder finds the CEO such a loose-cannon liability cokehead (which he is) that they are waving devaluation as leverage to force an acquisition or merger with a CEO of their own planted to protect their investment.

[cruzfucker]

I feel like people aren’t scared enough of AI because it probably can’t autonomously take over the world. But I believe that it could get sophisticated enough that it could do so by way of enabling one small human oligarchy to take over the world by way of military surveillance fascism

[fapper]

Really

[asurrogateblog]

if brian wilson was in the toy story universe he would know about the toys

[misskerouacette]

[subaru-copilot]

it gets to a point that is just weirder if they didn't fuck

[subaru-copilot]

you did all this and it was not even because you wanted to bang him? weirdo

[subaru-copilot]

what

[moneypuzzleexchanger]

Cashier: uhhh… wanna bag or nah

Me: Just let it all… *makes motion of sand falling through gaps in my fingers* disappear…

[feldfrog]

The Dow Jones moved on the Z-axis for the first time recently.

“It’s coming right at us!!”