I’m going to take a brief break from the ongoing series to discuss an important topic. Frequent readers will read-between-the-lines and know exactly why this is applicable to that discussion.
I recently called “Habitually Being Wrong” one of my most relevant posts in my article “Cowboy Hats,” where I discussed the trend of confidently speaking things that are wrong (and trivially disproved). There I gave a growing list of other articles on this topic…
“Everyone’s a Genius”
“Absolutely Mystified”
“It’s Always Someone Else’s Problem”
“Anonymity and Plagiarism”
“Deti on Hypocrisy”
“Sectarianism”
“The Living Voice”
“Ambiguity in the Bible”
“1 Corinthians 14:34-35” (footnote 1)
…to which I now add this one.
The main thrust of these posts is most men are hardly interested at all in finding the truth. Bruce Charlton recently captured this in his typically clear and concise manner:
I don’t debate with people who are stupid or dishonest and invertedly misrepresent my clearly expressed views (what would be the point?); but the question of “reality” (used three times!) is presumably one of science, history and the like.
That is something that Ought to be discussable and where discussion Ought to be able to lead to mutually acceptable progress…
However I know from extensive (well publicized, in its day) personal experience that this is no longer the case, even among “scientists” and “academics” where it really used to happen, as recently as forty years ago (see my 2012 book Not Even Trying).
The problem is that Extremely Few people nowadays are genuinely interested in the truth of what they are pretending to discuss – their real major priorities are quite otherwise, usually covert, and sometimes denied.
I concluded a long time (15 years?) ago, that argument nowadays is futile, as a very strong generalization; and I have always regretted it when I neglected my own advice!
Recently Pseudonymous Commenter—whose ideas are discussed around here regularly—made another unsubstantiated claim:
The last thing is that people in the US and even the West just don’t know anything at all about war or what it is like. I’ll admit I don’t know. I know only what I’ve read and seen in the old WWII documentaries, and then Korea, and Vietnam. And those things are horrible enough.
Most people in the US have never handled a firearm. Most people have never been shot, shot at, or even had a loaded weapon drawn on them. Most men have never been in a real close combat situation with hand to hand fighting. Most people don’t know how to defend themselves in those situations, because they’ve never had to. Most people in the US have never even been in so much as a stupid bar fight or street fight.
Something sounded very strange about that claim. So, per my usual practice, I subjected it to my patented Ultra Google Sanity Check™, where I put a claim into the search bar and click the first link to see if any effort at all was made to verify the claim. Here we go:
A major new report from the Pew Research Center has analyzed U.S. attitudes towards guns. The study found that 48 percent of Americans grew up in a household with a gun while 42 percent currently live in a household with one. It also found that seven-in-ten U.S. adults have fired a gun at some point in their lives while 28 percent have never fired one.
There you go.
Well, nobody is right 100% of the time. I guess 99% is good enough.
So, the next time you are tempted to think that I’m living in a bubble, that I don’t know what I’m talking about, or that I’m perseverating over unimportant details like truth, remember this.
NOTE: An update to this post is found in this comment below.
If I write long or substantive comments, they tell me that these are long screeds and polemics that I should only write on my blog. If I write short comments, they tell me that these are not substantial enough and it means I’m a troll or a coward. Notice that I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. These criticisms are clearly not leveled at me in good faith. This alone should explain why I don’t cater to their demands.
i forgot to comment on this before.
”redpillers” are like the women in this videohttps://rumble.com/v5a2km3-women-want-fried-ice-and-men-are-taking-note.html
Women Want Fried Ice & Men Are Taking Note( ”women want fried ice” or ”fried ice” was made famous in the Roissyosphere/manosphere around 2012/13)
GBFM knows how one day they claim lack of success means everything when its a woke film going broke,but NOTHING when it’s their site/blog going for years with little to no pagehits or comments(especially compared to certain times e.g. 2021 at their site/blog)
Conclusions?
Just be like GBFM has always been and keep doing your own thang your way and good things will more than likely eventually happen.
i think Pseudonymous Commenter, Pseudonymous Commenter Taiwan , Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas, Pseudonymous Commenter Mike Davis/wilside50, and Pseudonymous Commenter manosphere troll#1 bgr=larry solomon= Matt Perkins need to read this study https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/miscellaneous-resources/start-here-evolution-has-not-prepared-your-brain-for-todays-porn/
Y’all pushing p@rn on kids(especially poor Tom the Kiwi’s at SpawnySpace’s kids you nutball ”male” porn sickos!), MEN, Church, and society is NOT funny, ethical, or ”Christian” brahs!
Start here: Evolution has not prepared your brain for today’s porn
chart
This article is a short synopsis of some key concepts about porn and your brain. For the science behind it, please follow all the links and read this page. Some links go to our articles, which in turn link to studies. For a more in-depth understanding and further evidence see The Research Page. For specific content explore Porn FAQs.
What happens when you drop a male rat into a cage with a receptive female rat? First, you see a frenzy of copulation. Then, progressively, the male tires of that particular female. Even if she wants more, he has had enough. However, replace the original female with a fresh one, and the male immediately revives and gallantly struggles to fertilize her. You can repeat this process with fresh females until he is completely wiped out.
This is called the Coolidge effect—the automatic response to novel mates. Interestingly, men ejaculate more motile sperm and they do it more quickly when they view a novel porn star. This powerful automatic response to erotic novelty is what started you down the road to getting hooked on internet porn.
Like that lab rat, you have a primitive mechanism in your brain urging you to fertilize the two-dimensional females, males (or whatever) on your screen. (Note: The Coolidge effect also occurs in females. Studies show that, when given the opportunity, hunter-gatherer females are no less promiscuous than males.)
Primitive circuits in your brain govern emotions, drives, impulses, and subconscious decision-making. They do their jobs so efficiently that evolution hasn’t seen the need to change them much since before humans were humans.
More dopamine, please
For you, rats, and all mammals, the desire and motivation to pursue sex arise largely from a neurochemical called dopamine. Dopamine amps up the centerpiece of the primitive part of the brain—the reward system. It’s where we experience cravings and pleasure, and where we get addicted.
more dopamine please, porn
The ancient reward circuitry compels you to do things that further your survival and pass on your genes. At the top of our human reward list are food, sex, love, friendship, and novelty. These are called ‘natural reinforcers,’ as contrasted with addictive chemicals.
The evolutionary purpose of dopamine is to motivate you to do what serves your genes. The bigger the squirt, the more you want something. No dopamine and you just ignore it. Chocolate cake and ice cream—a big blast. Celery—not so much. Sexual stimulation offers the biggest natural blast of dopamine available to your reward circuitry. One of dopamine’s nicknames is the “molecule of addiction” because it plays a central role in all addictions.
Dopamine
Although dopamine is often referred to as a “pleasure molecule,” this is not technically accurate. Dopamine is mostly about seeking and searching for rewards, the anticipation, the wanting. Dopamine provides the motivation and drive to pursue potential rewards or long term goals. Although controversial and far from settled, the final “reward” or good feelings arise largely from opioids (and cannabinoids). Put simply – dopamine is wanting, opioids are liking.
As psychologist Susan Weinschenk explained, the neurotransmitter dopamine does not cause people to experience pleasure, but rather causes a seeking behavior. “Dopamine causes us to want, desire, seek out, and search,” she wrote. It is the opioid system that causes one to feel pleasure. Yet, “the dopamine system is stronger than the opioid system,” she explained. “We seek more than we are satisfied.” Addiction may be thought of as wanting run amok.
Novelty, novelty, more novelty
Dopamine surges for novelty. A new car, just-released movie, the latest gadget…we are all pursuing hits of dopamine. As with everything new the thrill fades away as dopamine plummets.
Novel porn made men’s erections stronger (Wilson)
Here’s how the Coolidge effect works: The rat’s reward circuitry is squirting less and less dopamine with respect to the current female, but produces a big dopamine surge for a new female. Does that sound familiar?
Not surprisingly, rats and humans aren’t that different when it comes to response to novel sexual stimuli. For example, when Australian researchers (graph) displayed the same erotic film repeatedly, test subjects’ penises and subjective reports both revealed a progressive decrease in sexual arousal. The “same old same old” just gets boring. Habituation indicates declining dopamine.
After 18 viewings—just as the test subjects were nodding off—researchers introduced novel erotica for the 19th and 20th viewings. Bingo! The subjects and their penises sprang to attention. (Yes, women showed similar effects.)
Clicking for novelty
Internet porn is especially enticing to the reward circuitry because novelty is always just a click away. It could be a novel “mate,” unusual scene, strange sexual act, or—you fill in the blank. With multiple tabs open and clicking for hours, you can experience more novel sex partners every ten minutes than our hunter-gatherer ancestors experienced in a lifetime. Research confirms that anticipation of reward and novelty amplify one another to increase excitement and rewire the limbic brain. Internet porn is what scientists call a supernormal stimulus. These are stimuli that are exaggerated (perhaps synthetic) versions of normal stimuli, which we falsely perceive as extraordinarily valuable.
Supernormal Stimulus
It was Nobel laureate Nikolaas Tinbergen who years ago coined the term supernormal stimulus (or supranormal). He discovered that birds, butterflies, and other animals could be duped into preferring fake eggs and mates. Female birds, for example, struggled to sit on Tinbergen’s larger-than life, vividly spotted plaster eggs while their own pale, dappled eggs perished untended.
evolution and supernormal stimulus
Humans, like the birds, appraise the value of a stimulus via reward circuit activation. This is why sexual excitement releases the highest levels of dopamine and opioids – reproduction is Job One for your genes.
With internet porn, it’s not just the unending sexual novelty that buzzes our reward system. Dopamine fires up for other emotions and stimuli too, all of which often feature prominently when using internet porn:
Strong emotions – such as guilt, disgust, embarrassment, anxiety & fear
Seeking and searching – the reward circuit is often called the seeking circuit
Anything that violates expectations – shock, surprise, or more than we could have imagined
Powerful novelty
Erotic words and pictures have been around a long time. So has the neurochemical rush from novel mates. Yet the novelty of a once-a-month Playboy evaporates as soon as you turn the pages. Would anyone call Playboy or softcore videos “shocking” or “anxiety-producing?” Would either violate the expectations of a computer-literate boy over the age of 12? Neither compares with the “searching and seeking” of a multiple-tab Google porn prowl. What makes internet porn unique is that you can keep your dopamine jacked up with the click of a mouse or tap on a screen.”
Conclusion?
You Cains helped Satanic Feminism finish off Marriage and Western Civilization as ye still plead ”INNOCENT!!, INNOCENT!!, INNOCENT!!!”While the blood of all the poor modern Abel’s still dripping on your idolatrous and adulterous hands!
33 You [a]serpents, you spawn of vipers, how can you escape the penalty of hell?-Matthew 23:33Amplified Bible
YEAH, how will ye!?
Interestingly, my husband fought plenty. As a teen and a young adult pre-marriage. Has had a knife pulled on him and had to fight his way out of that. As horrible as it is, these realities admittedly make me feel safer in his presence when we are in a strange place.
However, after we married, he promptly moved his family into a community where this was a non-issue. There are young men under 30 (including one who wants to be our SIL), who have never had a fist fight. Ever. My husband has expressed his concern over these guys’ ability to protect their brides.
However, we believe that given the right mentoring and that he isn’t an out and out wuss, most men can and will protect their families. The God-designed instinct (science has isolated this hormone as vasopressin, the protective, aggression hormone) will allow him to do no less.
Today’s men are indeed way, way softer than my dad’s generation, or even my generation, but the folks who say this stuff are no more equipped for SHTF than anyone else. it’s all speculation and conjecture because we’ve all been living in the fog of comfort for the last 60 years.
Elspeth,
Has had a knife pulled on him and had to fight his way out of that. As horrible as it is, these realities admittedly make me feel safer in his presence when we are in a strange place.
The “bubble” of assortative pairing and homophily is truly wild. People are quite diverse.
As an Anabaptist—where violence is more-or-less forbidden—your experience is not only very different from my own, but likely mutually exclusive. Do you remember the Amish school shooting and how they doubled down on a non-violent response?
The Manosphere has been, shall we say “unkind,” to this particular point-of-view.
After we married, he promptly moved his family into a community where this was a non-issue.
My own experience is a bit more complicated.
After we married, we lived Philadelphia for a few years. My wife—a small, young, pretty white woman—once walked alone at night down the street in a mostly all-black neighborhood past a bunch of armed robbers who were literally minutes away from hitting up a local business. She saw them, crossed to the other side of the road, and quickly left them alone.
Other times we’d take walks around the neighborhood, and we’d get jeered (for being white, of course) and she’d get cat-called (with me there, of course). But we were never physically confronted.
Once we could, we bought a house and moved to a safer community, just as you did.
Leftists like to call that “White Flight” to make certain people feel guilty, but as I’ve noted in the past, this “Flight” happens routinely by members of all races. It’s just another assortative process.
I’ve lived in evangelical farm country, in the all-white hills of West Virginia, in the all-black city neighborhood, on a college campus in a flaming liberal state, and in the modern American suburb. My family and extended family is multicultural. I’ve even dined with a family where we didn’t speak a language in common. I’ve experienced so many subcultures (including many not mentioned here), but I’ve probably not even touched a small fraction of them all. My wife has experienced even more than I have.
The Dalrockian Manosphere puts men and women in a big box. I’ve always found it to be overly simplistic, which is why I’ve always denied being a part of it.
Today’s men are indeed way, way softer than my dad’s generation, or even my generation, but the folks who say this stuff are no more equipped for SHTF than anyone else. it’s all speculation and conjecture because we’ve all been living in the fog of comfort for the last 60 years.
The reality is that if there is a worldwide solar catastrophe (as is predicted to occur in the next few decades), most of us won’t survive the resulting barbarity. The best we can hope for is that we chose a community that won’t resort to base instincts. No amount of individual brawn will be enough to fend off a mob intent on death.
Peace,
DR
Pretty sure that Cameron and I, despite our vast outward differences, experienced some similarities in our growing up environments.
I agree that homophily is real, but it’s also fluid. Anecdotally (yes, I know), I see it throughout our circle. A bunch of people of various ethnos, socio-economic backgrounds, etc., have formed a very tight-knit community as Reformed, Puritan-reading and admiring, classical educating fellow travelers. Niche to be sure.
The people we had affinity with today has evolved dramatically over the past 25 years. If I described the wanna be SIL, it’s family of origin far different from ours, but the cultural overlap of the two current families over the past 25 years is extremely similar.
It’s important because your point about one man’s individual brawn being useless is 100% correct. The propensity of Americans to advocate an “every-man-for-himself-so-don’t-care-about-anyone-outside-your-household” mentality is a fast track to a swift demise should the worst happen.
Thanks for the thoughtful dialog, Derek!
Elspeth,
I agree that homophily is real, but it’s also fluid.
Just as with yours, my own life attests to that.
The people we had affinity with today has evolved dramatically over the past 25 years.
That sounds very much like my own experience. I’ve come a long way from an Anabaptist farming culture (though I’ve not rejected it). I adopted three kids from China, and our extended family is mixed.
Pretty sure that Cameron and I, despite our vast outward differences, experienced some similarities in our growing up environments.
I’ve inferred the same thing. I also find it interesting how many of the people who comment on this blog have a more than casual direct connection to Florida.
Due to my daughter’s medical needs, my wife lived in Florida apart from me for about half a year. I got to experience some of what Liz has experienced as the wife of a military husband. And I must say, I do not enjoy being a single parent of three kids.
Thanks for the thoughtful dialog, Derek!
I appreciate your comments. I know that your interests and mine do not always intersect, so I appreciate those times when it does. You are always welcome to contribute.
Peace,
DR
Elspeth, both our environments were at one time home to a particular famous woman!
I think our hometowns had some similarities. The north side of our town was pretty rough. Two of my schools were in that area – my sister teaches there now. East Gainesville was pretty rough too. Just a few miles from that great big university is a lot of poverty. At least there was back then.
Like you though Elspeth I had a loving father – that makes a big difference.
Grew up in a home full of rifles, shotguns. Never touched them, I knew my father would kill me if I took one without asking first. If I asked…..he would gladly show me, and let me use one (targets et al)
Never had to use one to “defend” the home growing up.
Had a handgun pulled on me when I worked at 7-11 in Fresno. Yes, it was real. Yes, register opened immediately and cash given. You want cigarettes to? Yup, here you go. Your friend is emptying the cooler with beer? Yes, my hands are up. Take it.
Locked store, called police and owner immediately after the robbery. Had their license plate. Descriptions. Police response? “We’re in shift change right now and in a shift briefing and we cant get someone out to take a statement until 11AM” (it was 5 AM)
Hence why I dont buy this “back the badge / blue no matter what”. If I had used self defense, I would have been arrested immediately AND if it was the mayors home. Their own home. They would have had the force deployed. Fast.
The robbery was never solved despite cameras, license plates, full descriptions and a police barracks / substation only four blocks away……..and even if they were caught. Nothing would have happened to them.
As for guns………most Americans have zero clue what they would do if someone pulled a gun on them, or indeed they actually had to a kill a man in their own city / town. Its not like the movies or TV at all.
As for gun rights? During a real SHTF, I mean REAL one…….you and your family will be ZERO match for the Government forces, local police or swat teams if they rolled up n your house. And I dont buy this “the military / police / law enforcement would never shoot on their own fellow citizens. ”
They would and they will.
After seeing the news, state of the world and whats happening everywhere….and its acceleration post 2019……..I am convinced they would and will.
I’ve told my kids more-or-less the same thing you describe here.
I will also add. After the robbery, and I locked up and called the police and owner. I slowly slid down behind the counter, shaking uncontrollably. I started to cry in relief that I wasnt shot and also in fear that the “new reality” in the USA we’re living in.
When the owner arrived. He did give me the next two days off with pay. Robbery like this in Fresno is so common, the local news didnt even come out to report on it.
When I got home, I dry heaved a bit, probably from nerves.
I would imagine this would be the normal reaction for many who grew up in a fear free home, school and community
I’ve never had a run-in with someone brandishing a firearm, but I have experienced a violent interaction involving a pointy object that—in the aftermath—left me in the ER thinking I was having a heart attack.
And there have been times when I wouldn’t let the kids play outside.
And I dont buy this “the military / police / law enforcement would never shoot on their own fellow citizens. ”
They would and they will.
They already did in June 1932:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-1932-bonus-army.htm
The 1932 Bonus Army
National Mall and Memorial Parks
Throughout its history, Washington, DC has been the destination of demonstrators seeking to promote a wide variety of causes. Most of the time, the gatherings have been peaceful. One of the exceptions was the Bonus army in March of 1932.
After victory in World War I, the US government promised in 1924 that servicemen would receive a bonus for their service, in 1945. The bonus was also known as the “Tombstone Bonus.” Then, the Great Depression hit, beginning with the stock market collapse of 1929. By 1932, the Depression was still dragging on, with no end in sight. Out of sheer desperation, some of the veterans decided to march on Washington to ask for the bonus right away.
If the movement had an official beginning, it would have been in Portland, Oregon. 400 veterans had gathered there by May 17, 1932, under the leadership of a fellow veteran, Walter M. Waters. They began a long trek to Washington aboard a freight train, loaned to them for free by the rail authorities. After exiting the train in Iowa on May 18 they hitched rides and walked the rest of the way to Washington. Smaller splinter groups reached the capital on their own. By June 1, some 1,500 men, some with their families, were in Washington.
They camped out in homemade shanty towns. The major sites included 12th Street and B Street, NW (the latter is now Constitution Avenue), 3rd Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, and the largest, 30 acre site on the Anacostia Flats.
The Anacostia site was given the name Camp Bartlett, after its owner John H. Bartlett, former Assistant Postmaster General and former Governor of New Hampshire who let the veterans camp there.
It was also on June 1 that DC police superintendent, Brigadier General Pelham D. Glassford, first entered the picture. In the coming weeks, he was to prove more sympathetic to the men than the other authorities, and they appreciated it. He asked Congress for $75,000 to feed the marchers, a request that was turned down.
Two weeks later the US House of Representatives did in fact vote to provide the bonus, but the US Senate rejected it. President Herbert Hoover had promised the veto the bill. Things stayed in an unsettled condition for the next few weeks, with some veterans leaving but even more arriving, until their number reached somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000.
Then, on July 28, the Hoover administration sent in the army and police to expel the marchers from Washington. The troops were led by General Douglas MacArthur, who would later serve in World War II and in the Korean War. His troops included infantry and cavalry and numbered 800, though an additional 2,700 were kept in reserve nearby, in case they were needed.
Another World War II name, George S. Patton, was also taking part. Sadly enough, one of the people he routed was a Joe Angelo, who had saved Patton’s life in World War I, by dragging the wounded Patton into a nearby shell hole and staying with him through the night. Patton now said, “Undoubtedly this man saved my life, but his several accounts of the incident vary from the true facts.”
The bonus veterans were in no mood to leave, so the army began using tear gas and bayonets to drive them away, and employing torches to set fire to the shanty towns. The camp at 3rd Street and Pennsylvania Avenue also saw something new in American history: five tanks, armed with machine guns, rumbling about the streets of Washington.
How did the army troops feel about doing this? One claimed, “We hate this more than they do, but they brought it on themselves.”
Some veterans retreated to Camp Bartlett, figuring they might be left in peace there, for the government’s orders were to clear federal land, while Camp Bartlett was on private property. It didn’t help, the army had orders to clear Camp Bartlett too.
While all this was going on across the city, many civilian Washingtonians were caught up in the violence, many trying to escape the clouds of tear gas. One bystander kept shouting at the troops, “The American flag means nothing to me after this.” MacArthur threatened to have the man arrested, who promptly quieted down.
There was one fatality. A veteran named William Hashka, from Chicago, was caught in police fire near the US Capitol.
After it was all over, the authorities involved gave their reactions. President Hoover released a statement on July 28, in which he twice referred to “so-called bonus marchers,” and added, “An examination of a large number of names discloses the fact that a considerable part of those remaining are not veterans; many are Communists and persons with criminal records.”
MacArthur added, “It was animated by the essence of revolution.” He added that only about 10% of the men driven away from the camps were actually genuine veterans.
On July 29, Vice President Charles Curtis was making a speech in Las Vegas, when hecklers raised the events in Washington. Curtis shouted back, “You cowards, I’m not afraid of any of you.”
Also on July 29, General Glassford denied that he had wanted the troops to clear out the camps, or that his police couldn’t have handled the situation peacefully, before violence broke out. He also blamed the removal order for causing all the trouble, and had opposed the use of troops.
As for the newspapers of that day, the Associated Press released a list briefly describing their editorial reactions. Out of 30 papers, 21 more or less supported the government’s response. The Ohio State Journal, of Columbus, Ohio, for instance, wrote: “President Hoover chose the course that Lincoln chose, that presidents have always chosen.”
i also don’t have to remind you of cops that shoot pets first and NEVER ask questions ever?
https://www.puppycidedb.com/
The Puppycide
Database Project
The first nationwide database tracking police shootings of animals.
The Puppycide Database Project (or “PuppycideDB”, for short) was founded in 2014 in an attempt to determine how many domestic pets were killed by law enforcement in the United States. For years, a team of volunteers used public records, news stories and interviews to compile evidence of nearly 3,000 killings of pets by police. 3,000 is a large number, but it represents a small fraction of the pets that are killed by law enforcement in the US. The research project is no longer active, but this website remains available to document our findings.
the first time i knew about a cop doing that was 30+ years ago(to a pitbull) and like everything else has only gotten much worse.
Let’s get to the heart of why I wrote this post, and why it became even more relevant almost immediately.
In the OP I wrote against the idea that I am living in a bubble:
“So, the next time you are tempted to think that I’m living in a bubble…”
The Pseudonymous Commenter took issue with this secondary point:
(To be clear, the Commenter didn’t use the word “living in a bubble” to describe me, and I never said he did. Mine was an oblique ‘paraphrase’.)
The purpose of this post and the ones that came before it is not to insist that anyone be 100% right. Rather it highlights the difference between trying and not even trying.
When someone makes a serious claim about something I said, I look into it to try to discover the truth. Usually this occurs invisibly behind the scenes and often results in me quietly removing offending material. Some of my readers think I shouldn’t do that (e.g. saying that I shouldn’t give personal attacks a second glance), but here we are.
Now, the Commenter’s claim is a more difficult thing to verify than utilizing the Ultra Google Sanity Check™ (where I put a claim into the search bar and click the first link to see if any effort at all was made to verify the claim). But, I have the ability to easily search all posts and comments that I have ever made on this blog. So, other than my statement in the OP, below are all the times I’ve mentioned bubbles.
Let’s see if I’ve ever applied the idiom “living in a bubble” to myself (hint: I have not) and Cameron (hint: I did, but it was a mistake, and so do so no longer).
———————————————————————————
On Feb 25, 2025, I said that people—like myself (and Cameron)—who can step outside the bubble can accept that the Red Pill is wrong:
———————————————————————————
On Feb 24, 2025, I said that the Dalrockian Manosphere subject to rampant ideological tribalism, which includes assortative pairing, selection, subcultures, and bubbles:
Earlier that day, I had written that assortative mating, selection, subcultures, and bubbles were driven by “the tendency of people to form relationships with others who are similar to them.” I noted that it takes effort—something I’ve done, by the way—to form relationships with those who are different from them. In particular, I noted that I was aware of multiple bubbles in which Red Pill principles would not apply to all of them and may even be actively harmful:
———————————————————————————
On Feb 20, 2025, speaking as someone who was not living in a bubble (i.e. one who understands what life is like for people in different bubbles), I had thought Cameron was living in a bubble (he later provided additional context against my misconception):
In particular, being inside a subculture is a bubble if you don’t know what life is like for those outside of it. Later Cameron demonstrated that he does understand it, and so I don’t think he is, in fact, “living in a bubble.” I was wrong about that.
In that same comment I introduced the concept of “bubbles” in terms of marital prospects in local environments subject to heavy assortative selection. Notably, I said that everyone lives in a little world, or subculture, that is a biased subset of the whole, not a bubble:
I didn’t call this “living in a bubble” (or even a “bubble” at all) for a very important reason:
>Living in a bubble means to live in one’s own world, completely isolated from what is happening all around. A person living in a bubble can’t see or perceive events around him as he is too engrossed in the little world he has created for himself.
While this definition of “living in a bubble” describes the case of the Red Pill comment I made above, the comment here was just a “descriptive fact” in the context of subcultures. Subcultures simply are. Nor did I imply any sense of complete isolation—i.e. ignorance—of what was going on outside in general, because I said “world” and (later) “bubble” and not “living in a bubble” which are different things.
Regardless, I was speaking in the context of mate selection, something that does not apply to already married men like myself, Cameron, or the Pseudonymous Commenter. We were not the subject of this analysis.
The bubble of marital prospects (through assortative mating) occurs within the individual subculture that everyone has. But this “bubble” is just reflective of the fact that who you have the opportunity to interact with and potentially date and marry is highly restricted by your subculture (and personal preferences).
Notice that I said “if you look elsewhere.” A person in an assortative mating bubble is not stuck inside it. They can easily try to look elsewhere. They always have the option to attempt homogamy or hypergamy, but doing so increases their chance of relationship failure and divorce risk. This particular bubble is one that people should stay inside but—according to proponents of hypergamy—do not.
———————————————————————————
On September 9, 2024, I wrote that these subcultures are selected for IQ. Without getting into personal details, I am able to say this because I have copious experience with individuals across the spectrum (i.e. I’m not in the bubble that I see).
———————————————————————————
On March 20, 2024 I said that personal bubbles are “often unavoidable” but didn’t say anything more specific than that.
Earlier that same day I wrote that I find it hard to imagine living in a bubble where relationships with women could not be peaceful and cooperative, where they must be constantly combative.
I found it difficult to even imagine living in that kind of bubble, without access to a steady supply of good marriages (considering the 60% success rate of first time marriages). It almost surprises me that it is even possible.
This of course implies that there are “bubbles”—different environments—where divorce almost never happens, and places where divorce almost always happens.
———————————————————————————
On March 13, 2024 I suggested that Deti lives in a bubble clouded by—or influenced by—negative experiences:
This claim seems to have remained accurate.
———————————————————————————
And, that’s it. Those are all the times I’ve mentioned ‘bubble.’ I’ve never explicitly said that I was in a bubble.
Given my common practice, perhaps the Commenter is paraphrasing my discussion of background experiences as a child and young adult. Here is what I wrote on Feb 20, 2025:
That was “my [biased] background.” But “having left that,” I’m not now living in that—if you will—bubble. The whole point of that narrative that I have ceased living in ignorance of other subcultures. My ability to do so proves that I’m not currently “living in a bubble” even if I once was.
Other than that, perhaps I used a near-synonym of “bubble” or described a bubble using different words. He didn’t link or quote anything I said to support a paraphrase, so I can’t verify his claim about me. If you know what it is, please post it below where I’ll see it.
———————————————————————————
One other thing. The Commenter again makes the same error he made months ago when he said I was obsessed with him and called me a liar. Then the mob got all riled up. He made this mistake because he lacks omniscience. He keeps making this mistake:
He hasn’t figured it out yet. He keeps drawing the wrong conclusions and rushing to judgment. This is rather illustrative of the point behind the series of articles on this topic, he just doesn’t know why (and, as the aggressor, he isn’t owed an explanation). I told him he was wrong and his accusations were slander. But, he won’t accept this correction nor repent of calling me a liar.
Based on the claim “Most people in the US have never handled a firearm” the Pseudonymous Commenter most probably—as in probability—lives in (or grew up in) one of these states (ordered by gun ownership)…
…and/or around one of the major cities in the United States that has aggressively tried to limit legal gun ownership like New York City (here) or Chicago (here).
It seems hard to believe he could live in one of the places where gun ownership is high…
…and still make that kind of claim.
When I talk about subcultures leading to radically different impressions (e.g. with divorce and hypergamy here), this is the kind of thing I’m talking about.
The difference between New Jersey (14.7%) and Montana (66.3%) is almost 5x! Forget subcultures, it’s like living in a different country.
MOD,
Did you see this Joker video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR3WY-n7_mw
Gen Z women discover THEY better ask MEN out, or they don’t date at all.
Better Bachelor
475K subscribers
How did they NOT know most MEN are NOT looking to game, chat u,p or sex up women today?
It’s like Deti thinking all MEN are so lusting after sex(”MENZ CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT SEX LADS LIKE I COULDN’T SOME 32+YEARS AGO”) like him and his Al Bundy/”NO’MAAM”=National Organization Against Amazonian Masterhood”-type friends out in the Midwest.