Show more
lachs0r boosted

@lain built a thing with an espressobin

seems like the least shitty ARM platform, apart from a few minor issues that can be fixed by flashing a newer u-boot

lachs0r boosted
@josh @kaniini @rabcyr yeah the ones who identify with the label are def the least pleasant to be around. it's a big red flag for me when people are enthusiastic about being trans - it's like saying "cancer is awesome i love having cancer and also everyone without cancer is a fucking nazi"

@lain sadly i don’t think that’s microsoft’s strategy anymore

they’re just trying very hard to make windows an attractive platform for webshits (hence the “improved” terminal, wsl, vs code, etc.)

@velartrill I’m more inclined to take pity with these people rather than outright hate them, though. It also comes as no surprise to me that such a movement would have its origins in America, and that there’s so much overlap with anarchism. People increasingly feel like they’re losing control over their lives, especially in that country.

@velartrill imo these phrases and the entire woke movement are a sign of a radical type of individualism where the entire world revolves around you (“self-actualization”) and has to bend over and suffer for your sake, even if it’s to your own detriment (“empowerment“).

@rin at least megatools exist, but yeah hosters like that are fucking cancer. fwiw I don’t like piracy on either because that’s what bittorrent is for.

@velartrill the thing the woke brigade just doesn’t seem to get is that much of the recent scientific research around gender issues is focusing on finding neurological explanations for what we’ve already known to be true for many years. fields like neuropsychology are still very very new, so it is unsurprising that not a lot of work has been done on this subject. in other words: none of this research is about proving that gender differences with biological causes exist — it’s about better understanding how they’re influenced by things like brain functioning. so naturally, this area of research viewed on its own provides few clear-cut answers.

but of course, the woke brigade pretends like this renders the entire concept of biological gender differences invalid, obstinately ignoring all the evidence to the contrary — even their own experiences.

my own two cents: let’s assume the brains of men and women, despite their physiological differences, operate largely the same way. even so, it is known beyond the shadow of a doubt that hormones influence behavior and emotions — and that sex hormones also influence the release of other types of hormones, such as serotonin. and as anyone who has had the bad fortune of being prescribed SSRIs can attest, messing with your serotonin levels has a major effect on your cognition, perception, behavior, parts of the nervous system etc.

it is also an explanation for why women are so much more likely to suffer from depression than men — i strongly believe that there’s more to that than sociological causes.

lachs0r boosted
lachs0r boosted
lachs0r boosted

this article is mostly things i already knew but it does a very good job of presenting them in a very clear and unapologetic way. it also sparked some thoughts that i wanted to share and hear people's reaction to.

i want to say in advance that i do not believe (nor necessarily disbelieve) my own experiences and feelings here are universal or even commonplace among women. i'm an outlier in a number of important ways; perhaps most saliently, i have avoidant and borderline personality disorders which i'm told seriously warp my values and priorities. (incidentally, bpd is interpreted by the manosphere as an extreme amplification of normal female behavior and thought processes. take from this what you will.) however, common behavior trends among normal women that seem self-destructive and irrational to men make perfect sense to me - i just don't know if it's for the same reason that it makes sense to the women who engage in them.

alexander talks about the well-known "nice guys finish last" phenomenon, where women are strongly inclined to treat friendly, respectful men exclusively as friend material, and almost exclusively take aggressive, brash, confident, sometimes violent men as lovers. (feminists are largely convinced, contrary to all evidence, that they have debunked this idea.) i have very mixed feelings about how what my reaction to this phenomenon should be, but before i get to why i want to dissect one of the common excuses psychologists use to handwave this behavior and why they ring hollow to me.

"yeah, he hit me, but i know i can change him!!" does this line sound familiar? one of the weirder ideas that has gotten lodged in the vast, seething memeplex that is western culture is the idea that women feel a responsibility to moderate and improve their male partners, or at the very least that battered women will refuse to leave their abusive spouse out of the belief that they can somehow fix their husband's violent tendencies, that if they just work at it enough, they can make everything okay and the marriage will work out in the end. i don't have any statistics on hand for this so i can't comment on its reality. however, i sure can comment on the unique spin psychologists put on this: that women don't just rationalize staying with abusers, but will actively seek out violent men out of a desire to fix them.

i'm pretty sure this is bullshit, but i'm also pretty sure it's a bumbling misinterpretation of a very real phenomenon. lemme tell you about some of my own experiences.

i have not, historically, been particularly lucky in love. i've hand a handful of partners over the years and all of them (with the singular exception of my current boyfriend, who has shown me all the love, kindness, compassion, and care i could ever have hoped for) have been to various degrees neglectful or outright abusive. i freely admit that i am profoundly attracted to broken people, so much so that it swamps pretty much all of my other sexual preferences. historically, this hasn't worked out well for me, and i've made plenty of my own excuses to justify staying with and loving people who were treating me like dirt (and in at least one case, almost certainly never actually loved me at all). i'm sure i sounded like a stereotypical battered girlfriend to the friends who tried to convince me to gtfo of there - but i still don't feel that i was wrong about it all.

let me give you some context before continuing.

when my friends or partners or relatives are allergic to therapists or just haven't been able to find a good one, i'm generally the person they end up turning to. this has been the case for most of my adult life, and has ranged from college classmates to frantic online queers to parents to partners and older friends with more life experience. when we were alone together my grandmother would open up to me about things she'd never told anyone else, and when she passed away, my mother - who had a single bad experience with marriage counseling and refused to ever see a therapist again - came to rely on me to help her find her way through the trauma and cope with the stress and pain of being the executor of her mother's will. she felt horribly guilty about this, and another friend of mine thought this was completely inappropriate for a mother in her sixties to lean on her twentysomething daughter for support that way. he also felt really guilty about doing the same thing, in part because i was younger than him, and in part because i'm a woman. i have complicated feelings about all of this.

on the one hand, i'm fucking terrified. from my own experiences with psychologists i know all too well how a single misstep trying to counsel and comfort emotionally vulnerable people can cause catastrophic damage to them, and i'm in no way formally educated on the right ways to do this. it's playing with fire, i worry a lot that i'm going to end up burninr the people who rely on me. and i don't let them rely on me without repeatedly urging that they see a real therapist - at least, when i can do so without making them feel even guiltier about leaning on me.

on the other hand… i have a better track record than some actual psychologists. there are people who are still alive because of me. there are people who escaped horrible situations because of me. there are people who began to show glimmers of self-respect and started to stand up for themselves for the first time in their lives because of me. and since none of these people were willing to talk to anybody but me about their problems (or had utterly ineffectual therapists), and because i've been able to succesfully lead people toward better outcomes in the past, i can justify keeping it up (as long as i'm being extraordinarily careful not to further damage their psyches.)

i say "justify" bc the thing is, this is not something i do grudgingly. intellectually, i can understand why my mom felt so guilty about leaning on me; why my best friend, who works very hard to hew to the masculine ideal of a reliable provider and protector to women, thought it was so inappropriate. internally though, it makes no goddamn sense. in fact, i feel exactly the opposite. not only would it be supremely selfish to choose not to help people when i'm capable of doing so, it would be contrary to absolutely everything i am. i care deeply about the people around me and being useful to them, being able to help them and meaningfully improve their lives, is the greatest joy i've ever known. i don't understand how anyone could feel differently - but that's because i'm a woman and am thus very people-oriented by nature. (i also suspect some sublimated maternal instincts may be at work here since i greatly dislike children but tend to take a caretaker approach to the people who matter to me.) i don't help people because i'm obligated to - i help people because i don't like it when others are in pain.

so this gets back to the "attracted to brokenness" thing. i'm pretty sure i'm not attracted to people because i get some kind of bizarre sexual thrill out of Fixing them, and you can't fix someone who isn't broken. i'm pretty sure i'm attracted to them for two reasons: one, i can relate to and empathize with them much better than any normie; two, when i see someone innocent in pain, i want to stop it. i get impulses to hug random men in public who look depressed and lonely. when i see people who are kind and brilliant and thoughtful and hurting and alone, it breaks my fucking heart and makes me want to give them the stars.

but what about the abuse thing? easily falling for broken people on its own doesn't explain why i stay with them when they're mistreating me, as happened with both of my previous exes - in fact, they both ended up discarding *me.* the explanation for that i think has a lot to do with "bpd warps your values" thing.

here's the thing: at the absolute top of my priorities, high above even the need for food, water, and shelter, is the need for companionship, to not be alone. being beaten routinely would hurt much less than things like being constantly yelled at for wanting to spend time with a partner, or not anticipating their needs and desires and catering to them immediately. which themselves would hurt much, MUCH less than being alone. and it's long been observed that borderlines are easy to abuse for exactly this reason. however, what tends to get lost in translation is that fact that, at least for some of us, abuse just genuinely isn't as big a deal as it is neurotypicals. (i outright told one of my exes at one point that i wished they would take their anger out on me physically instead of neglecting me, gaslighting me, and lashing out at me verbally.) i have friends who think i'm insane for feeling this way, who think i'm brainwashed or deluded or being self-destructive by trying to repair and maintain relationships that are important to me, rather than discard those i love deeply over crossing an arbitrary red line. the people i tell about this seem incapable of understanding that i genuinely experience less pain and distress than they would if they faced the same treatment, or that i'm feeling insufficient distress and this is Wrong somehow, or that i'm suppressing the true pain it's caused me (spoiler: being broken up with (despite promises not to) did vastly more long-term damage to me than the abuse ever did.)

it also must be said, truism that it may be, that women are attracted to strength and power. whatever the evo-psych explanation for this might be, it's a pretty well-established fact. i can't generalize to the experiences of all women (though the astonishing prominence of rape fantasies in women's sexualities suggest there might in fact be something to this) but i will say that very little makes me happier than being with someone who can and will overpower me physically if they feel like it and make me feel vulnerable and helpless at their hands.

all of this leads me to suspect that on the whole, we tend to prefer rough, possessive, and moderately controlling behavior from our partners, of whatever gender, because it's exciting and it makes us feel comfortable and safe and wanted. this certainly does not match the model of the polite, tame, respectful, terrified-of-offending-women Nice Guy. it does, however, strongly match the model of the Henries out there.
lachs0r boosted
one of the casualties of Feminism's War On Everything that worries me the most is the whole moral concept of chivalry. and by "chivalry" i mean the idea that people on horseback should be careful where they aim their polearms and not stampede over all the soldiers who aren't lucky enough to have horses themselves.

western culture has a couple of crucial values that, while not totally unique, aren't super common either, at least in the contemporary world. for a very long time, even during periods of outright imperialist violence and unambiguous oppressive patriarchy, westerners have believed that men had a universal responsibility to protect and provide for women. and the reason for this is simple enough.

while feminists are particularly incensed by the fact that the male and female body occupy different orders of physical power, and will trot out as many examples as they can find of unusually strong women (some of whom are without question hormonal mutants with unladylike levels of testosterone, it should be noted) when the subject comes up, the fact itself remains impervious to political correctness. estrogens and androgens have different effects on human musculature, and people whose bodies are running on estrogen are going to end up being weaker than the testosterone club's. yes, individual women can in theory overpower individual men, but the ranges of female strength and male strength only partially overlap. a woman has to work pretty hard just to get to the male baseline, and eventually we won't be able to keep up any longer. estrogenic muscle also takes much longer and much more work to develop than the equivalent amount of androgenic muscle, so men have an advantage on us there too.

the end result of this is that the average man can overpower the average woman with very little difficulty. a woman's punch to a man's jaw is an annoyance; a man's punch to a woman's could put her in the hospital - if she's lucky. however insecure we may feel about our biology, we are, ultimately, weaker and more fragile. fate and evolution have endowed us with neither horse nor polearm, and western cultures, rather than stuff the difference under the rug and pretend it's not there or exploit it to systematically abuse us, have historically sought to level out this vulnerability by teaching their men that they have a responsibility to use their surfeit of strength to protect the weaker sex. and for all the examples you can find of european cultures mistreating women, you can't find many on the order of the abuses perpetrated by, for instance, the Dobe Bushmen, the Siriono people, or much of the modern Islamic world (whatever the status of women may have been in the Islamic golden age). most cultures put some restrictions on how men are allowed to use women; relatively few go so far as europeans have. (n.b. i can't speak to historic or contemporary asian cultures here, and if anyone has links/recommendations for reading on the topic i would appreciate them.)

feminism is, however, making an active and successful effort to undermine this norm. it's now considered "benevolent sexism" if a man intervenes to protect a woman or responds to her aggression differently than were she a man. men risk being screamed at, mocked, vilified, or other forms of social sanction for doing what they were brought up to believe was a foundational obligation of masculinity. (i vividly remember the look on the face of the man who once noticed me struggling with a box of cans in a grocery store and offered his help, as if he was half expecting to be bitched out in turn.) not only that, women are increasingly levelling false accusations of sexual assault at men who try to help them or even intervene to prevent attempted rapes. all in all, it's creating a climate where men have no other option but to look the other way and give the situation a wide berth lest they risk their reputation or freedom.

and this is really bad news for all women, feminists included, especially those who aren't lucky enough to have male partners to look out for them, because it's wearing away at one of the principal safeguards we have to rely on when we're alone and vulnerable. in an ironic inversal of Schroedinger's Rapist, many men are afraid to so much as stand near us on the bus for fear of being #MeToo'd, let alone actually intervene to protect us when we're threatened, because even if the malignant feminists make up only a small proportion of the population (i have no idea what the actual numbers are here) they don't have much of a way to predict who is going to be one in advance.

@lain or the countless “review” sites, with their own domain for every imaginable product category, that just aggregate amazon ratings in order to profit from ads and affiliate links

@lain europe is currently doing its best to follow their lead tho

@velartrill @rabcyr what’s worse is that the outbreak of people diagnosed with depression and personality disorders in the recent years hasn’t made society at large realize the systemic nature of these problems, and all the consequences from the rise of fanatical individualism to widespread use and abuse of “antidepressants” to the appearance of the woke brigade have only made this mass illness more intractable.

Show more

Tōhō, socialism, and a cute mouse.