As a gesture of goodwill, we interrupt the election doom/analysis-vomit to bring you a calm, collected, and pre-recorded conversation with political scientist Wilfred Reilly.
WR is great. He's right about most colleges and most students, even at some "better" schools much of the time. But at the better/best schools there is a public woke culture that can't be violated. So if anyone openly violates it, the punitive mechanism lurches into action, and nobody can disagree without being punished. The change wokeness made to the older left was to conceive any speech violation as genuine personal violence against a few fragile people (known or unknown). Empathy is a good thing -- the problem is when it is highly selective.
If the women who go to Race to Dinner are getting masochistic pleasure from it, well fine. But male masochists clearly have better taste, because pro-dommes are better looking, plus they wear very stylish leather gear. If you want to get beat up, good on you, but the Race to Dinner thing has no style at all.
Of course they like to spend all this time talking about these masculinity "influencers" that I don't think much of, but far less time talking about the void (that their guest refers to).
If I think about where I was at 21, I could barely look directly at a woman. I would flinch if they moved too quickly and would try to keep them at a safe distance, the way you might if you encountered a bear in the woods. I could go literally months at a time without any physical contact with another human, handshakes, brushing up against each other included. Not only had I not seen a naked woman, I had never even seriously contemplated asking one on a date. Nobody I really knew well was dating at that time either; it was something I really only heard about in the third person from people I didn't have much respect for (and still don't). I had no concept of what I even wanted sexually, never had experienced an orgasm (except while asleep), had no real idea why I was magnetically drawn towards Sports Illustrated swimsuit pictures or trashy horror movies, but the one thing that was clear to me is that the subject was absolutely off limits in all circumstances. And I obeyed. The way I described it to others (including Vanessa Grigoriadis) is that I'm probably the only person you'd ever meet who was actually in full compliance with the "affirmative consent" standard promulgated by the feminist crowd for my entire life. And look where that got me.
And what baffles me is that there are still people that I think that there is some sort of viable alternative to this. I mean, yes, people occasionally go on dates and have sex and have children (at well below replacement rates), but people still drank alcohol during Prohibition. Some people just flaunt the rules. That's how I look at people who actually do heterosexuality as modern day liberal Americans: they're the bootleggers in speakeasies during our Prohibition. Kentucky, of course, has always had moonshine.
To this day, the main response I get on this topic (including on Substack) is that if I imagine any scenario other than my baseline of hiding, shivering in a corner having essentially no sexuality and no hope, I'm somewhere between "entitled" and "predatory". I don't think the online manosphere has much to offer, but I don't think real life does either, not for a liberal, educated American. The only solution I see is to escape the entire culture, which is what most of the successful couples I'm aware of have done in one way or another.
You know, Daum says of people studying to be doctors, "can't they just watch youtube videos", and the reality is that a lot of people learn the science at places like Khan Academy (which is on youtube) or SketchyMicro and Pathoma (which are paid services but are also full of short videos). Reading textbooks or going to class really was not a thing unless they required us to come (which they gave up on).
And certainly, with regards to teaching skills, youtube videos are quite common. Even as a practicing physician, when there was an issue with a nurse giving an injection that didn't quite get in the right spot, the head honcho sent me a youtube video on how to do it correctly.
On another note, I used to spend quite a bit of time in Frankfort, where Kentucky State is, and the vibe is very casual. The activist stuff does not come across at all. It's a small town surrounded by rolling hills (it's not really Appalachia; it's Bluegrass) and it feels like a small town. Louisville, on the other hand, is one of the most overtly "race politics" places I've ever been.
Just have to throw this out there because it happens occasionally, but when Andrew Tate comes up I'm always a little surprised that when people talk about him there is a lot minor but relevant details that get missed or ignored. First, Sarah said he's not a father, but he is. He has a young daughter. Also to say Andrew had an absentee father seems incorrect from the little I know about him. I'm not a Tate fan or particularly knowledgeable but I've picked up a few things through the ether and there is actually a lot more interesting things happening here than ever gets discussed. He talks about his father and what he learned from him throughout his childhood (chess for example, Tate's father was an international chess master, Andrew was quite accomplished in this as well I understand).
According to Google Tate has a chess ELO of about 1600, which is coincidentally close to my own level (I choose to believe I could take him). That’s decent club player level but not especially accomplished.
I'm totally ignorant of this world. I mostly know that his father was quite accomplished and the information I see on Andrew is mixed. On a chess.com forum someone says his (Andrew's) highest rating was 2727, ranking 4th in the world. I find that surprising and even unlikely but I'm not going to fact check it either way because it's really not the point. I'm mostly just surprised how frequently people talk about Andrew but don't really know that much (like the comment that his father was absent in his life which just doesn't seem true at all). Actually he's all the more scary of a figure because he doesn't exactly fit neatly in a little box.
No, he was never fourth in the world. He’s not even a titled player. You don’t get to be anywhere near the top 10 without devoting your life to the game. His father was a strong international master who cracked the world top 2000 at his peak, according to his Wikipedia page. So certainly a professional-level player but not world-class either.
Near the 11-minute mark Reilly says something about "non-Rudyard Kipling citizens". Anyone know what this means? I know who Rudyard Kipling is, but this reference went right past me.
I believe a lot of well meaning people (liberals and conservatives) are narcissists who need to heal their trauma and project instead of healing themselves. I have gone into any archives of "Special Place in Hell" or "Unspeakable," so maybe it's been discussed before, but I'd love and episode on narcissism. Perhaps an interview w/ Dr. Ramani Durvasula.
I just asked where was this week's show and I at least got this. Danke! and shukriya (this Urdu adaptation sounds suspiciously similar to Arabic shokran :)
Razib I'm enjoying your political/cultural riff podcast! (took advantage of your sale and subscribed) and your genetic writeups are amazing (forwarded the most recent Basque one to a Mexican friend (whose mother was Basque)
WR is great. He's right about most colleges and most students, even at some "better" schools much of the time. But at the better/best schools there is a public woke culture that can't be violated. So if anyone openly violates it, the punitive mechanism lurches into action, and nobody can disagree without being punished. The change wokeness made to the older left was to conceive any speech violation as genuine personal violence against a few fragile people (known or unknown). Empathy is a good thing -- the problem is when it is highly selective.
Always enjoy Wilfred. Had to skip the Penelope Trunk episode as it's just not my bag, so happy to get back to it this week.
If the women who go to Race to Dinner are getting masochistic pleasure from it, well fine. But male masochists clearly have better taste, because pro-dommes are better looking, plus they wear very stylish leather gear. If you want to get beat up, good on you, but the Race to Dinner thing has no style at all.
Along the lines of WR's closing advice, my mom just sent me a meme that said, "If the brain were an app, maybe people would use it."
Of course they like to spend all this time talking about these masculinity "influencers" that I don't think much of, but far less time talking about the void (that their guest refers to).
If I think about where I was at 21, I could barely look directly at a woman. I would flinch if they moved too quickly and would try to keep them at a safe distance, the way you might if you encountered a bear in the woods. I could go literally months at a time without any physical contact with another human, handshakes, brushing up against each other included. Not only had I not seen a naked woman, I had never even seriously contemplated asking one on a date. Nobody I really knew well was dating at that time either; it was something I really only heard about in the third person from people I didn't have much respect for (and still don't). I had no concept of what I even wanted sexually, never had experienced an orgasm (except while asleep), had no real idea why I was magnetically drawn towards Sports Illustrated swimsuit pictures or trashy horror movies, but the one thing that was clear to me is that the subject was absolutely off limits in all circumstances. And I obeyed. The way I described it to others (including Vanessa Grigoriadis) is that I'm probably the only person you'd ever meet who was actually in full compliance with the "affirmative consent" standard promulgated by the feminist crowd for my entire life. And look where that got me.
And what baffles me is that there are still people that I think that there is some sort of viable alternative to this. I mean, yes, people occasionally go on dates and have sex and have children (at well below replacement rates), but people still drank alcohol during Prohibition. Some people just flaunt the rules. That's how I look at people who actually do heterosexuality as modern day liberal Americans: they're the bootleggers in speakeasies during our Prohibition. Kentucky, of course, has always had moonshine.
To this day, the main response I get on this topic (including on Substack) is that if I imagine any scenario other than my baseline of hiding, shivering in a corner having essentially no sexuality and no hope, I'm somewhere between "entitled" and "predatory". I don't think the online manosphere has much to offer, but I don't think real life does either, not for a liberal, educated American. The only solution I see is to escape the entire culture, which is what most of the successful couples I'm aware of have done in one way or another.
You know, Daum says of people studying to be doctors, "can't they just watch youtube videos", and the reality is that a lot of people learn the science at places like Khan Academy (which is on youtube) or SketchyMicro and Pathoma (which are paid services but are also full of short videos). Reading textbooks or going to class really was not a thing unless they required us to come (which they gave up on).
And certainly, with regards to teaching skills, youtube videos are quite common. Even as a practicing physician, when there was an issue with a nurse giving an injection that didn't quite get in the right spot, the head honcho sent me a youtube video on how to do it correctly.
On another note, I used to spend quite a bit of time in Frankfort, where Kentucky State is, and the vibe is very casual. The activist stuff does not come across at all. It's a small town surrounded by rolling hills (it's not really Appalachia; it's Bluegrass) and it feels like a small town. Louisville, on the other hand, is one of the most overtly "race politics" places I've ever been.
I really appreciate WR's thinking and articulation.
I also enjoy WR's gameshow host vocal quality.
I got to meet him once. He is as charismatic in person.
Just have to throw this out there because it happens occasionally, but when Andrew Tate comes up I'm always a little surprised that when people talk about him there is a lot minor but relevant details that get missed or ignored. First, Sarah said he's not a father, but he is. He has a young daughter. Also to say Andrew had an absentee father seems incorrect from the little I know about him. I'm not a Tate fan or particularly knowledgeable but I've picked up a few things through the ether and there is actually a lot more interesting things happening here than ever gets discussed. He talks about his father and what he learned from him throughout his childhood (chess for example, Tate's father was an international chess master, Andrew was quite accomplished in this as well I understand).
According to Google Tate has a chess ELO of about 1600, which is coincidentally close to my own level (I choose to believe I could take him). That’s decent club player level but not especially accomplished.
I'm totally ignorant of this world. I mostly know that his father was quite accomplished and the information I see on Andrew is mixed. On a chess.com forum someone says his (Andrew's) highest rating was 2727, ranking 4th in the world. I find that surprising and even unlikely but I'm not going to fact check it either way because it's really not the point. I'm mostly just surprised how frequently people talk about Andrew but don't really know that much (like the comment that his father was absent in his life which just doesn't seem true at all). Actually he's all the more scary of a figure because he doesn't exactly fit neatly in a little box.
For context, the chess coach at your local high school is better than Andrew Tate. As a player and as a role model for his students.
No, he was never fourth in the world. He’s not even a titled player. You don’t get to be anywhere near the top 10 without devoting your life to the game. His father was a strong international master who cracked the world top 2000 at his peak, according to his Wikipedia page. So certainly a professional-level player but not world-class either.
There's some debate about Jesus being married.
hmmm... the idea that lots of women are masochistic is pretty interesting and would explain a lot of odd behavior I've witnessed.
Near the 11-minute mark Reilly says something about "non-Rudyard Kipling citizens". Anyone know what this means? I know who Rudyard Kipling is, but this reference went right past me.
Apparently Gen X voted for Trump and Sarah's VP candidate won. Big day for these two.
re: empaths and the people that prey on them... like the narcissists that say things like "I'm so empathic it hurts me."
Much like self proclaimed anarchists who destroy property, not all people who proclaim to be something are the thing they say they are... fwiw
I believe a lot of well meaning people (liberals and conservatives) are narcissists who need to heal their trauma and project instead of healing themselves. I have gone into any archives of "Special Place in Hell" or "Unspeakable," so maybe it's been discussed before, but I'd love and episode on narcissism. Perhaps an interview w/ Dr. Ramani Durvasula.
*project flaws in others instead of healing themselves....
Don't think I've heard the name Andrew Tate in a couple years. Is he still out there doing whatever it is he does?
Been very much a feature of the news here in the UK due to recent arrests/charges
I just asked where was this week's show and I at least got this. Danke! and shukriya (this Urdu adaptation sounds suspiciously similar to Arabic shokran :)
First!?
no, BB got in. but didn't care
Razib I'm enjoying your political/cultural riff podcast! (took advantage of your sale and subscribed) and your genetic writeups are amazing (forwarded the most recent Basque one to a Mexican friend (whose mother was Basque)
thanks! by political/cultural riff you mean the Khanversation?
yessir! the one with Josiah
I mean this is the one that shows up as being first when you sort posts chronologically.
If you're going to contest this first post result, we may end up in the Supreme Court.