/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

The end is upon us.

As being normalized becomes more within society, more and more young males are declining. Within most males is a desire to be, which they cannot achieve - it is simply biology. The idea of disposability is written into us from the moment we are conceived. As the revolution we are in the midst of progresses reason will decrease. Ask most males if they want to become; the answer is usually one of "well I couldn't". Even without sex available, more and more males are. Why not be covered in body hair and smell?

40%

>>14378

Literally the same thing as woo-ists saying that skepticism makes astrology or psychic powers or whatever not work.

At what point would him switching to Kantianism or whatever make the events of Fate/Zero all sunshine and daisies?

>>14350

The thing to understand about Fate is that there's not anything to understand, it's pure chuunibyou: Rule of Cool crossbred with fractally complex power-levels/world-building. It's like Warhammer 40k or other nerd universes: it hacks your systemizing, but there's never an end to it, there's always another unit or character or secret.

>>14440

Yeah, so an Airbus full of ghouls touches down in JFK. You think when he goes in to extract Natalia from the ensuing clusterfuck and watches tourists get eaten alive while knowing "I could have prevented this", that's going to be psychologically healing?

no I mean if 8ch gets breaded because of pol that means we go too

>14472

Exactly. Where can we go?

I've set up a board on Endchan as a stop-gap measure. It's not a great website in general and it's the most likely to start suffering from the same problems as 8chan in the future, so I'd rather have a different permanent solution.

https://endchan.net/ratanon/

A new place should make it easy to transfer ownership. I'm not willing to self-host.

I've archived the board locally so it can be moved and/or restored if necessary.

Are we back?

>>14474

>A new place should make it easy to transfer ownership. I'm not willing to self-host.

Somebody should develop an uncensorable peer-to-peer imageboard already.

>>14475

NNTPchan tried to be that. It didn't work out.

>>14452

> If you're more concerned about the nation-wide effects of decline in average IQ and dysgenics: Richard Lynn estimates that US lose 0.9 IQ points per generation. By 2100, Americans will have lost on average 4 IQ points. Improved healthcare and mind-enhancing technologies should easily compensate for this loss, and by this time we'll be probably either cyborgs or dead.

This isn't how it works. Difference in 4 points on average translates into extreme decline in numbers of greatly intelligent people who actually animate the economy. Or, in other words, this means US will come to completely depend on Jews for guidance and Asian countries for production.

>>14455

How does the average loss of 4 IQ points exactly translate into the declining number of 120+ IQ individuals? Could you estimate the effects on GDP and HDI, and should we really worry given the likely progress in embryo selection and brain upgrading tech?

I assume that the high-IQ groups (coastal whites, Jews, Asians) pair bond mostly within these groups, so there's little "IQ dilution". On the other hand, high IQ men may be the first to gain a better understanding of risks related to modern dating and marriage, deciding to remain childless and disconnect from the society.

>>14462

Here's an example of relevant calculation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/4t8tgl/question_about_the_ashkenazi_iq_hypothesis/d5ktie6/

> Could you estimate the effects on GDP and HDI

I could estimate the decline in human capital to somewhere between current US and current Mexico.

> and should we really worry given the likely progress in embryo selection and brain upgrading tech?

Absolutely; reliance on non-existent and possibly politically untenable science woo that depends on current rate of progress is irresponsible. I do hope for these developments myself, though.

> I assume that the high-IQ groups (coastal whites, Jews, Asians) pair bond mostly within these groups

Indeed, they bond mostly within these groups with sub-replacement fertility. Also, I'm vehemently against complete replacement of high-IQ Whites with psychopathic half-breeds who will rant about their bar mitzvah, superiority of mixed race marriage, moral necessity of abortion and how the future is poly.

>>14465

>superiority of mixed race marriage

If you're lucky. The ironic hell scenario is the one where they end up ranting about racial purity.

>>14422

My understanding is that the Gatebox only has a single display layer and is just another flat projector that claims to be volumetric; all the pictures of it that I've seen have an obvious single piece of glass in the center.

Contrast that with something like Looking Glass, which while also not a "real" holographic display, at at least gets autostereoscopic volume by stacking a bunch of layers on top of each other.

>>14423

Then I have been tricked. I thought Gatebox had multiple glass layers.

Bad post. It appears you've identified a random article which doesn't advocate the overthrow of the evil capitalist system, and criticized it for not doing so. A major point of his essay is that even if you believe "rich people bad, working class good", criticizing philanthropy is a harmful way to show off your wokeness.

>What could be better than having a hardworking life, at least 10 hours a day away from home and knowing that a part of your output is going to help populations from other parts of the globe you've never heard of ?

Dunno, but what could be worse is knowing that that same money is instead going towards bombing similar third-world populations or whatever other retarded shit Our Democracy dreams up next.

This article is quite good, but misses one fundamental problem: applying purely utilitarian perspective to human interactions is extremely difficult and fuels exploitative practices.

You start by worrying how many units of suffering are caused by billionaires capitalizing on cheap and hard work in your country, and how it compares to the benefit of charities' target groups. What if the domestic workers (will) actually suffer more, because compared to the citizens of developing countries, they're money-rich and time-poor, live in an atomized, consumerist culture, and have to struggle with low status or a lack of meaning? What if this is some kind of a self-sacrificing scheme that won't pay back in the long run because of mass immigration, demographic shifts, social conflicts, or 100 other scenarios? What if I'm playing "cooperate" when people and institutions that don't care about me play "defect"?

Billionaires can always argue that they just follow fixed market incentives and participate in an unregulated capitalist race: many of them make astronomical profits by keeping their workers miserable, monopolizing niches and offering addictive or harmful products/services. They can treat the expected value of charities as a kind of blackmailing shield: "Oh, so you want me to raise the hourly rate in Big Corporation? It would cost many lives of these poor African children I genuinely care about. Now be a good sla… employee and get back to your cubicle." You don't have to be "woke" to see the dangers - actually, embracing woke capitalism is a predatory strategy criticized by many centrists and conservatives.

Scott makes a very good case for not criticizing billionaires specifically for their philanthropic efforts (sometimes it's really the game, not the players it selects for), but we should carefully investigate how they fit the big picture.

> Man, if only I can make some more money, then I could probably also join some EA-type organization but I can't right now because my boss keeps promoting only women.

Not that I want to discourage you, but according to my buddy's brief experience, many EA organizations seem dogmatic abPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Bad post. It appears you've identified a random article which doesn't advocate the overthrow of the evil capitalist system, and criticized it for not doing so.

I love capitalism in idea, just not the regulated braindead controlled capitalism "lemme get a monopoly, then lawyer up to keep the monster alive, say no to unions, lobby that shit murrica style" TM that cucks suck up to. I'm the kind of guy that says real capitalism has never been tried.

> A major point of his essay is that even if you believe "rich people bad, working class good", criticizing philanthropy is a harmful way to show off your wokeness.

I believe "rich people bad, I good", harmful for whom ?

>Dunno, but what could be worse is knowing that that same money is instead going towards bombing similar third-world populations or whatever other retarded shit Our Democracy dreams up next.

I actually don't care as long as it doesn't help people I don't care about.

I'm tired of being fucked in the ass so children can not starve or whatever.

>>14453

Which is more dysgenic for a country, feeding it or bombing it?

>>14457

>harmful for whom?

"Society", in terms of opportunity costs. I doubt wagecucks end up with any of the money even if billionaires successfully get bullied out of philanthropy. And some of their projects could actually be useful. At the very least, I consider the ceiling of good that a billionaire can do with their money higher than what a democracy would do with it.

>>14460

Very bespoke, anon. But I don't think it actually matters much either way because The Singularity Is Near.

>>14446

>psychology study using self reported data

Why does anybody ever take this stuff seriously? I know it's difficult and at times unethical to get data in other ways, but this usually is like searching for your keys under a streetlight.

The only non-self reported data in that study was from asking the participants in the second study whether they would be willing to donate part of the $100 (leaf) they could potentially get from a draw. It doesn't say how many $100 prizes were given to the 524 participants in that experiment (the first study had three draws for 297 participants, the second one only mentions "a draw", possibly only one draw for the 524 participants?), but in any case the only actual, verified data in the whole study comes from "Would you be willing to give away a fraction of a prize that you are almost certainly not going to win anyway?"

>>14446

Worth noting that the author of the study in question adds the other result: it seems more attractive males cooperate significantly more in prisoner's dilemma. Appearance, I surmise, doesn't change conditional on cooperation. From this I gather that altruism in self-reports is proxy for abundance and successful, easy life guaranteed by good looks, hence perception of "cheapness" to help out another in a general case.

https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1147186444500426752

>>14454

>abundance and successful, easy life guaranteed by good looks

Are you saying that good looks by themselves grant a heterosexual man a successful, easy life? This is implausible. What is much more likely is that good looks and success are caused by the same factors like low genetic load, good diet in early childhood, etc. Without these factors good looks are only a faked signal: useful, but not nearly as useful as what it is supposed to indicate.

>>14431

Actually I'm really old, but I'm eternally 12-year-old in spirit.

>>14432

Understandable.

>>14429

I could in theory nut to whatever's on the front page of pornhub, but usually when I'm horny and have to fap, I'm already thinking of something specific because why else would I be about to fap?

>>14414

This means that females reproduce by default, because unless a women is truly hideous, there isn't a red blooded male who isn't going to take one quick minute to impregnate the bitch. By contrast, males are divided into two very distinct groups. The 99% betas are destined to forever struggle for reproduction, perhaps raping one of the alpha's bitches while his back is turned, or lucking out and capturing a nice war bride after a successful battle with those bastards from accross the river (her husband was killed in the figthing, not that she will mind in a year or two). Meanwhile the 1% alphas get to impregnate all the women, which makes them sexier, which continues the fucking cycle, literally. In the world of sex, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Now this is the tricky part. A lot of men who get this far think that the answer is to teach everybody "game" and that as long as we can all be masterful PUAs, we can keep our bitches in line. This doesn't work because hypergamy is RELATIVE. It doesn't fucking MATTER how rich you are in absolute terms, if you own your own house and car while a middle age peasant barely owned his shit-stained underwear. All that matters to bitches is wether there are any men around who have it even better than you, in which case the cycle begins anew. That's why no matter how rich we become, we keep working just as hard in 40 hour jobs and 10 hour commutes; because we are not REALLY working for shit like food or electronics, which are cheap, but for bitches and status, which are zero-sum. They will always be scarce and we will always have to compete for them.

An important corollary to this is that females simply don't have the capacity to really fall in love. They just gina tingle. The moment you lose your job or otherwise get kicked out of your station in life, you can kiss the girl of your dreams goodbye. She didn't fall in love with you; she fell in love with what you had. It made her excited, and when the excitement is gone and she is unhaaaaaapy, she will just leave, taking your kids, half your stuff, alimony, child support, and your will to live. Then she finds some other high-status guy to get hitched to andPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>14415

If you wrote this anon, you should make a blog where you retell the sequences.

>A lot of men who get this far think that the answer is to teach everybody "game" and that as long as we can all be masterful PUAs, we can keep our bitches in line. This doesn't work because hypergamy is RELATIVE. It doesn't fucking MATTER how rich you are in absolute terms, if you own your own house and car while a middle age peasant barely owned his shit-stained underwear.

Women are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers. It makes sense that they perceive social status as relative because it is. That does not mean women's perception of men's smooth moves/dominance/personality/call it what you will is also zero-sum, or that status is important compared to personality. Teaching men game would almost certainly be positive-sum and eliminate a large percentage of incels. Another way to say it is that status seems to be something like 95% relative (the remainder is not living in a way that provokes an immediate disgust reaction, like being smeared with shit), but perceived smoothness/dominance/interestingness is only 30%-70% relative.

>>14410

To that I should add that another famously doctrinal, buzzword-filled project of fostering "rationality" in Goyim was Objectivism; except Rand probably didn't consider herself Moshiach. As for SSC-aligned people, this place is at the far fringes of their cluster, so my theory applies to ratanons rather than to all of SSC crowd. Regarding your disbelief, I honestly don't care.

>>14415

My takeaway is that /robowaifu/ has the right idea, we just need more r&d and commercialization.

>>14399

They are parodying the "Polyhacking" post.

Kind of amusing to contemplate the depth of autism that would be required for a LW where someone would post a real "Lolihacking" post.

>>14403

At least the motivation for polyhacking is clear, namely the promise of easier access to sex and intimacy. Why would anyone want to hack themselves into being a lolicon?

>>14407

I'm sure you could come up with some reasons. One can make up arguments for anything.

Just to demonstrate the point by giving an example argument, perhaps something along the lines of MTGOW? "Lolis are innocent and pure, they won't scam you out of your life like adult women will" or something.

Of course you'd have to have some truly extreme autism and truly completely lack a superego to argue for this in the super earnest and serious way that is typical for LW. That's why it's amusing for me to contemplate someone like that existing.

>>14407

Maybe you think all taboos are spooks and you want to be truly pansexual, or maybe you're just interested in the hacking process itself and you deliberately pick something you find revulsive.

(I'll admit that these motivations are a little more esoteric than simple access to sex and intimacy).

>>14409

I like the way you think!

"We choose to love lolis, not because they are innocent and pure, but because we find them revulsive!" –JFK

It's been a while since I read Moldbug, but I don't remember very much talk of market mechanisms? Certainly no advocacy for neoliberal stuff like competitive bidding for government functions, etc. He talked about countries being owned by shareholders who get dividends, but that in itself is not a market, any more than say the internal governance of IBM is market-based…

Moldbug wants to engineer a reduction in violence because violence is wasteful. He is not against all competition or conflict. He considers them inevitable. To him violence is wasteful pretty much by definition because it happens due to uncertainly about who would win in an armed conflict. People generally don't fight hopeless fights, so reducing uncertainly reduces armed conflict.

A market in state shares would allow for liquidation of failed states without the usual violence. At the same time it would align the quality of the services provided by states with the self-interest of their owners, making such states less likely to fail in the first place. It's the Mandate of Heaven with(out) a human face (being stamped on).

I don't remember Moldbug saying this outright, but he does not seem to believe that war is eugenic, at least in the present. It would be better if people competed through other means, like, again, capitalism.

>>14328

I never understood why people thought Moldbug was such an inspiring thinker in the first place.

I brought up Urbit at work a couple days ago. Kind of worried that bringing it up will activate some coworker's purity monitors, associate me with Moldbug, and target me for destruction. Not clear to me whether that's something I actually should worry about, when I previously was in a group of social-justicey programmers, they certainly associated anyone talking about Urbit with NRX and disdained them, but maybe they were just hyper-active in their purity-enforcement.

>>14390

I think the other two are a little weak, and I'm also concerned about @dril tweets making up an outsized portion of our banners. Sorry to be a downer.

>>14391

Yeah, I think we have enough of those.

>>14396

Honestly, even the polycule banner seems weak, although the Bayesianism one is pretty good.

>>14391

Makes sense. I'll remove some of the weaker ones.

>>14390

>>14398

I think the best of those are the Bayesianism and AI risk ones, and of the two I like the AI risk one best. The polycules one is a little confusing because it's not clear what "aids-theist" means. The HBD one is meh.

>>14321

I believe an evolutionarily stable response has been found to "have sex"-posting. It is "bend over"-posting. It doesn't quite work in the context of reproduction, though.

Per the sister thread, I believe the solution is widespread gene editing to give the general population williams syndrome.

I don't really even care any more. Evolution selects against knowledge of evolution.

Let's all do STEM and produce AGI or transhumans. Better a bot world than a tropicalized world.

>>14148

you're making a lot of assumptions about what's good for the future of humanity there.

>>14325

"Dilate" seems to have won out as a response. Have you seen this, have you heard about this?

>>11972

You can find more of these videos here:

http://files.howtolivewiki.com/fight_videos_2005ish/

>>11972

this is unbelievable

the fighting style is so fluid, it's like he can see through his enemy's defense and completely disregards all traditional styles for his own method

i'm convinced now of everything gupta claims

>>12072

Don't you have other things to do in your life than trolling on 8chan, Vinay?

>>11909

I blame the Bay Aryans. There's some strange force of memetics there which corrupts anyone that moves.

>>11917

Aella is a True Rationalist anon. That is to say she's a bizarre woman deep into esotericism pursuing high variance life strategies like camgirling and weird crypto startups.

Hey, is “grey tribe” done going on record over Ahmari-French to the extent that the idea of concepts, kinks even, as threatening to destroy society (and not just change it in a way you don’t like) to the extent of legitimating extraliberal suppression is ridiculous, porting over their existing takes on “antis” or whatnot?

‘cause for a while I’ve been expecting a cultural turn on correlation of forces grounds but it was severe enough I couldn’t possibly imagine how anyone could get to narrativizing it from where we are, and I just found an answer-shaped idea, it’s chillingly well precedented, the coalition that would be against it just spent the last decade defining themselves against each other, the premise and the motte are perfectly in line with modern goodthink, and the bailey is the most corrosive weapons-grade infohazard I’ve ever seen

But I'm not quite like Perevozchenko. I have more balls than him. And if I had been in Chernobyl, and I saw Dyatlov, my leader, behaving like a deranged modern jackass, I would have punched his lights out (Oh, how uncharitable, the horror!) and started executing my plan for dealing with the crisis (and I have such a plan), because Dyatlov is not in need of charity, he's in need of being smacked around the room, and charity, along with the other rules of the sub, are not the tool we need for this crisis, so mods, you have to suspend them for me, instead of locking my posts for Culture War like you're a Fahrenheit 451 fireman instead of a decent human being like me.

What's that mods? Was that uncharitable to you? Do you think that the ethical thing to do when O'Brien tells you 2 + 2 = 5 in Room 101, is to be charitable and play along, instead of biting his face off? How sure are you you're not O'Brien? Because you remind me of him. And when you ban me or lock me, you are saying 2 + 2 = 5, but without typing it out! That's how wrong you are! And I don't know what casuistry you have running through your head, that makes you think you're being the good guy when you deplatform me, but I'm sure it's worthy of r/SneerClub.

>>14277

What the hell does this even mean?

>>14316

It's Kontextmaschine (on tumblr) announcing that he thought of a genius scissor statment which will upset the political landscape, destroy the existing set of political coalitions, and sweep away the last remnants of the liberal order. At first he was all "oh no, I couldn't possibly let this basilisk lose", but now he seems to be saying that he might drop it if we flatter him enough.