here in Top Pedophiles Of Twitter, my "friend" thinks about race so very little that he shit-tests every new person he meets with a racial slur
here in Top Pedophiles Of Twitter, my "friend" thinks about race so very little that he shit-tests every new person he meets with a racial slur
This is great, they think it is a 4d chess(*) move they pull on people. They think it both outs people who take offense and preselects your friend group for people you can convert into neo-nazism. And anybody who takes offense gets to look like a crazy person and leaves.
What actually happens is that people don't always react to your slurs directly but certainly talk among each other, this will close doors for you and cause people to deprioritize you as a friend. You will just get invited less and 'forgotten' by people (unless they suffer from the geek social fallacies, but geeks do talk to each other about those), you will get the reputation as the n-word guy, and people will warn others about you, like you are a broken stair. It also creates a culture of shittesting your friends and regularly testing your friends to see if they match up with your ideals or are 'good friends' is a very toxic way to instill paranoia in yourself and reduce the amount of friendships and professional opportunities you have. So I'd suggest he carries on with it, ow sorry 'his friend'.
*: it is 4d chess, in a sense that he made up his own rules, they are way more complicated than needed, don't actually add anything compared to normal 2d/3d chess, and by playing a different game than the rest of the world you are actually just making illegal moves which ensure people will not play with you anymore. Confusing a social game for an intellectual game.
E: forgot to ask, who is this dweeb again? Answered my own question: Ow wait it is Putanumonit
you forgot the last stage of the evolution,
you'll later find out that people were talking about you, your actions, your words, and that being ghosted was in fact the consequence of your actions, and then you'll have one last opportunity to turn it all around
- do some self introspection and reconcile what actually happened vs what you intended to happen, and decide that it is in fact possible to create relationships without trying to meta discomfort them for your purposes specifically
or
- wokeism is the reason, so this time you need to be even MORE obnoxious, to filter people out who would talk behind your back even strongester! (repeat from the top of your flow)
It also creates a culture of shittesting your friends
btw, remember how Duncan Sabien wrote about how cool it was to casually hit people playing "punch buggy" without prior agreement, because his good friend Brent Dill convinced him it was good to do
I do not, or at least I don't always remember specific names. (I also forgot who the guy was who had this epic LW style breakup with his gf, that was a legendary post), but yeah that is a bit toxic. In a way it reminds me of the 'strong men create bla bla times' memes and the fremen mirage of how acting like barbarians creates a tough character which can conquer your local Rome equivalent "sir, this is a Wendies, and if you hit our server one more time you will be banned". Prob also related to early open source techbro 'say whatever you want with no filters' culture, which even Torvalds now realizes was a bit of a mistake. A bit of Survivorship bias, if only there was a community of smart people to teach others about biasses. ;).
I keep coming back to this. I've been thinking about the internal monologue that necessarily had to happen to get here.
"Speech taboos exist."
- normal reply: "Yeah, words only have meaning due to baggage; some words carry heavier baggage, making them taboo in ordinary conversation."
- this fucking guy: "Words shouldn't be taboo; that's irrational."
"People end associations and friendships based on word choice."
- normal: "Not hard to imagine."
- TFG: "There is literally no reason to end a friendship over word choice unless the other person doesn't let you use slurs in casual conversation."
"The best way to get to know what ideologies someone subscribes to is by dropping slurs in conversation."
- TFG: "Yes, and it's really important to test the ideologies of strangers in the most flippantly casually offensive way possible, which doubles as a great first impression. You will look alpha as fuck by using slurs."
- normal: "Huh, haven't had an intrusive thought like that in a while. Where'd that come from?"
"It's ok to say the n-word as long as you don't think about race at all and never with any negative sentiment."
- TFG: "Yes, this is the extent to which CRT needs to be taught in schools. Then we can teach rationality and run IQ tests."
- normal: "OK I really need to see my therapist; maybe it's time to try Wellbutrin."1
1: this post not sponsored by wellbutrin
I think it’s great when assholes enthusiastically identify themselves. Saves me time. MAGA hat? T-shirt with some kind of bigoted “joke’? A shit-test from this moron? Thanks for letting me know that you’re not worth any effort at all!
it certainly is, my dude. it certainly is
Had to google shit-test, apparently it's a PUA term, what a surprise.
For those that don’t want to look it up and are ok with a potentially incomplete version:
Apparently it’s when someone (in PUA context, a woman) says, does, or demands something disingenuously to see how you react to it. My guess is that there are PUA doctrines about how to react and detect this sort of thing.
As is a PUA framed thing, it’s probably a way for someone to dismiss any boundary setting behaviour as gaslighting, which is ofc fucked.
@Architeuthis I had to google PUA term, but it al makes sense now.
less "a fish unaware of water", more "a tapeworm unaware of poop"
I really like how he specifies he only does it when with white people, just to dispel any doubt this happens in the context of discussing Lovecraft's cat.
good thing he basically doesn't think about race
Something I’d like to investigate is this very right-wing phenomenon of defending granular “freedoms,” like saying slurs in public with strangers, or not wearing a mask during a pandemic etc.
The easy explanation as to why they do this so often is that the boot rwers lack the intellectual capacity to reason about what “freedom” really means and how it’s not a matter of being able to do whatever small atomic action that their overlords, the tie rwers, tell them is important. The thing getting in my way of believing this easy explanation is that it’s kind of heartbreaking to think people can be that stupid.
RE: boot and tie terminology: see here
I really like this question, I couldn't possibly get to the bottom of it but here's a couple of half-explanations/related phenomena:
- The simple desire to own the libs. They understand what freedom and personal responsibility is, but also really, really want to DEBATE ME BRO with someone that they don't like.
- Legitimate paranoia that one day somebody is gonna 1984 them, so they're morally responsible for constantly pushing social boundaries.
- Virtue signaling, like the post alludes to.
That sounds like a great way to get assaulted, perhaps battered too. I guess it's cold comfort to know "hah, got 'em, they're so easily triggered" while sitting in a hospital bed recovering from a head injury, but it just sounds stupid to me.
I'm just wondering how exactly he goes about doing this. Like if I wanted to casually slip the N word into a casual conversation (for... some reason) I'm not actually sure how I would go about setting it up?
Like, is he just randomly saying it at people to see how they react (which most normies rightfully would judge as very weird)? Is he using it to describe actual black people (in which case I feel like people dropping him as a friend aren't really doing it over "speech taboos", are they...)? Is he asking people "so how do you feel about the word 'n.....'?" Something else? My curiosity is piqued now.
He probably leads up to it the same way that a gay guy might choose to discuss his male partner with his coworkers for the first time. You spool out a boring thread of conversation (nominally related to the previous topic of discussion) just so you can work an on-topic sentence where you can drop the word that's been burning your brainstem since you met these people. In hindsight your coworkers knew the only reason why you even brought up that jerk who spilled coffee on you this morning is so you can tell them that your partner gave you his vest to wear today. But if you're this dudes totes not racist slur-slinging friend you're telling your rationalist friends that your "n***a" gave you his jacket. The worst part - in the second case - is that you can totally tell when somebody is shit testing you like this, they'll put way too much emphasis on the word that has to be heard..because it's the word that has to be heard.
Given the context, the runway probably begins with quoting some scientific racism statistics around IQ or crime rates or something.
What does "with white 3 tpot people" mean?
TPOT stands for "this part of twitter" and is apparently a Rationalist splinter group.
it's smol bean uwu neoreactionaries who realise Eliezer is cringe but still want to hang out with like-minded race scientists
this is the putanumonit.com guy, for added topicality. can't wait to see his writeup of the statistics on shit-testing with slurs.
I think there is a nugget of truth here in so far as that you can't live life trying to make everyone happy, but also, you get what you shop for so, have fun with the shit heads.
