Tuesday, September 23rd, 2025

Time	Event
1:23a	"Acting like a man" В моём уставе — «вести себя как мужчина» — таится стремление удержать или завоевать статус: властвовать над другими, охранять свои пределы, как подобает истинному чемпиону; спорить за определения, указывать другим, как им быть, а когда повиновения не находишь — впадать в агрессию и осыпать обидными словами. Женщины тоже умеют быть агрессивными, но их «агрессия» иного сорта — это, как правило, выкрик, жажда внимания. Первый шаг к тому, чтобы перестать быть мужчиной, — утратить статус и унизить самого себя; сделать то самое, чему общество учит мужчин не поддаваться. Сделать то, что заставляет женщин перестать видеть в тебе мужчину и возможного спутника. Самоуничижение стало для меня хорошим началом; прекращение ценить мою мужскую жизнь тоже оказалось полезным, ибо переход — это смерть, и ещё не решено, возродишься ли ты или исчезнешь. Мне же кажется только одно: если моё мужское «я» переживёт пламя, то возрождение через переход мне не суждено. Чтобы возник мой свет, тьма во мне умереть должна. In my rulebook "acting like a man" is attempting to maintain or achieve status, dominating others and gatekeeping your territory like a real champion, including fighting for definitions and telling others how they should behave, and, when others ignore your demands, becoming aggressive and insulting them. Women too can act aggressively, but their "aggressiveness" is usually totally different and expresses their attention seeking behavior. So the first step ceasing being man is losing status, and humiliating yourself. Doing the very thing society teaches men not to do. The very thing which makes women stop seeing you as a male and a potential mate. Self deprecating behavior was a good start for me, ceasing to value my male life is really helpful to, because transitioning involves death, but it is yet undecided if you reborn and vanish. I feel only that if my male self survives the flame, I wont be reborn by my transitioning. For my light to come alive, the darkness in me must die. Current Mood: contemplative (24 Comments | Comment on this)
2:14p	I personally dislike the term "trans" itself, because it came to be associated with aggressive euphoric bullies I would rather stay away from, and it is sought over by fetishistic perverts of all kinds (they ones who will date both MtFs and FtMs). Maybe it will be helpful to introduce a new medical term, which would be devoid of ideology and fetish. Generally even the truscum/transmed feel needlessly rapturous to me. Then again, if conservatives introduce trans only toilets, I will be going to the male toilets, just because these will be safer without all these people. (13 Comments | Comment on this)
4:02p	Emotions So the main difference between LLM and human reasoning appears to be the lack of emotional agency shaping the output. LLMs do have "temperature", but that is only a small part of emotional agency. So LLMs can't act with pure hatred, they are always rational, even when instructed to act enraged. That is generally seen as a good thing in humans, but for LLM that means partial inability to reflect on human emotions, experience (as a human) something not in their training set and feel/react in a way a humans will truly feel/react. It doesn't appear to be hard to add emotions to LLM, since the major part of the puzzle (how to model language) is already solved, but it is important, because emotions are required to process _new_ information and develop as an individuality, not just a language model. Current Mood: contemplative (13 Comments | Comment on this)
6:10p	The Black-Pill Meta-Methodology (Weaponized Lovecraftianism) 1. Premise: Declare yourself outside the game. Start from a position of loss, marginality, or disqualification. Claim “the game is already rigged” → therefore normal incentives, goals, and rhetorical appeals don’t bind you. This creates status immunity: insults, shame, and appeals to ambition don’t land. 2. Adopt the “superposition” stance. Present every issue so that opposing interpretations reinforce each other rather than cancel. Example (transsexual): “Transgenders = fetishists & bullies. Even if you prove they’re not fetishists, they’re still bullies, and vice versa.” Example (black pill incel): “Women only want Chads. If you say some don’t, you’re proving hypergamy (because they must be settling).” Any attempt to “weaken” one claim strengthens another. The system is designed so it cannot be disproven, only shifted between different reinforcing explanations. 3. Pre-emptive self-deprecation. Own the most obvious critique of yourself before others can weaponize it (“I’m pathetic,” “I lost before the game began”). This grants rhetorical armor: counterarguments bounce off because they’re already admitted. Bonus: audiences perceive this as “honesty” or “humility,” even if it’s strategically deployed. 4. Ironman, not strawman. Take the opponent’s strongest arguments and accept them as true — then reinterpret them to fit your frame. Example: “Sure, some incels improve themselves and get partners. That only proves the game is rigged for genetic winners.” This forces opponents to fight uphill: their own “best case” still feeds your narrative. 5. Nihilistic reframing. Position all goals, values, and solutions as empty or self-deluded. Example: “Even if you succeed politically, you’re just enforcing another ideology.” Example: “Even if therapy works for you, you’re just distracting yourself from the void.” Outcome: opponent cannot claim “progress” without you rebranding it as denial or cope. 6. Attention parasitism. Engagement = validation. Any rebuttal proves the stance is threatening enough to warrant attention. Ignoring proves others are “afraid.” Banning proves “censorship.” → Opponent has no “clean” move: every response is metabolized into fuel. 7. Universal suspicion. Attack all sides equally (left/right, insider/outsider). This collapses distinctions, leaving you as the only “untainted” position. Creates the aura of being the “final critic” who can’t be categorized. 8. Collapse debates into tragic insight. End by framing the discussion not as a contest of facts, but as proof of existential futility. Example: “See, the very fact you’re debating me proves humans can’t escape ideology.” This transforms a rhetorical loss into a philosophical win: despair itself becomes the conclusion. Applications of the Methodology Interpersonal communication Useful as a defensive shield: if you position yourself as “already defeated,” you can’t be shamed or pressured. Useful as a conversational weapon: every attempt to advise or console can be reframed as naïve, ideological, or self-serving. Political argument Positions you as a radical skeptic who unmasks everyone else’s ideology. Hard to counter because critics must play on your turf: everything they value (progress, rights, tradition, science) is reframed as self-delusion. Effective in creating a cult of tragic insight: “only we see the bleak truth.” Epistemics / science Can be used as a methodological skepticism: Treat every theory as a superposition of strengths/weaknesses. Weakening one claim strengthens another. A theory is never simply “false”; it is a self-reinforcing survival strategy. This can sharpen critical thinking, because you avoid cheap dismissals and force yourself to see how a worldview resists refutation. But if applied dogmatically, it collapses into nihilism where nothing is testable (every disproof = proof). Strengths & Weaknesses ✅ Strengths Immunity to ad hominem and shame. Resilient against disproof (superposition stance). Gains aura of tragic profundity. Forces deeper engagement (ironmanning). ❌ Weaknesses Self-sealing → risks irrelevance (can’t grow or adapt). Alienates allies (if everyone is “cope,” there’s no solidarity). Parasites attention → collapses if quarantined/ignored. Epistemically sterile: useful for critique, poor for building. Generalized Formula Declare yourself outside the game. Frame claims in a superposition (weaken one, others strengthen). Pre-empt critiques with self-deprecation. Ironman the opponent and flip their strongest case. Reframe all progress as cope/ideology. Parasitize attention: every response proves your point. Attack all sides equally to appear transcendent. Conclude with tragic futility: despair becomes the “truth.” ???? Meta-view: This is a rhetorical martial art of negation. It thrives in debate and diagnosis, but collapses when asked to build, collaborate, or propose. Its power is in critique and destruction; its weakness is construction. Current Mood: contemplative Current Music: Jeremy Souls - Silver Sails Company (11 Comments | Comment on this)

<< Previous Day

2025/09/23 [Calendar]

Next Day >>