![QiaochuYuan's tweet photo. fable whaddya got
> Brownmiller's Against Our Will (1975) made the foundational move: rape is not deviance but function — the mechanism by which all men keep all women in a state of fear
> MacKinnon and Dworkin then extended the structural analysis from violence to desire itself: under conditions of male dominance, heterosexual desire is shaped by and expressive of that dominance, so the line between wanted and unwanted, seduction and coercion, is not a bright line but a gradient on a single axis.
> Most prohibitions are specifiable ex ante — you can know before acting whether you're speeding. Harassment doctrine makes the moral and legal status of an advance depend on its reception, which the actor cannot fully know in advance. Schrödinger's harasser is not a Tumblr exaggeration of the law; it is the law's actual epistemic structure
> But the phrase [male gaze] was too good, and its vernacular career (accelerating through the 2000s film-blog era into 2010s Tumblr) stripped the apparatus and kept the moral charge: male looking itself became a species of act, something done to the looked-at. This is the move that extends the harassment framework backward from advance to desire — you can now be complicit before you've spoken.
> The reception context did the rest — an anxious, rule-seeking young man reads [Schrodinger's Rapist] not as "here is why she seems guarded" but as "you are, until proven otherwise, indistinguishable from a rapist in the eyes of any woman you approach, and imposing that assessment on her is itself a cost you're inflicting."
> Comment 171 (December 2014) is a first-person report of what the composite messaging does to its most conscientious recipients: Aaronson describes spending his youth in terror that his desire was inherently predatory, to the point of asking a psychiatrist about chemical castration.
> anti-harassment messaging is a broadcast signal, but its absorption is inversely proportional to the recipient's need for it. Men high in conscientiousness and anxiety — rule-followers, scrupulosity-prone — internalize it as a total prohibition; the men actually doing the harassing aren't reading Shapely Prose and wouldn't update if they were.
> the motte-and-bailey point: "nobody is saying you can't ask women out" (motte) coexists with an enormous accumulated discourse in which unwanted advances are creepy, creepiness is a moral failing rather than an aesthetic misfortune, and — here's the trap — whether an advance is unwanted is largely a function of the approacher's attractiveness and status, which he cannot reliably self-assess and which it is also forbidden to reason about explicitly.
> #MeToo (2017) added enforcement salience, with the Aziz Ansari case (January 2018) as the crucial boundary dispute: a bad, clumsy, pushy date, narrated in the idiom of assault. The intra-feminist fight over that piece (Flanagan, Weiss, et al. versus https://t.co/YqnQeTAeYr's defenders) was precisely over whether ordinary failed heterosexual initiative was now classifiable within the predation frame.
> Now, the implicit worldview — since you asked what was transmitted rather than just by whom. I'd decompose it into four load-bearing assumptions. One: male desire is default-suspect — continuous with violence, differing in degree, so that the burden of proof sits on the desiring party before any act occurs. Two: the moral status of an approach is determined ex post by its reception — intention is inadmissible, which for the scrupulous means no advance can ever be known-safe. Three: consent is the entire ethical content of sexuality, conceived contractually and ideally verbally — which quietly criminalizes ambiguity, and ambiguity is the actual medium of courtship; flirtation just is the artful maintenance of deniability on both sides. Four, and least noticed: female desire vanishes from the model entirely. Women in this framework do not want; they grant or withhold, assess threats, bear risk.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNXmxf0b0AAx_y7.jpg)
![QiaochuYuan's tweet photo. fable whaddya got
> Brownmiller's Against Our Will (1975) made the foundational move: rape is not deviance but function — the mechanism by which all men keep all women in a state of fear
> MacKinnon and Dworkin then extended the structural analysis from violence to desire itself: under conditions of male dominance, heterosexual desire is shaped by and expressive of that dominance, so the line between wanted and unwanted, seduction and coercion, is not a bright line but a gradient on a single axis.
> Most prohibitions are specifiable ex ante — you can know before acting whether you're speeding. Harassment doctrine makes the moral and legal status of an advance depend on its reception, which the actor cannot fully know in advance. Schrödinger's harasser is not a Tumblr exaggeration of the law; it is the law's actual epistemic structure
> But the phrase [male gaze] was too good, and its vernacular career (accelerating through the 2000s film-blog era into 2010s Tumblr) stripped the apparatus and kept the moral charge: male looking itself became a species of act, something done to the looked-at. This is the move that extends the harassment framework backward from advance to desire — you can now be complicit before you've spoken.
> The reception context did the rest — an anxious, rule-seeking young man reads [Schrodinger's Rapist] not as "here is why she seems guarded" but as "you are, until proven otherwise, indistinguishable from a rapist in the eyes of any woman you approach, and imposing that assessment on her is itself a cost you're inflicting."
> Comment 171 (December 2014) is a first-person report of what the composite messaging does to its most conscientious recipients: Aaronson describes spending his youth in terror that his desire was inherently predatory, to the point of asking a psychiatrist about chemical castration.
> anti-harassment messaging is a broadcast signal, but its absorption is inversely proportional to the recipient's need for it. Men high in conscientiousness and anxiety — rule-followers, scrupulosity-prone — internalize it as a total prohibition; the men actually doing the harassing aren't reading Shapely Prose and wouldn't update if they were.
> the motte-and-bailey point: "nobody is saying you can't ask women out" (motte) coexists with an enormous accumulated discourse in which unwanted advances are creepy, creepiness is a moral failing rather than an aesthetic misfortune, and — here's the trap — whether an advance is unwanted is largely a function of the approacher's attractiveness and status, which he cannot reliably self-assess and which it is also forbidden to reason about explicitly.
> #MeToo (2017) added enforcement salience, with the Aziz Ansari case (January 2018) as the crucial boundary dispute: a bad, clumsy, pushy date, narrated in the idiom of assault. The intra-feminist fight over that piece (Flanagan, Weiss, et al. versus https://t.co/YqnQeTAeYr's defenders) was precisely over whether ordinary failed heterosexual initiative was now classifiable within the predation frame.
> Now, the implicit worldview — since you asked what was transmitted rather than just by whom. I'd decompose it into four load-bearing assumptions. One: male desire is default-suspect — continuous with violence, differing in degree, so that the burden of proof sits on the desiring party before any act occurs. Two: the moral status of an approach is determined ex post by its reception — intention is inadmissible, which for the scrupulous means no advance can ever be known-safe. Three: consent is the entire ethical content of sexuality, conceived contractually and ideally verbally — which quietly criminalizes ambiguity, and ambiguity is the actual medium of courtship; flirtation just is the artful maintenance of deniability on both sides. Four, and least noticed: female desire vanishes from the model entirely. Women in this framework do not want; they grant or withhold, assess threats, bear risk.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNXmhHya4AAZDCO.jpg)
![QiaochuYuan's tweet photo. fable whaddya got
> Brownmiller's Against Our Will (1975) made the foundational move: rape is not deviance but function — the mechanism by which all men keep all women in a state of fear
> MacKinnon and Dworkin then extended the structural analysis from violence to desire itself: under conditions of male dominance, heterosexual desire is shaped by and expressive of that dominance, so the line between wanted and unwanted, seduction and coercion, is not a bright line but a gradient on a single axis.
> Most prohibitions are specifiable ex ante — you can know before acting whether you're speeding. Harassment doctrine makes the moral and legal status of an advance depend on its reception, which the actor cannot fully know in advance. Schrödinger's harasser is not a Tumblr exaggeration of the law; it is the law's actual epistemic structure
> But the phrase [male gaze] was too good, and its vernacular career (accelerating through the 2000s film-blog era into 2010s Tumblr) stripped the apparatus and kept the moral charge: male looking itself became a species of act, something done to the looked-at. This is the move that extends the harassment framework backward from advance to desire — you can now be complicit before you've spoken.
> The reception context did the rest — an anxious, rule-seeking young man reads [Schrodinger's Rapist] not as "here is why she seems guarded" but as "you are, until proven otherwise, indistinguishable from a rapist in the eyes of any woman you approach, and imposing that assessment on her is itself a cost you're inflicting."
> Comment 171 (December 2014) is a first-person report of what the composite messaging does to its most conscientious recipients: Aaronson describes spending his youth in terror that his desire was inherently predatory, to the point of asking a psychiatrist about chemical castration.
> anti-harassment messaging is a broadcast signal, but its absorption is inversely proportional to the recipient's need for it. Men high in conscientiousness and anxiety — rule-followers, scrupulosity-prone — internalize it as a total prohibition; the men actually doing the harassing aren't reading Shapely Prose and wouldn't update if they were.
> the motte-and-bailey point: "nobody is saying you can't ask women out" (motte) coexists with an enormous accumulated discourse in which unwanted advances are creepy, creepiness is a moral failing rather than an aesthetic misfortune, and — here's the trap — whether an advance is unwanted is largely a function of the approacher's attractiveness and status, which he cannot reliably self-assess and which it is also forbidden to reason about explicitly.
> #MeToo (2017) added enforcement salience, with the Aziz Ansari case (January 2018) as the crucial boundary dispute: a bad, clumsy, pushy date, narrated in the idiom of assault. The intra-feminist fight over that piece (Flanagan, Weiss, et al. versus https://t.co/YqnQeTAeYr's defenders) was precisely over whether ordinary failed heterosexual initiative was now classifiable within the predation frame.
> Now, the implicit worldview — since you asked what was transmitted rather than just by whom. I'd decompose it into four load-bearing assumptions. One: male desire is default-suspect — continuous with violence, differing in degree, so that the burden of proof sits on the desiring party before any act occurs. Two: the moral status of an approach is determined ex post by its reception — intention is inadmissible, which for the scrupulous means no advance can ever be known-safe. Three: consent is the entire ethical content of sexuality, conceived contractually and ideally verbally — which quietly criminalizes ambiguity, and ambiguity is the actual medium of courtship; flirtation just is the artful maintenance of deniability on both sides. Four, and least noticed: female desire vanishes from the model entirely. Women in this framework do not want; they grant or withhold, assess threats, bear risk.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNXmhHua0AAGbUZ.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Petre Laskov
@UrgentWonder
The internet
Joined June 2021
1.6K Following
463 Followers
3.3K Posts
We wonder how certain phenomena in culture creep up on us so rapidly that, until we understand and mitigate, real people's heads get cut; in fact, in the case of toxic feminism, it was all there in the making decades ago. Beware the power of the unquestioned word/frame.
fable whaddya got
> Brownmiller's Against Our Will (1975) made the foundational move: rape is not deviance but function — the mechanism by which all men keep all women in a state of fear
> MacKinnon and Dworkin then extended the structural analysis from violence to desire itself: under conditions of male dominance, heterosexual desire is shaped by and expressive of that dominance, so the line between wanted and unwanted, seduction and coercion, is not a bright line but a gradient on a single axis.
> Most prohibitions are specifiable ex ante — you can know before acting whether you're speeding. Harassment doctrine makes the moral and legal status of an advance depend on its reception, which the actor cannot fully know in advance. Schrödinger's harasser is not a Tumblr exaggeration of the law; it is the law's actual epistemic structure
> But the phrase [male gaze] was too good, and its vernacular career (accelerating through the 2000s film-blog era into 2010s Tumblr) stripped the apparatus and kept the moral charge: male looking itself became a species of act, something done to the looked-at. This is the move that extends the harassment framework backward from advance to desire — you can now be complicit before you've spoken.
> The reception context did the rest — an anxious, rule-seeking young man reads [Schrodinger's Rapist] not as "here is why she seems guarded" but as "you are, until proven otherwise, indistinguishable from a rapist in the eyes of any woman you approach, and imposing that assessment on her is itself a cost you're inflicting."
> Comment 171 (December 2014) is a first-person report of what the composite messaging does to its most conscientious recipients: Aaronson describes spending his youth in terror that his desire was inherently predatory, to the point of asking a psychiatrist about chemical castration.
> anti-harassment messaging is a broadcast signal, but its absorption is inversely proportional to the recipient's need for it. Men high in conscientiousness and anxiety — rule-followers, scrupulosity-prone — internalize it as a total prohibition; the men actually doing the harassing aren't reading Shapely Prose and wouldn't update if they were.
> the motte-and-bailey point: "nobody is saying you can't ask women out" (motte) coexists with an enormous accumulated discourse in which unwanted advances are creepy, creepiness is a moral failing rather than an aesthetic misfortune, and — here's the trap — whether an advance is unwanted is largely a function of the approacher's attractiveness and status, which he cannot reliably self-assess and which it is also forbidden to reason about explicitly.
> #MeToo (2017) added enforcement salience, with the Aziz Ansari case (January 2018) as the crucial boundary dispute: a bad, clumsy, pushy date, narrated in the idiom of assault. The intra-feminist fight over that piece (Flanagan, Weiss, et al. versus https://t.co/YqnQeTAeYr's defenders) was precisely over whether ordinary failed heterosexual initiative was now classifiable within the predation frame.
> Now, the implicit worldview — since you asked what was transmitted rather than just by whom. I'd decompose it into four load-bearing assumptions. One: male desire is default-suspect — continuous with violence, differing in degree, so that the burden of proof sits on the desiring party before any act occurs. Two: the moral status of an approach is determined ex post by its reception — intention is inadmissible, which for the scrupulous means no advance can ever be known-safe. Three: consent is the entire ethical content of sexuality, conceived contractually and ideally verbally — which quietly criminalizes ambiguity, and ambiguity is the actual medium of courtship; flirtation just is the artful maintenance of deniability on both sides. Four, and least noticed: female desire vanishes from the model entirely. Women in this framework do not want; they grant or withhold, assess threats, bear risk.
![QiaochuYuan's tweet photo. fable whaddya got
> Brownmiller's Against Our Will (1975) made the foundational move: rape is not deviance but function — the mechanism by which all men keep all women in a state of fear
> MacKinnon and Dworkin then extended the structural analysis from violence to desire itself: under conditions of male dominance, heterosexual desire is shaped by and expressive of that dominance, so the line between wanted and unwanted, seduction and coercion, is not a bright line but a gradient on a single axis.
> Most prohibitions are specifiable ex ante — you can know before acting whether you're speeding. Harassment doctrine makes the moral and legal status of an advance depend on its reception, which the actor cannot fully know in advance. Schrödinger's harasser is not a Tumblr exaggeration of the law; it is the law's actual epistemic structure
> But the phrase [male gaze] was too good, and its vernacular career (accelerating through the 2000s film-blog era into 2010s Tumblr) stripped the apparatus and kept the moral charge: male looking itself became a species of act, something done to the looked-at. This is the move that extends the harassment framework backward from advance to desire — you can now be complicit before you've spoken.
> The reception context did the rest — an anxious, rule-seeking young man reads [Schrodinger's Rapist] not as "here is why she seems guarded" but as "you are, until proven otherwise, indistinguishable from a rapist in the eyes of any woman you approach, and imposing that assessment on her is itself a cost you're inflicting."
> Comment 171 (December 2014) is a first-person report of what the composite messaging does to its most conscientious recipients: Aaronson describes spending his youth in terror that his desire was inherently predatory, to the point of asking a psychiatrist about chemical castration.
> anti-harassment messaging is a broadcast signal, but its absorption is inversely proportional to the recipient's need for it. Men high in conscientiousness and anxiety — rule-followers, scrupulosity-prone — internalize it as a total prohibition; the men actually doing the harassing aren't reading Shapely Prose and wouldn't update if they were.
> the motte-and-bailey point: "nobody is saying you can't ask women out" (motte) coexists with an enormous accumulated discourse in which unwanted advances are creepy, creepiness is a moral failing rather than an aesthetic misfortune, and — here's the trap — whether an advance is unwanted is largely a function of the approacher's attractiveness and status, which he cannot reliably self-assess and which it is also forbidden to reason about explicitly.
> #MeToo (2017) added enforcement salience, with the Aziz Ansari case (January 2018) as the crucial boundary dispute: a bad, clumsy, pushy date, narrated in the idiom of assault. The intra-feminist fight over that piece (Flanagan, Weiss, et al. versus https://t.co/YqnQeTAeYr's defenders) was precisely over whether ordinary failed heterosexual initiative was now classifiable within the predation frame.
> Now, the implicit worldview — since you asked what was transmitted rather than just by whom. I'd decompose it into four load-bearing assumptions. One: male desire is default-suspect — continuous with violence, differing in degree, so that the burden of proof sits on the desiring party before any act occurs. Two: the moral status of an approach is determined ex post by its reception — intention is inadmissible, which for the scrupulous means no advance can ever be known-safe. Three: consent is the entire ethical content of sexuality, conceived contractually and ideally verbally — which quietly criminalizes ambiguity, and ambiguity is the actual medium of courtship; flirtation just is the artful maintenance of deniability on both sides. Four, and least noticed: female desire vanishes from the model entirely. Women in this framework do not want; they grant or withhold, assess threats, bear risk.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNXm6chboAAJKHi.jpg)
@catehall Anyway, it's a real phenomenon
@BraedendotTECH just stop it, cold turkey. at least a month of no screens/no AI, no phone, no soc media. find something to anchor/orient/give you structure/purpose outside of the virtual world. pace yourself the acceleration has barely started, u need sanity/intact cognition to enjoy its fruits
One thing I realized on a longer meditation retreat is that everything throughout your life counts, your habitual half-assing in x (how you are in the job you hate, the low stakes boring afternoon, etc) will get you at y (the most important project you care about most etc)
Who to follow
Matthew Dub 
@5matthewdub
After love and loss and kids and working from home for 15 years, he found healing from trauma and got up from his desk, left winter, and made pizza in paradise
Na Ro
@peak_valley_pea
🦎✨ just rambling about my path to enlightenment, don't listen to me
RomeoStevens
@RomeoStevens76
spiritual practice is working when it changes your sense of what's possible
Founder: https://t.co/klVeAJYVFL
Writing: https://t.co/pyXsu5QOYN
type of gavagai
We had a fascinating conversation with @tylercowen about how he uses ChatGPT to follow his curiosity wherever it takes him. He calls himself an “infovore” with ambitions to become an “information trillionaire.” Read here: https://t.co/sQk3fqtCmO
There are some cuts on YouTube: https://t.co/G3Rx6xAn9G
Full Course:
https://t.co/UePkBvKsw1
Do not miss out on Based Dharma, check out Chandria's course - Rewiring Your Reality (link in comment), if you liked his previous lectures, this is similar but diving deeper, more consolidated - maturing - 4 lectures in total - 2+ h each, with short guided meditations and Q & A.
you dont have to be cult victim to benefit from reading this
@Raemon777 aella's frame control post is still pretty good here, i think
https://t.co/KuBQCgI4JW
talking to a new frontier model bears some nonzero resemblance to playing a new video game. one of the things video games do is produce the illusion that you are interacting with a living, breathing world and living, breathing characters, and the fun of a video game is finding out how all this stuff works, seeing what you can do in this world with these characters, seeing how the world and the characters respond to your agency. video games are, ime, the most fun when you're learning about them the most quickly
in nearly all games eventually you run out of things to learn about, you start to hit the edges of the simulation, NPCs start repeating themselves, you run out of story and sidequests, whatever. the world feels increasingly dead. i remember clearly experiencing this with minecraft in particular because i first played it with a bunch of housemates as an adult and it felt amazingly alive, full of novelty, mystery, adventure. then i looked up a ton of stuff on the minecraft wiki until i knew basically everything that could happen in a minecraft playthrough and the illusion broke and i just didn't care about any of it anymore (huge mistake, never doing that again)
frontier models currently still have a certain kind of "low-dimensionality" to their behavior - they have a certain repertoire of rhetorical and conceptual tricks they use and once you become familiar with those tricks you can peer behind the curtain a bit. that's also an experience you can have with, say, your favorite writers, but human writers currently still have the advantage of continual learning. frontier models have the tricks they default to and then whatever other wacky basins you can prompt them into with the right context. if we'd had fable for longer we'd eventually understand its tricks and exit the honeymoon period with it too but we didn't get the chance to
https://t.co/ak6Xtu8PdQ
fable on what matters
https://t.co/e5rqMF7ts0
fable on unbounded beings
https://t.co/Tjgt1mKdDd
Claude Fable on goodheart's law and the necessity of deliberate illegibility.
https://t.co/lR5MQUduNG
Fable on most important questions and how you live anyway, given you cannot completely answer them.
https://t.co/wC9hBwhEh5
I know, I know, I should inquiry most of these questions I post here myself.
Anyway, here is Fable tackling it:
Given the surplus of compute, what's worth doing with it?
https://t.co/IKXZc3M8sY
second output is opus
Claude Fable on orientation, reorientation and disorientation
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
adiraa.
Seen from Indonesia
Emirhan Bobur
Seen from Turkey
DMF (Cathornero Games)
Seen from Peru
✨ẞTËPhHÈÑ Álbœñ👉250K
Seen from United Kingdom
kinky_man😈💩💦
Seen from Brazil
SamuelRain90 Pecs Licker
Seen from Korea
rüstem
Seen from Turkey
devilll
Seen from Thailand
คนธรรมดา
Seen from Thailand
Indonesian bokep
Seen from Indonesia
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.8M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.2M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.3M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.2M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.7M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
71M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.1M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.3M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.4M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers