#it'll be another 500 followers before i make another post like this lol | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

violentdelightsandviolentends · 2 years ago

Note

congratulations on your new milestone! you said you’d love more javi so here i am lol how about javier + best friend’s brother/brother’s best friend (whichever inspires you more) + "you look so pretty like this." 🫶🏾

2 Murphy's and a Peña.

y. Brothers best friend + 18. "You look so pretty like this."

Author's Note - this is a drabble written as part of my 500 Followers Celebration!! find that post here. anon - i know you sent me another request that said to discard the brother's best friend bit because i've already done it, but i had to do it again for javi!! i'll admit, i did bump this request to the top of the pile. what can i say, i was feeling inspired by mr peña , as per usual. thanks for being the sweetest!!

Pairing - Javier Peña x Female Reader

Age Rating - 18+

Warnings - smut!! + cursing

Word Count - 1081

Masterlist. 500 Follower Celebration Masterlist.

Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang.

Javier swings open his front door, eager to find out who's attempting to punch their way into his neighbours apartment.

"Cariño, if he hasn't answered by now, I'm guessing he isn't home."

You spin on your heel, relieved to be met with the sight of Javier Peña leaning against his doorframe, whiskey in hand.

"Him and Connie rarely go out. I assumed they'd be in," you shrug.

Javi takes a moment to look you up and down. You're wearing a tight dress that hugs your curves just right, and doesn't leave much to the imagination. The colour compliments your skin tone beautifully, and Javi has to remind himself that you are his partners sister. Strictly off limits. It doesn't stop him from staring, though.

"Take a picture, it'll last longer," you wink.

"I'll hang it in my apartment if you like, right above the fireplace," he teases.

You both laugh, the sound echoing down the hallway.

"What do you need, hermosa? Where are you going dressed like that?"

"Dressed like what?"

"All pretty."

You try not to blush at his compliment. He's so smooth, so easy with it, you understand why all of his informants are so willing to sleep with him.

"I'm not going out, I'm coming back. I had a date, and now I've locked myself out of my apartment. I was hoping to crash at Steve's, but I guess that option has gone out the window," you sigh, leaning back against the door.

"Well, come in while you wait for him to get back. You can tell me more about this date of yours."

He steps aside, gesturing at you to enter his apartment. It's not the first time you've been inside, but usually you're with Steve. It feels different now it's just the two of you.

"You don't wanna hear about the date, I promise you. It was fuckin' awful. God, guys suck. It's my own fault, really."

He pours you a drink as he listens, moving to sit next to you on the couch.

"What's your fault, huh?"

"I just needed to get laid, so I put too much faith in him. He did not deliver."

It's now that Javier realises you've probably had a drink or two. You're never usually this open, this brazen with him. He'd be lying if he said it didn't turn him on a little.

"That bad?" he asks, voice an octave deeper than before.

"Worse than you can imagine. I was dry as the goddamn desert. What's the complete opposite of turned on?"

He laughs, the sound rumbling through his chest. It makes you smile, the corners of your mouth turning up.

"It was like he was a teenager," you continue. "He kept grabbing at me. And not in a sexy way. In a clumsy, I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing kind of way."

Javi keeps chuckling, whiskey loosening him up more than usual.

"What the fuck are you laughing at, Javier?" you giggle.

"I just - " he takes a breath to try and stifle his amusement. "You need a real man, cariño. Not one of these stupid little boys. You need a guy who knows what he's doing."

"Yeah?" you tease. "And where am I supposed to find someone like that?"

"He's probably closer than you think," he murmurs.

Javier has, in fact, gotten closer. He's slowly shuffled along the couch so your legs are pressed together. You can feel his breath tickle your cheek everytime he exhales.

"You need a man who puts you first," he mutters, his nose brushing yours. "You gonna let me put you first, honey?"

His tone is low and slow, like golden honey. The timbre of it is shooting straight to your core, lust clouding your judgment.

"We can't," you whisper. "What if my brother finds out?"

"I won't tell if you won't."

Decision made. You lean in, closing the tiny space between you and pressing your lips to his. Javier kisses you greedily, trying to consume you, swallow you whole.

You hitch a leg over so you're straddling him, sitting comfortably in his lap. His hands go straight to your hips, grabbing so hard you know he'll leave fingerprints. You're moaning into his mouth, tangling your fingers through his hair to pull him closer.

Javi tugs your dress up around your waist, kneading your ass with his strong hands. You start to rock your hips slowly, reveling in the way his zipper catches your clit occasionally.

"Come here," he whispers, moving you to sit on one of his thighs. The rough denim of his jeans is a welcome contrast to the soaking material of your underwear, pleasure coursing through you instantly.

You fist your hands into the front of his shirt, using him as leverage. Javi starts to bump his leg up and down as you rock your hips back and forth, both sensations making you whine.

"You look so pretty like this," he groans. "Prettiest girl I've ever seen."

It's like his verbal filter is gone, filth spewing from his mouth in a constant stream.

"That's right baby, use me. Take what you need."

"Told you you needed a real man. I'm not even touching you and look how close you are already."

"You like that, hermosa? You like riding me like this? Fuck, I can't wait to show you what you've been missing all this time, messing around with those stupid boys."

"You're almost there, honey, I can feel it. Just a little more. That's it, atta girl. Just a little more."

His dulcet voice is driving you closer and closer to the edge, your hips moving faster on their own accord.

"Javi," you whine. "So good. So so good."

"Come for me, hermosa. Show me how pretty you look when you come. Good girl. Give it to me."

Your climax hits you like an ocean wave, crashing over your entire body. It's white hot and blinding, muscles tensing and hips stuttering.

You're spent, head falling forward to lean on Javi's shoulder. He wraps his arms around you, tracing patterns on your back soothingly.

"You did good, sweetheart."

"So did you," you chuckle sleepily.

"How about you have a nap, and then I'll show you what else I'm good at?" he asks, teasing lacing his tone.

"Sounds perfect," you whisper, settling down into his lap, face nuzzling into his chest.

Javi doesn't tell you when he hears Steve get home. You look pretty comfortable where you are.

626 notes · View notes

mitigatedchaos · 1 year ago

Text

Dissecting 'Enhanced Tactical Reciprocity'

There's another point I want to make that this will help illustrate. So alright, let's do this.

This post was originally intended to be shorter, but there was a lot of ground to cover, so it will be broken up into lots of little sections with small bold titles to make it easier to refer to. (~3,400 words, 17 minutes)

Part I - Explaining the Joke

@eightyonekilograms: My jokes are like ogres - they have layers.

[ eightyonekilograms ]

President DeSantis signs Executive Order 87173 ordering companies to rename their git branch back to master.

This can be read as either a lighthearted joke, or as a dunk ("DeSantis is petty and trivial"), which means that the appropriate response is also a joke.

The Scope of the Reciprocation Order

[ mitigatedchaos ]

It was a really tough act to follow the "Reciprocation Order," #87172, which searches through the social media history of all personnel of institutions with more than 500 employees, and all political influence groups, and subjects them to the tactical standards which they approved of between 2014 and 2028.

People posted a lot of really nasty bullshit on Twitter in 2020! People with pre-X verified checkmarks, at that time a mark of being a voice for the establishment because the verification process was a matter of influence, would do things like call to haul all unvaccinated people off into camps, or tax all their assets down to nothing if they didn't get the vaccine, or cheer on rioting ("the voice of the unheard!").

Taking what they said seriously, this could get pretty brutal, which is part of the point - "oh yeah? well we'll just fine you until you're homeless but the vaccine is technically voluntary lol" is brutal.

A lot of people said some pretty fucked up stuff, endorsed hurting people, breaking things, destroying businesses, "corrective" discrimination, and so on.

Without that, there is no trigger condition!

I just noticed there's some ambiguity - does "them" refer to "personnel," or does it refer to "institutions"? I always intended it to refer to the individuals. However, if it referred to the institutions, this would result in large institutions divesting themselves of people who approved hostile tactics the same way they currently divest themselves of conventional racists.

Note, however, the "larger than 500 employees" bit - this is focused on major institutional power and the professional class, ignoring, for instance, a blue redneck shit-talking "neo-confederates." This is based on the existing "woke" push focusing largely on prestigious white-collar jobs, and trying to push those who are ousted into lower-class blue collar type jobs, where they have less cultural influence.

Naming the git Branch Back to Master

Pretty much anything would've seemed pretty insignificant after that,

Was the original post a lighthearted joke, or a dunk? If it was a lighthearted joke, then this line leans into it - they couldn't think of anything else serious to do after this, because it was pretty severe, so they happened to pick something so petty. If it was a dunk, this turns the dunk on its head - this hypothetical DeSantis wasn't being petty and frivolous generally, but had just turned the entire situation on its head and, as a punchline, decided to rub some salt in the wound.

The Reciprocation Order's Day in Court

and it'll probably be at least 3 years before the court cases resolve,

Should we assume that it's legal to discriminate against a specific someone by race, just because that specific someone personally said it should be legal to discriminate against others by race?

No.

This section plays on the habit of the Biden Administration (and some other Democrats) to do something that everyone can be confident will be ruled illegal, just to see how much they can get away with before courts eventually swoop in to declare it illegal. The process, they say, is the punishment - paying for lawyers is quite expensive, and lawfare can be used to bankrupt someone who has done nothing wrong.

In this scenario, Republicans decide to embrace the same approach, in the expectation that the shock and chilling effect will influence their opponents, while using the government's deep coffers to waste their opponents' money.

The Abstraction Clause

especially since opponents focused so heavily on the abstraction clause (the mechanism that reads particularized attacks as "one level" "more general or universal," e.g. "it's okay to deplatform men" becomes "it's okay to deplatform people for their sex" under Enhanced Tactical Reciprocation)

There are 4 things going on in this section.

1 - We just went through about ten years of "it's not sexist if it's against men" "it's not racist if it's against European-descended people" and so on.

This was just blatantly, obviously bullshit.

In this scenario, Progressives stick as stubbornly to this bullshit as they do now, because they want the right to discriminate by race, by sex, and so on, however they want, while not being subject to that discrimination themselves.

This is just how they act right now. It's blatantly self-serving, and not based on upholding a general principle. Thus in this scenario, they want to win the right to discriminate, and they want it so badly they'll even risk losing the lawsuit by refusing to take the high road.

2 - Continuing on #1, we've seen "progressives" have trouble even understanding the idea that these things should be matters of general principle and not particularist rules discriminating against specific groups.

Thus they have trouble and stumble over the hypothetical DeSantis Administration's generalizing by just one level.

3 - Part of the humor is from the absurdity - this is an extremely galaxy-brained approach, and would never actually be implemented.

I mean come on, punishing individual leftists specifically for how much they called to deviate from free speech? That's not how we would expect coalitional politics to actually work! We would expect a right-wing attack to focus more on what elements of the rival coalition are politically weakest and thus easiest / cheapest to attack.

This is actually weirdly in favor of free speech norms for an invasive and authoritarian right-wing crackdown, as the procedure is that someone who was publicly in favor of non-violent free speech is subject to... non-violent free speech.

4 - This procedure is called "Enhanced Tactical Reciprocity." In one sense this is euphemistic, but in another sense this is just describing exactly what it is. The government ("enhanced") reads through what you posted, then applies whatever rules for action ("tactics") you endorsed right back at you ("reciprocity").

Criticism - Left

Completely nuts to try and defend, in the lawsuit, the original behavior that ETO is targeting instead of shooting down the order more generally on a free speech basis

The joke post is in-character, and predictably mitigatedchaos frowns on trying to win a right to left-wing discrimination rather than more easily escape prosecution by strengthening the free speech norm generally.

especially since - just as everyone predicted - DS got another SC seat.

This is one of the problems with depending on court rulings instead of just making actual laws.

Criticism - Right

Long-term I think it's a mistake by DS Administration since the determination of tactics is subject to manipulation of procedural outcomes.

This lays out, pretty clearly, a major risk of this approach. Even if Hypothetical DeSantis is honest about what constitutes extremist behavior, his successor will probably immediately redefine it with some self-serving bullshit, stuff like "it's impossible to be sexist against men" being an example.

This is a major reason for opposing "hate speech" laws - do you trust the government to define "hate speech"? The UK suggests that we really should not.

Judicial Restraint

But wow, everyone is pretty much depending on the Republican Supreme Court to write out the actually-liberal defense themselves.

This is just literally what's happening right now with these identitarian issues. We're basically depending on the Supreme Court to uphold principles that Democrats insist they don't have, because Democrats will not uphold those principles themselves.

They, oddly enough, seem to actually be doing this.

There you go, 1,000 words to explain a 200-word joke. A compression ratio of 5:1. Note that this lines up with twitter posts - testing on live subjects there also found a 5:1 ratio for left-wing users.

Part II - "Well Then, So Much the Worse for IQ Supremacy!"

I tagged the original reply #so much the worse for IQ supremacy, and I'll be honest, that was a bit mean, but 81k walked right in to that one.

Competing Civs Model & IQ

One of the characteristics of the "competing civilizations" model that was present in the 1990s and the 2000s that I've discussed a bit was the idea that source of bad things was... idiots.

There was a much greater sense of IQ being a single characteristic by which to measure people, and during the Bush Administration, it was held that part of the reason that the religious voters were attempting to enforce social conservatism and voting for the pro-war George Bush was because they were literally stupid, as in low IQ.

The Democrats, and the secular, agnostic, and atheist voters who were mostly Democrats, were by some measures "higher IQ".

Paper Tiger

So, you put a bunch of secular, college-educated, white-collar professional progressives in charge. Does this fix things?

Well it turns out, while they might have an effective IQ of 115 in their job, they treat politics as a normative domain rather than an empirical one - in politics, they only have that 115 IQ on paper.

At the beginning of the conflict, a lot of people like me were very angry at them, because someone who is materially reasonably wealthy, fairly physically healthy, raised in modern environment with liberal norms, with a good aptitude, should know better.

We saw that paper IQ, and we looked at what they said they believed and what that would imply, and said "Wow, these people are awful!"

But now, after 10 years, there has been time to observe.

Political Consciousness

There are three main factors for high political consciousness:

External vs internal formation of political beliefs.

Evaluation of the belief network for coherence.

Testing of the belief network's model against reality.

This doesn't require a full model of everything, per se. However, it is part of why you're supposed to read relatively broadly - this provides more opportunities to build and test the belief network. A resilient and deep belief network makes it easier to detect lies and other social attacks, among other advantages.

IQ provides an advantage here in that it makes evaluation of the belief network cheaper, which means the belief network can be larger, deeper, with more levels of abstraction, and more modeling of high-order consequences - if someone actually uses it, and that will potentially make the world better if they have good motives and good self-knowledge.

(Note that, very importantly, this does not mean that people with lower IQs are inherently bad. The midwit meme is about this. The distinction and correlations will likely be covered in another essay, but a lot of the problem with 'progressives' is trying to be more 'sophisticated' and getting a worse outcome for it.)

Social Beliefs - Commitment

The progressives get their beliefs socially. They do 'believe' them in the sense that they might act on them, even with high investment. For instance, a progressive might get carjacked and seriously injured going home late at night, and another progressive that was there with him will urge people not to prosecute the attacker. [1]

A more normal person will have socially-influenced beliefs, but may have the stunning realization that 'actually, wow, crime is real' when they get carjacked. They might overcorrect personally on the general level, but on the population level it makes sense for victims of crime to become anti-crime, as the rate will be proportional to the actual rate of crime.

Social Beliefs - Networks

Progressives don't "believe" their beliefs in the sense that they're integrated into a coherent network, or that they are testing them against reality.

If a progressive tells you that Race B is oppressing Races A, C, and D, because Race B makes more money on average, and you point out that actually Race A makes more money than Race B, which suggests that the system of payments is selecting for something other than just membership in Race B, they will typically make up a rationalization on the spot if they don't just insult you and run away.

This rationalization will usually not make much sense.

Some people can be shaken out of it if they're exposed to this sort of contradiction enough, as the stress will cause them to attempt to rebuild their model, while others who are more committed to social determination or coalitional politics determination of beliefs will totally forget they ever saw the contradiction.

Network Evaluation

Other times, they'll throw a premade rationalization at you. For instance, they may say that Race A's high major statistics in income, lifespan, and nonviolence are a "Model Minority Myth," and if you interrogate that, you'll find that it's an incoherent switch from evaluating populations by average stats to evaluating populations by individual stories - which not only should invalidate the original attack against Race B, but they also have to make up a special rule that Race B's individual stories aren't allowed.

Seeing as they're not evaluating the network of beliefs in general for either coherence or attachment to reality, they also aren't searching for cult factors or, for that matter, what I call "doom loops." (They don't understand what's substantively different between Nazis and regular conservatives, and so don't understand the difference between censoring a Nazi and censoring a conservative.)

They aren't evaluating the beliefs at higher levels of abstraction. They'll see a specific rule that's in favor of harming men, and it won't register that this is "sexism." And even if you convince them that it's sexism, they may forget the entire conversation.

Combinations of Beliefs

The combination of beliefs can be worse than any specific belief in isolation. You can have progressive NIMBYs, who want millions of people to immigrate to the country, but are also against building housing, which drives rents into the stratosphere and artificially induces homelessness. (I wrote about this "the coalition is worse than the sum of its parts" problem back in 2019.)

81k is correctly sensing something, however. As even the progressive NIMBYs seem to think they're morally superior to everyone else, emotionally speaking, I've developed a tremendous amount of contempt for them, to the point that it's no longer just a buffer against their constant attacks, and has actually become a bit too high, for reasons I'll get to in the next part.

Part III - Yes, It's Disturbing

The individualist colorblind liberalism of around the year 2008, market-based but skeptical of corporate power, moderately civic nationalist but anti-war, is, plus or minus LGBT issues at the time, very well hedged epistemically.

Balance

It avoids the problems of totalitarian central planning both with respect to social rules (everyone's life is different), and with markets (the classic economic calculation problem), while maintaining the basic productive norms necessary for the operation of society (including not throwing out institutions that had been very oppressive in their creation, but declined significantly in terms of their ratio of productivity to oppression, something that will be covered in another essay). Even when there are social rules under this system, they generally aren't enforced with state force. It respects the expertise of experts while not thinking that everything is about expertise. It thinks we should let the productive produce, while not leaving the unproductive to perish.

It supports free speech and free inquiry, necessary to find the truth even when that truth is inconvenient.

Stack this with that 115 effective IQ on the job, and Democrats of the era look like geniuses, even though the median Democrat, by necessity of large populations being closer to the average, only has a small intellectual advantage on the median Republican, at best.

Depth

However, the Democrats of that may have been effectively liberals, huge numbers of them did not substantively understand the mechanical basis for liberalism. The body of ideology contained a deep network against, for instance, "corrective" racial discrimination not anchored to practical results, but many of the Democrats or progressives at the time were just using precomputed nodes on the perimeter of the network.

To tie this back to Part I...

Influence

I support the efforts of the Republican Party to remove state funding for the left-wing racial conflict ideology. You should, too. You would never support state funding for a class teaching students to embrace right-wing racial conflict theory.

It's unfortunate that we have switch one level up on the soft power to hard power continuum, because a small number of quack academics might still actually produce something useful from time to time, but we cannot allow "corrective" racial discrimination to become our national policy. We are wealthy. We are not that wealthy.

This is different from a tiny minority of religious colleges requiring that their instructors are also religious, and we can hold the principle that access rights are substantively about the availability of alternatives. If you want, we can try declaring "woke," as in illiberal left-identitarianism, to be literally a religion, and thus subject to the same prohibitions and protections as a religion - though of course, this would be a substantial demotion for "woke."

These crackdowns by the Republicans, both by state legislatures and by the Supreme Court, are likely to have an effect, by making it a financial liability for HR departments to support "corrective" discrimination, resulting in a significant number of Democrats altering their beliefs to conform with the new professional norms.

You find this disturbing.

Me, Too

I'm going to be honest with you, I also find this disturbing. One of the reasons that I'm farther to the right than you is that I found this behavior disturbing back in 2017 as well. That this huge number of people didn't believe in liberalism on a substantive level is quite disturbing. That we have the power to alter what they believe, and they'll forget they ever believed otherwise, is disturbing. That they're not really lying, because they can't even remember having another position and have pushed it from their conscious mind, and weren't really lying back in 2008 either, is disturbing.

One reason that "Enhanced Tactical Reciprocation" is a joke is that even if it were enacted correctly (and it wouldn't be) many of the victims wouldn't even be able to understand why it's happening.

There are progressives out there that could walk into a police station with a black eye, because they got punched by a Nazi, and the station officer would look through their flagged post history, and bring up a post that said "punch Nazis," and bring up another post that said "eliminate [race]ness," and tell them straight to their face that Nazis are racial eliminationists, and they are a racial eliminationist, and they said it should be legal to punch racial eliminationists, so sorry, but there's nothing the station officer can do... and they still wouldn't get it.

That is disturbing!

This is why while many of the online right are memeing about like, bringing back the steppe hoards conquering on horseback or whatever, I mostly make jokes about ridiculous megaprojects.

Fortunately, not everyone in every political coalition is that soaked in social determination of beliefs. We can see, on Tumblr, a rising awareness of the excess of the 2014-2022 era. Part of this is from the user base aging, gaining more perspective on the world in general. Part of it is from observing the specifics of what happened.

A shared viewing of a real event can cut through propaganda and thereby create shared private knowledge even if public discussion is prohibited.

Unfortunately, a number of individuals will have become true believers in the ideological mania of the era, adopting a fixed belief that causes them to be out of sync but not engaging in reality testing, and will probably (to some degree) just have to be counted as part of the casualties.

[1] I'm using a made-up example here because recent real examples have been even more brutal.

I remember a while back Noah Smith (the econ writer) described Scott Alexander as a "right-wing" writer, which is a stretch (its binary thinking, he is grey tribe) but I thought was pretty prescient overall. It Igot a lot of pushback at the time - Scott ofc is an ace, poly, liberal who is, if he votes, voting Democrat 95% of the time.

But who you are as a person is not who you are as a writer, and he really nailed that the things Scott is most motivated about align with the right-memetic space. Freedom of expression, "societal collapse", government overreach, a generalized deep instinct to defend any target of leftist attack, heterodox gender takes, etc. And a little bit of that...conspiracy mind, just a touch of that fervor. Again I don't want to overreach, he is grey tribe, but once Noah pointed it out you really see it. As @triviallytrue said, naming Venezuela specifically is a very telling example of what fears motivate you.

Which isn't a criticism ofc, I am heterodox enough myself and think there is a lot of value in those idea-spaces even if its primarily not my ideology (its why the decay of the right in the US has been so tragic, its not only that they are powerful but that they also used to be valuable). Its just interesting to note, since its not something you would see if you read his work in say 2013.

#politics #blog meta #longpost #2010 vs 2014 #2014 vs 2023

184 notes · View notes