@Supah_Schmendrick's banner p

Supah_Schmendrick


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:08:09 UTC

				

User ID: 618

Supah_Schmendrick


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:08:09 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 618

Sympathy to a cause has very little to do with analysis of the behavior of that cause's partisans in a particular instance.

The same one as John Adams, thank-you-very-much.

I mean, if your only reason for becoming a lawyer is "it will pay me a squintillion bucks," then yes. This is a very good reason not to be a lawyer, and frankly, good riddance. The law is too important, and the current profession too corrupted as it is.

Civil disobedience properly is directed at the governing authority; not random citizens.

In a democracy, particularly one as deeply run by small-scale voluntary and communal organizations as the US used to be, there often wasn't much of a difference between the two.

Of course, the U.S. hasn't been that kind of democracy for a long time.

So has installing "self-defense cannon" in a structure as an anti-mob measure. But law has, for better or worse, evolved on that question.

The issue is the American (mostly Red Tribe) culture of escalatory self-defence.

What about the Blue Tribe culture of aggressively taking over and blocking explicitly public transit spaces? That action happens to be illegal (at least as the laws are written) in most US jurisdictions.

That was the focus of the prosecution that he was cauding people to feel hreatened, which was the contention on why Rosenbaum may have felt threatened and c harged Rittenhouse and thus had a self defence claim.

The problem is the link you're smuggling in between "feeling threatened" and "charging." Not "shoving someone away from you" or "running away" or "hiding" but "charging". Actively running towards the person who you think is threatening you.

she happily took an OF career over a law career.

This doesn't tell you anything. I graduated with decent grades from a T-15 law school in a major US metropolitan area and didn't crack $80k/yr for several years out of law school. Lawyer pay is extremely bimodal, and there's a lot of people who get their newly-minted JD only to find themselves with 5 or 6-figure debts but making significantly less than the Assistant Manager at the local Panda Express.

simp/soyboy/nerdy men (perjorative terms used to denote an archetype succinctly)

The problem is that this archetype (because less attractive) includes lots of men with low social skills, and (because inexperienced romantically) badly wrong ideas about women. Women aren't looking for a grubby and immature man-child either. There's no quick fix here.

The point of this piece is just to push back against toxic sex positivity without back sliding into toxic purity

"toxic" aren't traits of impersonal "sex positive" or "purity" cultures - they're attitudes and actions of individual people, which are going to exist no matter the "culture" or "norm" you set up. There's no systematizing your way around human imperfection and failure, including but not limited to shittiness and evil.

Oh sure. I'm just less familiar with that than with the French stuff.

Voltaire and anti-Catholic propaganda pervasive from the French Enlightenment through the Spanish Civil War, mostly.

once there is literally no space free from the towering presence of a trans stasi agent.

This, even in extremely-progressive (thus trans-friendly) spaces, is incredibly, ridiculously overstated.

The mistake is thinking that there is any systematic "solution" that will avoid people sometimes being callow, manipulative, unempathetic, or simply mistaken in ways that result in broken hearts and worse.

I agree with the author that actually interacting with, and making informed decisions about, the individual people in front of you, is the most important thing - you can't rely on any ideology or heuristic to do the thinking for you. But I disagree because there is also a value to "purity" - having sex is a really major step in a relationship, and can really skew people's attitudes towards each other, and towards relationships in general.

Whether to have sex, and who to have sex with, really is an important decision with outsize importance - particularly for heterosexual women - and should be approached really, really carefully, given the young and immature ages at which young women become sexually attractive to men, and the drastically-different attitudes most men and most women have towards sex (see, e.g., the sexual habits of gay men vs. lesbian women).

You'd think someone would have picked up on that and done something based on historical black badasses.

They did. They couldn't help but screw it up because too much of the truth was inconvenient.

aside from some with exotic racial preferences, people usually want to see people that look like them in the media they consoom.

This isn't actually true. White people used to care about seeing people of their own race in their media, but during the Civil Rights era have pretty much stopped doing that. Black people, on the other hand, really want to see themselves, and haven't stopped. (source: Lenk, Hartmann & Sattler; "White Americans’ preference for Black people in advertising has increased in the past 66 years: A meta-analysis" PNAS, Vol. 121, No. 9)

There was no conceivable act of individual heroism that could have shattered the power of the Catholic church at the height of the Inquisition

Bad history. The Inquisition was set up precisely to stop idiot rubes out in the sticks from freaking out about nonsense like "witches making the cows' milk dry up" and burning people. The Spanish crown then won a political struggle with the Papacy, asserted control over the office in the area under its secular jurisdiction, then started using it as a secret police against perceived fifth columnists and as a revenue source.

It's not a terribly deep or positive thought, but I kinda yawned my way through this.

It's not that it's badly written, but more that it's formulaic. Ah yep - conservative religious upbringing that fails to actually describe recognizable relations between the sexes and settles for formulaic denunciations. Escapist fantasies of liberation that inevitably shatter on the weird, cold, and uncomfortable reefs of confusing interpersonal relations? Check. And next we'll have...yup, there it is...sublimation of the disappointment from those broken dreams into uncharitable takes on the opposite sex, complete with meme-tier statistics. Finally, we wrap up with white-knuckled clinging to any available validation for the hole the author's dug herself, a wistful call-back to liberatory fantasies, and a circle back to those conservative parents, who still remain fuddy-duddies.

And as a parthian shot, I have a hard time taking the author's complaints about the sexual marketplace seriously when she's literally an OnlyFans model. Bemoaning the lack of human connection in romantic matters and the reduction of women to "defective cumrags" rings mighty hollow from that position.

On the other hand, make that bag I guess.

Thinking about the past, it makes me smile how much it was common to hear, until twenty years ago, that women are very uninterested in politics, unlike men. For my generation, this idea looks absurd. Men do not care about politics at all.

I'm not sure what culture you're from/what tropes you're dealing with, but the idea that "women don't care about politics" hasn't been a significant part of anglosphere culture for at least the last 200 years, as far as I can tell. Instead, women have been at the forefront of just about every moralistic movement that I can think of in the anglosphere, from religious awakenings, the abolition of slavery, progressive uplift of the lower-classes, anti-alcoholism, anti-drugs, etc. A certain species of feminine moral busybodying over far-away causes actually gets lampooned from time to time in mainstream anglosphere literature.

Not saying you can't do this. Just that it's unpleasant.

Well, the appeal of living in gigantic skyscrapers does diminish a bit when you're living in an earthquake zone. Even being in a fourth floor apartment during a 3.2 a few years back was a deeply unpleasant experience, and I say this as someone who slept through the '92 Northridge quake as a kid.

Who do you think goes to all the public hearings on building permits and bitches that the new rowhouse or apartment building "destroys the character of the neighborhood?" Who do you think leverages historic building designations to keep anything from being built? Who do you think files the CEQA lawsuits (okay, that's mostly unions pissed off that developers don't want to use "prevailing wage" labor).

I don't know why paid parasocial entertainment isn't really a thing in the western world,

As to bar girls, it's very illegal under most states' alcohol laws (the employment of companion-girls, the act of drink solicitation, accepting a drink from a patron, or some combination of all three).

Suppose we have a rape victim who says this. Then, regarding the time she was raped, she would prefer it if she had died instead. But she can replicate the effect of having died back then by simply committing suicide now. But she doesn't - she chooses to keep living instead. So it seems that her revealed preference is that she actually doesn't want to have died back then, because she rejects the necessary consequences of that choice.

You're missing something. There are three separate states being talked about here.

(1) the anguish of mentally-anticipating the pain of being raped.

(2) the in-the-moment physical experience of being raped.

(3) the mental anguish experienced in the wake of being raped, through recollections, PTSD, etc.

Each of these three is a separate experience, all tied to the concept of "being raped." A rape victim who says they wish the had died instead of being raped may well be saying that, now knowing what (2) and (3) are like, she would have preferred to never go through them and die instead without having had those experiences. But, having gone through them, dying now would not retroactively alleviate the anguish that has been already experienced.

"Madame President Kamala" is too many syllables. She's "Momala" now