Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
Sigh. Once again, I am going to remind people that this is not Twitter or Reddit. Obviously this is a big news story and people will want to discuss it, but take the time to at least wait for some information and provide some links and maybe say something more interesting than "Wow did you see the news?"
You do not win by being F1rsT!!!
Low effort. You have multiple warnings for low effort posts so I'm tempted to give you a timeout just to make the message stick, but since the thread is off and running, fine, you got your little firsty in.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9hr ago
I think that this is what MLK argued for -- let everyone compete on equal footing, and let the outcome be what it may.
I have to correct you here- MLK was very much in favor of Affirmative Action and reparations. Yes, his ultimate goal was a "colorblind" world, but he was not in favor of institutional colorblindness until the scales were balanced. He wrote about this quite extensively.
A lot of people today, even conservatives, like to throw their arms around the shoulders of MLK's ghost and claim ideological kinship with him, but the fact is, if MLK were alive today, he'd be very much a SJ. Perhaps a more intellectual one than Ibram X Kendi, but I doubt he'd accept HBD as an explanation for why blacks aren't achieving equal outcomes.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12hr ago
Yes, and you've got an actual piece of research saying that 10% of the promiscuous men are accounting for 60% of the sexual encounters women have.
The reason people keep questioning your numbers is that the math doesn't math. At least not without some creative explanation of what "the sexual encounters women have" means.
So let's say we've got a group of 100 sexually active men and 100 sexually active women and assume we have normalized all other factors (they are all in the same age range, social class, all straight, etc.) so we have a hypothetical dating pool of 200 people.
According to your interpretation of the research, 10 of those men are fucking 60 of the women. Or they are fucking almost all the women, who are also giving sloppy seconds to some of the other 90 men. And the other 40 women are, what, being shared by the 90 lesser men? Do you see how this doesn't add up? Do you really think the 10% most attractive/desirable men routinely have harems? Sure, a young guy with options probably sleeps around, and so do women with options, but... most people neither want to be part of a harem nor necessarily be permanently spinning plates.
The research shows the most desirable men sleep around a lot more than the less desirable men, which is hardly a new phenomenon. And it shows women, given options, are pickier than when they didn't have options. It does not show that the most desirable men are hoarding all the women.
Likewise your figure that "80% of men are unacceptable to women" does not fit real-world observations. Are 80% of adult men today incels? Really? Are 80% of young men not dating or having sex at all?
If you give a woman a lineup of 100 male profiles, and she only checks 20 of them as attractive enough to date, it does not follow that the other 80 men will never find a woman.
You point to real problems but you abuse statistics to make an exaggerated point.
I think ironically you also ignore a factor that would also explain a lot of male datelessness: a lot of women are just... not desirable nowadays. Obesity is a big part of it. Outside of danker corners of the Internet, there isn't a lot of straightforward discussion about the fact that a lot of women are fat nowadays and most men don't want fat women. Then add the shrill brand of feminism that even among straight girls (whether or not they call themselves "bi") sneers at the idea of pleasing men in any way, and it's not surprising that the dating landscape has narrowed for men. And in ways they find socially unacceptable to state out loud.
"I'd rather jerk it to AI porn than settle for a septum-pierced landwhale who hates me" is also a problem, but it's not actually a problem of female pickiness!
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12hr ago
I think you are being slightly unfair to the authors of the paper. You say they are arguing that "men ought to be marginalized for everyone's good," but what they are really saying is two things:
- Free mate choice and sexual equality leads to women being more selective, and thus less likely to find an "acceptable" man to pair with. (The same thing you have been arguing, essentially.)
- The solution is to make it more attractive for single women to have children.
At first glance, it's easy to see why this is setting you off, but if you read the paper carefully, they kind of admit the other part of your argument: "... because the only other alternative would be changing society in ways feminists won't approve of."
The authors maintain a dry and and academic tone throughout. It's not unlikely they are, in fact, pro-feminist and agree that yes, any other solution would be unthinkable. But it's also possible to read them as saying, "Well, we know no one will accept any other proposals, so let's just point out the only thing that's left."
Are they knowingly winking so they can get the paper published and not wreck their careers, or are they drolly accepting the thesis, as you assume? Who knows? But it seems they are at least aware of the contradictions.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
Ah yes. Well, blocking worked differently there. We allow people to block mods, for example (though I think @ZorbaTHut should change that so mod-hatted messages can't be blocked) because mods can still warn and ban posters who block them. (And if you block me, and I warn you, and you don't heed the warning, we will not distinguish between "couldn't read it because I blocked you" and "chose to ignore you.")
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
Only mods can see that, which I think is a good thing.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
No, there's no rule against blocking people. You can block anyone you want to. (Some people even block mods. This does not prevent you from being modded.) If you use it to taunt the people you've blocked, you might be modded for antagonism.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
It's an interesting sort of prudishness to find support for something like the Holocaust as acceptable, every slur imaginable is allowed, but a little bit of swearing could be beyond the pale if it's found to be "rude".
It's not the swearing. Generally, you can swear all you want, though a post that seems to be full of swearing used as punctuation just to be edgy might be modded for being low-effort and trollish.
And slurs are allowed in that you can use the words, but you cannot call people slurs.
What you can't do is engage in personal attacks.
You also cannot make general statements about your outgroup, and generally we will also mod calls for violence.
The Joo-posters are always walking a fine line, because "Here is why the Holocaust is a lie" is an argument you are allowed to make. "Here is why Jews have too much political power" is an argument you are allowed to make. "Here is why we should kill the Jews" (the argument they really want to make) is not an argument you are allowed to make.
Is "I am politically working towards the goal that you and your entire people are subhumans who will be subjected to cruel torture and genocide" a polite statement?
No, which is why they aren't allowed to explicitly advocate for that. Steelmanning the Joo-posters and white nationalists, I am sure many of them would say they don't want to subject their enemies to torture and genocide, they just want to send them somewhere else. (You know, like the Nazis just wanted to send the Jews "somewhere else.") It's almost plausible in some cases. And you can make an arguable case for peaceful separation; that's @Hoffmeister's thing, and while I think his project is both infeasible and immoral, I believe he's sincere about it.
I think most people in general society would agree that genocide and murder is worse than just beating someone up and calling them a few swears while doing it, but hey maybe the normies just don't understand what being polite actually means.
Obviously, literal genocide and murder is worse than "beating someone up and calling them a few swears."
But the actual comparison here is "using words" versus "actual physical violence."
You're using the "words are violence" framing here, which is absolutely toxic to the very idea that we can have heated discourse and free speech.
Which is worse: me saying "I think your kind should all be murdered" or you physically assaulting me for saying that?
I would argue that while my words are insulting and inflammatory (and in certain circumstances, but certainly not an internet forum argument, could even be considered threatening) and your anger is understandable, you are not justified in physically assaulting me for saying mean words.
As if this place isn't mostly like 7-8 people who are that active
We have more than that, but sure, what's your point? We're a bunch of losers who don't matter, but you hang around here because you need to argue with the losers who don't matter or they might commit genocide?
Yeah, it's already severely conformist with how aggressive people are (refer back to how it's circlejerked so hard that calls for violence against someone are seen as more polite than a little swearing) but I'll admit I've seen worse among some of the online tankie groups.
Who has called for violence against the OP?
Even for that we would prefer more than just someone rushing to be the first to post the news.
Total nuclear war? Sure, post your good-byes while you can.
More options
Context Copy link