@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

I found this comment while trying to find another one via the search function. I just want to add that I did some reading out of curiosity and I think I have to nitpick a bit.

Eppstein (Germany, 1983; 6 killed incl. perpetrator) - committed by an adult

Sofia University (Bulgaria, 1974; 8 killed) - committed in a university dormitory, not a school

For these reasons I'd argue these weren't school shootings in the everyday sense of the word.

No more, I imagine. The sites in question went through purges initiated by women, then became deserts and died.

A tangentially related question: back when the Manosphere / Red Pill Sphere actually existed online, there were multiple attempts to have blogs where adult men and women can politely discuss Red Pill theories. You can imagine how it all ended up. Are you aware of these maybe?

I wish there was a way to recruit more people of diverse viewpoints, but even the SSC/LessWrong forums now think the Motte is a hive of scum and villainy because of who we don't ban.

I guess jettisoning the ideology of rationalism would be a start? Just thinking out loud.

Can you please expand on this? Are you arguing that there are two politically effective ways to combat the process? Maybe more?

That said, wasn't the whole HR-mandated woke stuff kind of exaggerated to begin with?

Wasn't it always just a few college kids on Twitter? /s

There was(?) also @justawoman.

Watching all this go down is strange. For the past three decades or so, this whole conflict basically has been in the realm of kayfabe. Lots of saber-rattling, angry rhetoric, not giving an inch obviously, threats etc. But everyone involved had enough sense not to actually start shooting. However, the venom has been accumulating. And now it’s going down. It’s real. It’s on. Ideas have consequences indeed.

How is all this substiantially different from so-called mixers?

Women don't grow up thinking about how to be woman, because much of what defines femininity is there by default. You are simply born a sexy girl - you simply gestate a fetus - and then give birth to it. There is little to no skill barrier required in comparison.

I’d phrase it as: society generally believes that men need to be prepared for marriage through conditioning, rewards and punishments, whereas in the case of women this is unneeded, because they are naturally a) monogamous b) inclined to become mothers. This isn’t incorrect as such, as women are indeed naturally monogamous, with the caveat that their promiscuity, to the extent that it is indulged, manifests as serial monogamy, which is something that has zero allure to promiscuous men. And the motherhood part obviously no longer necessarily asserts itself in a world of cheap and reliable contraception, abortion access, various distractions etc.

If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society.

I’d phrase it as: poverty is a state you’re supposed to remedy as a man by raising yourself up, being an ambitious worker, earning more money, acquiring more skills etc. As a woman your remedy is supposed to be eliciting commitment and financial support from a rich man. Society in general is willing to cut women slack and provide support in such situations if they fail, under the assumption that it’s somehow all the fault of evil men or something, but has zero sympathy towards men who fail. Also, social adeptness is seen as a necessary virtue for men if they want to mate but not for women.

I’m assuming you have mainly underclass women in mind when mentioning single mothers with a bunch of kids from various fathers (well, sires might be a more accurate description). I’d argue that yes, it’s actually true that the one activity that may accord underclass women social status and respect is them having and (supposedly) properly raising children as responsible mothers. But even if they prove to be irresponsible mothers, them remaining childless is still a worse alternative on average.

In other words, if an underclass or working-class woman decides to remain childless, no path that she chooses and no activity she engages in will get her as much social status in the eyes of her social circle as being a mother, even a single mother. Society generally has a different attitude towards higher-class women who delay or reject motherhood because we assume that they have good career options, disposable income, various potential fun hobbies they can afford, some sort of higher calling etc. I suggest this blog post from Steve Sailer from 2005 in which he quotes a social worker about this.

I’m assuming the rust belts of the USA and Britain are substantially different. Deindustrialization took place earlier in Britain, and the presence of Third World immigrants was already much larger. Most of the drug-addicted criminal underclass you’re describing, I guess, descended from low-IQ rural whites with high time preference from Appalachia who migrated to big Midwestern industrial centers back when industrial production was booming and large numbers of workers were needed.

I don’t know much about Cuba. Having said that, I think it’s reasonable to argue that whatever shortages there are now are lighter or at least not worse than the ones they had there for many years after 1989. On the other hand, I imagine the situation is generally a lot worse than it was before COVID lockdowns.

I don’t think it’s a case of deflection. The DRR/DR3 narrative may be effective when directed at the Republican base because it reinforces their priors but it’s utterly meaningless for Democrats because their belief is that racism is a structural evil whereas Republicans think it’s a personal moral failing. So if you accuse Democrats of racism they won’t even react because they’re full convinced that not one of them is guilty. On the other hand, the racism accusations works against Republicans (as evidenced by them always taking such accusations seriously and publicly denying them) for the reason I mentioned i.e. it is conceivable for Republicans that some of their own are actually racists, which makes them afraid of such accusations.

I ask you not to be obtuse. The ‘Democrats are the real racists’ narrative originates from the 2000s.

In what ways do they not?

In a way that agitation against Jews as Jews (that, is based on ancestry and not on Zionist leanings or Israeli citizenship) is a cancellable offense in their eyes, even when black activists do it. That does not mean that those black activists always get cancelled as a result, but anti-Semitic agitation is the one sin they surely can get cancelled for by their comrades.

You're absolutely right. That was before 1975 though, as you said.

True. At the same time, nobody is claiming that Lebanon is our greatest ally, the only democracy in the Middle East and the bastion of Judeo-Christian culture.

That is already a rather large pool of targets, relatively speaking, compared to the situation of conservative normies.

who don't get that many acceptable targets

In what sense do you mean this?

Do 3rd wave feminists unironically advocate for women to initiate all male-female pairings?

I assume you’re a well-informed poster. You and I and everyone on this board surely knows well that ‘Free Palestine’ groups claim to be anti-colonialist, anti-racist and leftist, plus supporters of the concept of national liberation and also of BLM, for example. Their opposition to Israel’s policies rather obviously stem from this ideology and not from a general hatred of the Jewish people and not from a hard opposition towards the concept of a Jewish state in itself, as they view Israel as a white supremacist, unrepentant, aggressor settler state, and many of their members and supporters are themselves Jews. We can, of course, make all sorts of criticism of them, but this needs to be admitted. I guess we can go so far as to call them anti-white, since they see Israeli settlers and Zionists as white. At the same time, not only is their rhetoric not anti-Semitic, they do not tolerate anti-Semitism either, especially not within their own ranks.

Obviously these groups have existed before October 7th, in fact they have existed for a long time, and their ideological rhetoric against Israeli colonialism was also deployed against the US political system, which they view as structurally racist and neo-colonialist. Back when BLM was more relevant, it was the latter that was getting these activists more media attention, and I can only assume that this made many people forget that these groups are also anti-Zionist, and that accusations of anti-Semitism do not work against them at all, for the simple reason that they genuinely do not see themselves as anti-Semitic and thus do not consider themselves compelled to apologize. It’s similar to the case of the ‘Democrats are the real racists’ narrative, which does not work on Democrats one bit.

To the extent that US political opposition towards Zionism and the Zionist lobby exists outside the leftist, anti-racist, anti-colonialist milieu, I think it’s fair to say that it all stems from isolationism, to the extent that it still even exists. And the common attribute of isolationists is that they wish to isolate the US from other conflict regions in the world as well, not just Israel, so I don’t think accusations of anti-Semitism apply in their case either.

True. My argument is that economic autonomy permits women to select for attributes other than provider ability when looking for a mate. This may result in them indeed not settling at all, or selecting mates that are below them in socio-economic status but otherwise being exceptional in some way that makes them hypergamously attractive.

'Find me a real life story where an attractive woman with the option to pick between a handsome, reliable, but only moderately wealthy Blue Collar worker, and a high status millionaire minor celeb, and intentionally settled for the former.'

third wave feminism is, by and large, a reaction to the perception of male sexual threat

I’m no political theorist but as far as I know, one defining characteristic of 3rd wave feminism that differentiates it from the 2nd wave is sex positivity. So there’s either an obvious contradiction here or there is some weird-ass angle to all this that I fail to notice.