Botond173
1d ago
LOL. Why the snark? I stated that female fertility starts declining at the age of 27 on average and that this decline has an ever faster pace. What's so controversial about that?
Botond173
1d ago
Consider this please: picture Sarah Jessica Parker from the first season of SaTC. Now imagine her as a fatso redneck woman. Does it not make a difference?
Unless we’re talking about a young single female member of some religious conservative subculture (in which case she’s scarcely relevant to this discussion) then developing agreeableness and submissiveness as personality traits is a completely countercultural step for a young woman in the current social reality. She’d have to assert iron will to remove herself from her social circle, basically sever contact with most of her friends, classmates, family members etc. and reject mainstream cultural messaging. This’d entail a level of human agency and anti-social traits most women don’t have. And we haven’t even addressed all the guidance and knowledge she’d need.
Decadent modern society normalizes and incentivizes unhealthy behaviors which erode women’s ability to stay slim: binge-watching streamed material, snacking, drinking, pigging out, being a couch potato etc.
The average women reaches peak fertility and thus attractiveness roughly between the ages of 19-23. It then plateaus out and enters an ever faster decline after the age of 27 or so. We’re talking about a few years only, and those go by fast. You’re not getting them back. Most women spend those years either in college or being newbie employees, usually in a situation where they are removed from the social circle they grew accustomed to as teenagers. The modern world buzzes and spins, the culture pulsates around you, offering a million distractions.
Botond173
2d ago
Can the mainstream media portray female characters as repulsive? Using the Amelia meme as an example
There was a somewhat comical culture war development lately in the UK in that a new meme was accidentally born by an online game backfiring hard. The Know Your Meme article on it is already up.
The gist of the story is this (quotes from above – bolding done by me):
Amelia is a supporting character in the U.K. government-funded educational visual novel Pathways, a game developed by Shout Out UK to teach the youth about extremism and radicalization. In the game, Amelia is depicted as a far-right anti-immigration activist with purple hair, a pink dress, a purple sweater and a goth or e-girl appearance, who tries persuading the protagonist to join her cause.
In 2023, Shout Out UK, a company focused on spreading media literacy, political literacy and more via their training programs, released the visual novel "interactive learning package," Pathways. The game was funded by Prevent, a program of the British government's Home Office. In the game, players take on the role of a character named Charlie in six different scenarios dealing with online or in-person radicalization.
Scenario two features the character Amelia, a far-right, purple-haired goth girl with anti-immigration views who tries to recruit Charlie into joining anti-immigration groups and protesting against immigration.
Further information from the website of Prevent:
Pathways is a bespoke interactive learning package, developed by us and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council in partnership with Shout Out UK. It is part of the Prevent programme, funded by the Home Office.
The main page of the game is here.
(Supposedly the game was discontinued by the government after the scandal, and the University of Hull was somehow involved in its development. I didn’t find a source for either claim, although I wasn’t looking that hard either.)
Non-paywalled article on the mini-scandal by some news site calling itself GB News available here.
After a cursory search on Reddit I can say that many observers agree that the developers obviously made a simple mistake. They knew that the game is supposed to target the gullible white boys that are also the target audience of dissident right-wing toxic dudebros, and one staple of the latter is their hatred of purple-haired feminist ‘arthoes’. So they thought: ‘let’s make the antagonist in the game an angry purple-haired e-thot; I mean surely she won’t generate any sympathy among dudes who listen to alt-right vtuber bros, right?’. It does sound like a reasonable assumption at first, if we want to be honest.
Anyway, regarding the reasons why the whole thing ludicrously backfired, I don’t want to repeat the arguments you can read for yourself in the articles I linked to. Instead I want to ask a simple question: if your goal is to create a fictional right-wing character who’s a repulsive woman by normie standards, surely this task cannot be that hard, can it? I mean, maybe just make her an obese, frumpy, obnoxious chavette. Maybe also a single mother and a smoker to boot. There’s no way such a character will compel thirsty dudebros to create piles of fanart of her.
But the problem is obvious, and this is probably where the developers felt trapped in a Kafkaesque manner. By adding such qualities to a female character whom you want normies to repulsed by, you are implicitly confirming that such qualities are repulsive to men in general. And that cuts too close to the bone. In this particular case, I’m sure they’d have easily gotten away with it. The only people making a fuss would be a marginal group of radical feminists unironically following their ideology to the letter, and they are essentially a minority within a minority. But that’d still mean taking a risk, and they didn’t want that.
Botond173
5d ago
Eugenics was popular much earlier than that, it was a popular ethos of secular progressives who were very much into Darwinism and espoused social Darwinism as a scientific way to rule nations.
I agree but as far as I know it was after the catastrophe of WW1 that the project of eugenics assumed a sense of urgency in the minds of its proponents.
Botond173
5d ago
Noted. My basic point is this: numerous Western nations practiced eugenics back then, including Germany. With the exception of the latter, these policies did not entail extermination or open racial discrimination anywhere. To address these two Nazi policies and then categorize them as ‘eugenics’ is thus biased and frankly propagandistic in my view.
For the Nazis, the individual was completely subordinated to the Volk.
Unfortunately or not, that applies to eugenics as a whole. At its core it’s a collectivist policy that subordinates the autonomy of the individual to the interests of ‘the people’, putting an obvious strict limit on reproductive freedom if it is deemed necessary.
I have only rather cursory knowledge of the history of eugenics but based on nothing but this I think some things need to be pointed out. Eugenics was ascendant in the specific historical context of the post-WW1 Western world as a response to the disruptive consequences of the war. Huge numbers of healthy and virile men were killed and wounded which was bound to result in long-term demographic decline. Traditional moral codes were collapsing, divorce rates skyrocketed, promiscuity was on the rise, cultural decadence was everywhere, as was alcoholism, drug addiction etc. The finances of most nations were in disarray, as was international trade.
As a result, proponents of eugenics were generally concerned that a) the birthrate of socially desirable elements will decline, both an absolute numbers and in relation to the birthrate of socially undesirable elements (the feeble-minded, people with hereditary mental illness and disabilities, alcoholics etc.) b) the foundering national economy was going to be burdened by the ever-rising social costs of feeble-minded, morally imbecile social groups growing in number.
It’s small wonder that positive and negative eugenics usually went hand in hand in every nation and federal state which adopted it. (Did it not?) Those who believed in eugenics wanted to curb two larger negative trends overall. It didn’t have that much to do with ideology. Eugenics was even popular in liberal democracies.
With respect to the Nazis I think there’s a politically motivated tendency to gloss over two aspects. One is that there was a secret state campaign to kill the mentally ill and people with hereditary diseases, as others have mentioned, generally called “Merciful death” (Gnadentod) – the expression “Aktion T4” was only invented after the war – specifically aimed at freeing up healthcare resources and diverting them to the war effort (the armed forces were going to need doctors, nurses and hospital beds), plus reducing state healthcare expenditures overall.
It thus had a practical (but of course wholly unethical) purpose and was unique in the world in the sense that it meant extermination and not only sterilization of socially undesirables (which was also a state policy enacted earlier). For this reason I’s argue that it cannot be considered an example of eugenics, which wasn’t even a word the Nazis used (“racial hygiene” was used instead). It has also become common to call this particular policy a case of “euthanasia” which is completely dishonest BS, of course. Another aspect of the Nazi policy of mandatory sterilization was that it specifically targeted people with black ancestry, which is not something that eugenics as such entailed in any other nation, as far as I know.
Botond173
6d ago
The Soviets didn't use Hungarian or Czech soldiers to put down the uprisings in those countries; they chose people not from those areas specifically because painting the people in those areas of the Soviet Empire as a simple adversary is more effective that way.
Although this is an issue largely unrelated to the one being discussed I'd like to mention that there was no such specific choice made. Deploying local units was Plan A from the beginning for the Soviets. See the period of martial law in Poland from 1981 as reference. When the situation escalated to the point where local units were insufficient or unsuited to repress the rebellion, Plan B was put into action.
I don't think that really counts as 'ethnic continuity', as we are talking about a distinct countercultural minority.
More options
Context Copy link