@DiscourseMagnus's banner p

DiscourseMagnus


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 July 11 01:04:04 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 3133

DiscourseMagnus


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2024 July 11 01:04:04 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3133

Verified Email

I kind of doubt it, seeing as the bipartisan conspiracy theory scene has noticed Epstein's Jewish-supremacist tendencies, which black people actually have a fairly easy time talking about, especially by rounding them off to white supremacy. Last I heard the going rumor in the black community, with nonzero support from the files, was that Epstein hunted black people for sport on the island.

I feel like the analogy thoroughly works, it just reaches the opposite of the conclusion you're aiming for. Sure, we wouldn't praise someone who moved a boulder for their strength if we just saw them use heavy machinery to do it. But we would praise them for completing the job to spec, because what we care about is the end product of the work, more than the specific skills and tools that they employed to do it. The price of the labor presumably went down as a result of the improved available tools, but the labor still has a nonzero value; we do still consider it valuable enough to pay someone to do.

I believe you intended to respond to chooky a comment down?

...do you generally believe that an earthmover, and not its human operator, deserves credit for moving a rock?

Moreover, it seems to me that the more normal and routine it is for people who are old or near death, the more careless and sloppy the institutions get, and the more iffy cases you get proportionally. If Canada keeps running their MAID program indefinitely, I'd expect to see feature creep get worse and worse.

I find the "Zendaya is ugly" thing easier to understand

Well I don't! I have literally never watched a movie or show featuring Zendaya, but pretty much every time I see her in the media in passing, I think something to the effect of "wow, she's remarkably attractive even accounting for her social role that selects rigorously for attractiveness". And she's not all that close to my type, either! She's just clearly a very well-optimized something.

Yeah, this is a pretty recognizable pattern of behavior. From experience, I'm pretty sure that a lot of girls think of it as fun, but they perceive - perhaps correctly, given the response you're getting, although I don't think that response is fully trustworthy, some real protesting-too-much going on - that it's unattractive, so you mostly only see it in homosocial contexts, girls hanging out with other girls, goofing around, and not directly thinking about attracting men. I saw a lot of this kind of thing growing up, attending dance and drama programs that were ~95% female. Maybe that's part of why it can be attractive, because it's classic countersignaling - it's how girls actually act when they're excited and in a good mood and whether anyone is into them is just not on their mind.

Perhaps I overinterpreted:

For 8k years of human civilization a man wearing women clothing got stoned to death. That’s normal.

and

Still a lot more universal than pro-trans people like to believe. A lot of the cultures they like to portray as having a concept of "trans" or "third gender" didn't, and they're just reinterpreting them through their values.

?

A lot of the cultures they like to portray as having a concept of "trans" or "third gender" didn't, and they're just reinterpreting them through their values.

The progs are reinterpreting those foreign/ancient culture through their own values, yes, but so are you. Those ancient foreign cultures were sexually degenerate; they were not exemplars of traditionalist Abrahamic sexual ethics, they were the thing that traditionalist Abrahamic sexual ethics defined itself against. I think the progs' "they had a third gender!" read of the situation is, though entirely incorrect about right and wrong, still closer to the truth than your "the entire world stoned these people to death until just now". There's nothing new under the sun. Modernity did not invent rampant culturally promoted sexual degeneracy.

This description looks absurd to me, because a solid majority of what I hear about Ryan Gosling is women swooning over him as an easily-top-1% looker. Maika Monroe and Jodie Foster are both quite attractive but I wouldn't expect Ryan Gosling to be their looksmatch (to use a term I find mildly offputting).

Speaking as someone in the environment I'm pretty sure the term "Karens" came from (retail), they tend to think they're enforcing an old or legacy consensus, but that consensus is essentially hallucinatory; the social fabric is in tatters and they all have fragmented personal ideas of how things are supposed to be.

No, there were definitely people criticizing Twilight on a moral panic level and not just a cringe level. Fifty Shades Of Grey, too. These strains of commentary were still notably muted, though, and likely fading out.

I just don't feel like it constitutes evidence that my posts are unclear that your first guess as to what I meant was 100% correct.

You asked me to clarify that I said the thing I just said? That sounds more like you found it upsetting and outside the Overton Window than confusing.

I think my meaning was perfectly clear. You don't seem to have been confused by it.

Yes, that's what I was saying.

You might think that the pro-trans SJWs lack the credentials to be proper man-hating feminists for various valid reasons, but they are nonetheless overwhelmingly the center of gravity of political actors who conceive of themselves as proper man-hating feminists today.

SJWs generally train in a style of rhetoric that relies on bullying people and presenting yourself as Locally Normal And High Status, which looks ludicrous when it isn’t.

I'm not pointing to an ideological contradiction, I'm saying that they’re the overlap of groups that barely overlap.

I'm all for sticking to weird unpopular principles; the problem here is that the principles are incoherent and the rhetorical stance is an appeal to popularity.

This is further emphasized when you notice how low-functioning people who are simultaneously hardcore Zionists and hardcore SJWs tend to be, as they're often socially oblivious enough to have wandered without noticing into a set of beliefs that's extremely unpopular in both circles of the Venn diagram it's in. Sort of a similar pathology to true TERFs, that is, those who are simultaneously hardcore feminists and hardcore anti-trans.

For what it's worth, I was also under the impression that Dolly was a failure story.

Milgram held up reasonably well too, but a lot of people mistakenly believe that it didn’t because it pattern matches well to a lot of studies that didn't, and also they're misremembering whining about how it was unethically emotionally disturbing for the subjects.

To be fair, I think that kind of thing is a result of a simultaneous and toxoplasmically self-reinforcing infestation of habitual sex offenders and feminists eager to make a dubious harassment complaint.

It's deeply disturbing to me that many people who care enough about this shit to have opinions on it have theory of mind on Anthropic this bad. Yes, obviously they're convinced that they're making God; they're saying it super explicitly. Many of their competitors believe they're doing the same thing and are simply more inclined to lie about it. If you start from the position "that this is all a ploy to force governments to regulate and thereby establish their dominant position over the field forever, since any competitor would no longer be able to even get the computer required", and that they'd have to get "high off their own supply" to have higher ambitions than that, then no, you have no idea what the fuck is going on.