FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
No bio...
User ID: 157
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
3hr ago
Tolkien, for example. Based on his works, at least, he seems to have truly appreciated that sort of emotion, something like "I may not be the king, but I wish that whoever is the king is a good and just king who helps his people".
From 1943 letter of Tolkien to his son Christopher:
My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy. Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that – after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world – is that it works and has worked only when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way. The quarrelsome, conceited Greeks managed to pull it off against Xerxes; but the abominable chemists and engineers have put such a power into Xerxes' hands, and all ant-communities, that decent folk don't seem to have a chance. We are all trying to do the Alexander-touch – and, as history teaches, that orientalized Alexander and all his generals. The poor boob fancied (or liked people to fancy) he was the son of Dionysus, and died of drink. The Greece that was worth saving from Persia perished anyway; and became a kind of Vichy-Hellas, or Fighting-Hellas (which did not fight), talking about Hellenic honour and culture and thriving on the sale of the early equivalent of dirty postcards. But the special horror of the present world is that the whole damned thing is in one bag. There is nowhere to fly to. Even the unlucky little Samoyedes, I suspect, have tinned food and the village loudspeaker telling Stalin's bed-time stories about Democracy and the wicked Fascists who eat babies and steal sledge-dogs. There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as 'patriotism', may remain a habit! But it won't do any good, if it is not universal.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
3hr ago
the catholic church which has leaned heavily into thirdworldism, taking the white population as granted and gunning for as many black and latin targets they can get their geriatric hands on.
I grin smugly in satisfaction that the anti-Popery hysteria of the 17th century has never gone away, it's just under a very thin veneer of outward secularism: it's all the fault of Christians and by Christians we mean THE ROMANISTS!!!!
Here, have some sinister geriatrics on their way to grab some targets 😁
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
4hr ago
Conservatives make a grave mistake simping for troops. They did absolutely nothing for you. The military industrial complex has wasted trillions, murdered millions and is if anything spying and influencing far more than China and Russia combined.
Difference between the grunts on the ground and the people in offices sending them out there, though. My late father was in the Irish army so I do have a tendency to go "I'm not blaming the poor bloody infantry for this clusterfuck because it's not Private Jones or Sergeant Smith or Major Brown deciding to fly off to Syria, it's civilian never wore bull's wool in their life Secretary Tonclint doing it". A lot of conservatives/Red Tribe/as you wish will have family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers who are or were at that level of "the military-industrial complex", or know people in that range, and so when they are "respecting the troops" it's Cousin Benny or Aunt Julia's ex-boyfriend they're identifying as "the troops".
Of course there are the types who go "respect the troops!" simply on political partisan grounds or to 'we must appeal to the rubes and simps by wrapping ourselves in the flag' or who are at the higher levels of the military-industrial complex, but when I hear about "50 ordinary soldiers killed out foreign", in general I think "the poor bastards" and not "serves the colonialising invading pawns of the M-I complex right!"
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
4hr ago
It's arguments as soldiers and I have to constantly remind myself to keep in mind (1) don't do it myself, i.e. uphold now something I formerly said I opposed simply because it's someone on My Side saying it or it is an effective tactic in an argument I'm having and (2) be aware of when My Side and Our Guys do it as well.
I frequently get smacked on the wrist by the mods for breaches of "boo outgroup", but from my perspective, I'm being consistent: there are some things I don't accept, and I don't care if it's Susie Green or the Pope arguing for acceptance of those things, I'll oppose them both. And if the Pope says it, I'll say he's wrong (at the moment, despite it all, Francis is not saying that yet on some topics so, so far, so good) even though otherwise I do accept the authority of the Pope as the boss of me.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
4hr ago
Based on status, though; the old widow gets shoved to the edge of the village to beg or starve, the old male former chief is a respected elder with a voice still in the councils of the village. The old peasant male who gets in the way of the young noble gets shoved out of the way or is supposed to be aware of his surroundings enough to get out of the way.
That, and preferably to have "lords and masters" who aren't Blue Tribers unremittingly hostile by nature to the continued existence of the Red Tribe as a culture.
That is the problem, though. The dream is to replace the current overlords with our lot, not their lot. But having overlords who can impose their values over the wishes of the mass of the ordinary people is the antithesis of the slave morality accusation; that's the powerful exercising power as they see fit. There is of course a lot more to the whole concept of master morality versus slave morality, but it doesn't matter that 'the lords and masters are favouring their pets and favourites' except this time they are 'minorities' makes it slave morality; the lords and masters favouring their pets and favourites is what masters do, before the message of "the last shall be first and the first shall be last" comes to be widely accepted (and even afterwards).
Having X Tribe lords and masters who, despite that, take into consideration the existence of Y tribe as a culture and accept that they have a right to exist - that's slave morality Christianity.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
4hr ago
It's unbelievably beautiful.
I've never found that in previous attempts to read Nietzsche, just ever-more "I really would like to slap this guy hard" reactions.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
19hr ago
Julian wanted to bring back the gracious days of yore before the Christians turned it all to shit, and was frustrated that those shitty Christians managed to appeal to the people who should be following the lead of their betters:
- To Arsacius, High-priest of Galatia [362, on his way to Antioch in June?]
The Hellenic religion does not yet prosper as I desire, and it is the fault of those who profess it; for the worship of the gods is on a splendid and magnificent scale, surpassing every prayer and every hope. May Adrasteia pardon my words, for indeed no one, a little while ago, would have ventured even to pray for a change of such a sort or so complete within so short a time. Why, then, do we think that this is enough, why do we not observe that it is their benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism? I believe that we ought really and truly to practise every one of these virtues. And it is not enough for you alone to practise them, but so must all the priests in Galatia, without exception. Either shame or persuade them into righteousness or else remove them from their priestly office, if they do not, together with their wives, children and servants, attend the worship of the gods but allow their servants or sons or wives to show impiety towards the gods and honour atheism more than piety. In the second place, admonish them that no priest may enter a theatre or drink in a tavern or control any craft or trade that is base and not respectable. Honour those who obey you, but those who disobey, expel from office. In every city establish frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our benevolence; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money. I have but now made a plan by which you may be well provided for this; for I have given directions that 30,000 modii of corn shall be assigned every year for the whole of Galatia, and 60,000 pints of wine. I order that one-fifth of this be used for the poor who serve the priests, and the remainder be distributed by us to strangers and beggars. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort, and the Hellenic villages to offer their first fruits to the gods; and accustom those who love the Hellenic religion to these good works by teaching them that this was our practice of old. At any rate Homer makes Eumaeus say: "Stranger, it is not lawful for me, not even though a baser man than you should come, to dishonour a stranger. For from Zeus come all strangers and beggars. And a gift, though small, is precious." Then let us not, by allowing others to outdo us in good works, disgrace by such remissness, or rather, utterly abandon, the reverence due to the gods. If I hear that you are carrying out these orders I shall be filled with joy.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
19hr ago
No one thinks we should beat old men because they can't cross the street fast enough. That's just silly.
That's slave morality right there, friend. The old and weak should know when to yield to the young and strong; if they're social inferiors, they should always be aware that they must defer to the squire and get out of his way, or better yet not get in the way in the first place. If they're equals or superiors, they should graciously yield (or, depending how far back we want to get, be slain in combat by the new, virile, younger challenger who ascends to the top of the dungheap over the corpse of the previous alpha).
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
21hr ago
I mean, I yield to no-one in my admiration for the 13th century, but these guys don't want the hierarchical orderly beauty of the Great Chain of Being, they want some imagined ideal Roman Empire where they're lolling around in togas being Great Thinkers and Masters of the Universe, while getting to order around their inferiors without all of that pesky nonsense about women and foreigners are also children of God. Where the strong do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must, and they imagine they would be the strong, of course. They're wrong, and what's even more is that they have no idea how much of what they want has been shaped by the influences of Christianised Western society for centuries, because it's the water these fish are swimming in.
Chesterton wrote about the dream of the ideal beauty and order of hierarchy, the temptation of it, and the way it can be subtly twisted to the wrong, in The Ball and the Cross, and it's a dream that tempts me because it appeals to my own instincts and what I find beautiful, but these types who sneer about 'slave morality' are not even strong enough to lose or humble enough to be proud; they seem to admire the same kind of show of strength that some gang boss in a grubby slum exhibits in a drive-by spray and pray:
As the flying ship swept round the dome he observed other alterations. The dome had been redecorated so as to give it a more solemn and somewhat more ecclesiastical note; the ball was draped or destroyed, and round the gallery, under the cross, ran what looked like a ring of silver statues, like the little leaden images that stood round the hat of Louis XI. Round the second gallery, at the base of the dome, ran a second rank of such images, and Evan thought there was another round the steps below. When they came closer he saw that they were figures in complete armour of steel or silver, each with a naked sword, point upward; and then he saw one of the swords move. These were not statues but an armed order of chivalry thrown in three circles round the cross. MacIan drew in his breath, as children do at anything they think utterly beautiful. For he could imagine nothing that so echoed his own visions of pontifical or chivalric art as this white dome sitting like a vast silver tiara over London, ringed with a triple crown of swords.
As they went sailing down Ludgate Hill, Evan saw that the state of the streets fully answered his companion's claim about the reintroduction of order. All the old blackcoated bustle with its cockney vivacity and vulgarity had disappeared. Groups of labourers, quietly but picturesquely clad, were passing up and down in sufficiently large numbers; but it required but a few mounted men to keep the streets in order. The mounted men were not common policemen, but knights with spurs and plume whose smooth and splendid armour glittered like diamond rather than steel. Only in one place—at the corner of Bouverie Street—did there appear to be a moment's confusion, and that was due to hurry rather than resistance. But one old grumbling man did not get out of the way quick enough, and the man on horseback struck him, not severely, across the shoulders with the flat of his sword.
“The soldier had no business to do that,” said MacIan, sharply. “The old man was moving as quickly as he could.”
“We attach great importance to discipline in the streets,” said the man in white, with a slight smile.
“Discipline is not so important as justice,” said MacIan.
The other did not answer.
Then after a swift silence that took them out across St. James's Park, he said: “The people must be taught to obey; they must learn their own ignorance. And I am not sure,” he continued, turning his back on Evan and looking out of the prow of the ship into the darkness, “I am not sure that I agree with your little maxim about justice. Discipline for the whole society is surely more important than justice to an individual.”
Evan, who was also leaning over the edge, swung round with startling suddenness and stared at the other's back.
“Discipline for society——” he repeated, very staccato, “more important—justice to individual?”
Then after a long silence he called out: “Who and what are you?”
“I am an angel,” said the white-robed figure, without turning round.
“You are not a Catholic,” said MacIan.
The other seemed to take no notice, but reverted to the main topic.
“In our armies up in heaven we learn to put a wholesome fear into subordinates.”
MacIan sat craning his neck forward with an extraordinary and unaccountable eagerness.
“Go on!” he cried, twisting and untwisting his long, bony fingers, “go on!”
“Besides,” continued he, in the prow, “you must allow for a certain high spirit and haughtiness in the superior type.”
“Go on!” said Evan, with burning eyes.
“Just as the sight of sin offends God,” said the unknown, “so does the sight of ugliness offend Apollo. The beautiful and princely must, of necessity, be impatient with the squalid and——”
“Why, you great fool!” cried MacIan, rising to the top of his tremendous stature, “did you think I would have doubted only for that rap with a sword? I know that noble orders have bad knights, that good knights have bad tempers, that the Church has rough priests and coarse cardinals; I have known it ever since I was born. You fool! you had only to say, 'Yes, it is rather a shame,' and I should have forgotten the affair. But I saw on your mouth the twitch of your infernal sophistry; I knew that something was wrong with you and your cathedrals. Something is wrong; everything is wrong. You are not an angel. That is not a church. It is not the rightful king who has come home.”
“That is unfortunate,” said the other, in a quiet but hard voice, “because you are going to see his Majesty.”
“No,” said MacIan, “I am going to jump over the side.”
“Do you desire death?”
“No,” said Evan, quite composedly, “I desire a miracle.”
“From whom do you ask it? To whom do you appeal?” said his companion, sternly. “You have betrayed the king, renounced his cross on the cathedral, and insulted an archangel.”
“I appeal to God,” said Evan, and sprang up and stood upon the edge of the swaying ship.
The being in the prow turned slowly round; he looked at Evan with eyes which were like two suns, and put his hand to his mouth just too late to hide an awful smile.
“And how do you know,” he said, “how do you know that I am not God?”
MacIan screamed. “Ah!” he cried. “Now I know who you really are. You are not God. You are not one of God's angels. But you were once.”
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
23hr ago
I think we're in agreement more on social issues than we're disagreeing, I'm just saying that it wasn't women alone who decided they wanted this new state of affairs, men were happy for it too until they lost the former privileges and were living under the new dispensation. Now they're blaming women for it being all their fault as if no man ever went along with "wow, you mean the Pill means I can fuck women as much as I want and no babies and having to settle down and marry only one? sign me up!"
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
23hr ago
And it won, because there are always going to be more of the ignorant, servile, and downtrodden. See the French Revolution. Guys who are "we want to go back to the days when the likes of us were rightfully the nobles and rulers" should remember the rattle of the tumbrils taking the lords and nobles to execution before the jeering crowds as entertainment.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
23hr ago
The main problem is that these guys think that under the perfect 'no Christian egalitarian shit' system, they would be LORDS AND MASTERS.
They wouldn't. Best they could get, they'd be some kind of household staff dealing with running the kitchens and stores for the real LORDS AND MASTERS. Worst case? They'd be ground down into the dirt. "But I am so smart and big-brain!" "Yes, and I have big sword. Which of us wins this contest?"
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1d ago
I'm not sure if the version we sang as secondary school kids at Mass in the late 70s/early 80s is the one you mean, but the very name makes me shudder.
I will gladly donate to this worthy ecumenical project!
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1d ago
it’s simply that only highly educated men decided things in Islamic nations.
And who educates those men at an early age and influences them afterwards?
The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology gives four distinct forms of concubinage, three of which are applicable to the Muslim World: 'elite concubinage', where concubine ownership was primarily related to social status, such as under the Umayyads; royal concubinage, where concubines became consorts to the ruler and perpetuated the royal bloodline and politics and reproduction were deeply intertwined, including under the Abbasids and in the Ottoman empire; and concubinage as a patriarchal function where concubines were of low status and the children of concubines became permanently inferior to the children of wives, such as in Mughal India.]
...The concubines of Islamic rulers could achieve considerable power, and often enjoyed higher status than other slaves.
...Almost all Abbasid caliphs were born to concubines and several Twelver Shia imams were also born to concubines.[citation needed] The Ottoman sultans also appeared to have preferred concubinage to marriage, and for a time all royal children were born of concubines. Over time, the concubines of the Imperial Harem came to exercise a considerable degree of influence over Ottoman politics.
Valide sultan was, in most cases, the most important position in the Ottoman Empire after the sultan himself. As the mother to the sultan, by Islamic tradition ("A mother's right is God's right"), the valide sultan would often have a significant influence on the affairs of the empire. She had great power in the court and her own rooms (always adjacent to her son's) and state staff. The valide sultan had quarters within the New Palace, where the Sultan himself resided, beginning in the 16th century.
As the Valide sultan (Sultana mother), who had direct and intimate access to the Sultan's person, often influenced government decisions bypassing the Imperial Council and the Grand Vizier altogether or the grille-covered window from which the Sultan or Valide sultan could observe Council meetings. This left her at the heart of the political ongoings and machinations of the Ottoman Empire. valide sultan also traditionally had access to considerable economic resources and often funded major architectural projects, such as the Atik Valide Mosque Complex in Istanbul. Many valide sultans undertook massive philanthropic endeavors and buildings, as this was seen as one of the main ways to demonstrate influence and wealth. Valide sultans were also conveniently one of the few people within the empire with the station and means to embark on these expensive projects. Nurbanu Sultan's daily stipend as valide sultan to her son, Murad III, was 2000 aspers, an extraordinary sum for the time, which revealed the highly influential position she held at court.
The valide sultan also maintained special privileges that other harem members could not participate in. A valide sultan was not subject to sole seclusion within the confines of the palace. She had mobility outside of the harem, sometimes through ceremonial visibility to the public or veiled meetings with government officials and diplomats. Additionally, the valide sultan spearheaded one of the most crucial elements of diplomacy within the Ottoman Empire’s court: marriages of royal princesses. The most powerful and influential valide sultans had multiple daughters, with whom they forged crucial alliances through by marriage. During the 17th century, in a period known as the Sultanate of Women, a series of incompetent or child sultans raised the role of the valide sultan to new heights. Two Valide sultans acted as regents for their sons, assuming the vast power and influence the position entailed.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1d ago
Guy, men, lads, fellas, I don't even know where to begin with all this. I am intrigued that Catholics Not Christians, though 😀 So the Horrid Popish Plot met the Global Zionist Conspiracy and we made beautiful music together?
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1d ago
Again, not blaming men as the primary movers and shakers. But in all the "birth rate dropping, women should be having more babies" discussion I see, nobody is talking about the other side of the equation - the fathers of these babies. Women are not having babies for reasons of convenience, but so are men. If you want more marriage, stable marriage, and more babies, you need to sort out the culture and social values and that includes guys as well as dolls. Men also have expectations, standards, and conditioning from wider society around marriage and family (which culturally has shifted from "early marriage, be main breadwinner, have two to four kids" to "develop your career, enjoy yourself while still young, mature adulthood is put off until thirties, kids are an expensive drag which prevent you from spending your money on having fun and buying stuff").
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
2d ago
My own view is that there is not going to be magic all-powerful AI providing for the world, so most people are goiung to have to work for a living just like always. The type of work available may be different, but the profits of AI are going to the big institutional shareholders.
I'm not saying you don't intend the best for your kids, but your view of "this is best for you" and their view of the results, which after all they are the ones living with it, may differ. "Dad, I hated that from the age of three you were measuring me every week and if I didn't match up to what you expected, your disappointment and disapproval were evident. Sure, I'm six foot tall, but I'd prefer to be five foot nine and we spent time together doing stuff when I was a kid".
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
2d ago
At the end of the day people who care about improving things and have specific goals like a society with more healthy monogamous relationships and at least replacement fertility rate, should change things.
Yeah, and if men want that, they are going to have to face up to it that they can't eat their cake and have it: be 'sowing their wild oats' in their 20s with a bunch of hot, willing chicks, then settle down in their 30s with a modest wifey to pop out kids. If you want hot chicks willing to have casual sex with you, you are going to have a culture where women will expect the same sexual market value as men. If you don't want a culture of promiscuity and infertility, you are going to have to change back to the old values of "respectable men don't fuck around and will try and wait for marriage".
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
3d ago
I don't think you should treat your kids as biological experiments, but as you say, it's nothing to do with me. I'm not talking about "don't put your kids through college", I'm talking about "don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington". If you want to be the equivalent of a stage mother pushing your kids to live your dreams vicariously through them - okay, that's your family business and if they're happy or not with how things turn out, they'll let you know in later years.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
3d ago
For a long time, it's been a tricky balancing act. Don't put out? You're a frigid bitch. Do put out? You're a slut. Men seem to want (and I'm emphasising "seem" here because this is all gross generalisation) women to be agreeable to have sex with them, but never to have had sex with previous partners, or only a couple of previous partners. If you think about it, it's not really doable; if you dump/break up with the girlfriend and both of you move on to new relationships, after a while you're both going to have a past history. If Joe has had more relationships than Annie, that's great. If Joe and Annie have the same number, that may be a problem: too high for Annie, too low for Joe even on the same numbers. If Annie has had more relationships than Joe, that's bad because that means she's promiscuous.
The double standard hurts men and women both because men are supposed to rack up more experience, but women are not, which means how do you do that? If the guy is always dating a new girlfriend who had only one or two boyfriends before him, then a small number of men are getting all the 'good' girls and leaving 'sullied' girls after them for the rest of the guys.
So women have an incentive to report lower numbers, and men to report higher numbers, of previous partners than they really have had.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
3d ago
Look, I'm old enough that I remember the tail end of the Sexual Revolution becoming aware of it as going into my teen years. The attitudes then about men versus women were nuts by modern standards, and I don't mean "crazy ultra-feminists hate all men" standards, I mean "treating the other person as a human" standards. The attitudes parodied here where guys were tough and macho and women loved it, and the notion was to be sexually available because this was the new era of doing away with hang-ups. Men did benefit from it, so it does make me smile wryly to read all the crying now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Is it great that women can now be emotionally abusive to men? No. But in general guys are now getting a taste of the medicine that women had to put up with, and they don't like it. Newsflash: neither did women, hence feminism. "Women have the power in the dating market! Women are too picky! Women spurn nice guys and go for the alphas!" Yeah, the sexual market place used to be a male buyer's market, now it's a female one. And men can't shove off all the blame onto women, because men wanted to eat their cake and have it: women willing and available for casual sex, no demands for committed relationships or marriage, and access to novelty. Women were then conditioned into 'if guys can do it, so can you'. And now we have the results, where nobody is happy save for a few who can command premium attention, be they men or women.
If you're going to complain that women are not having babies, you need to look at the other side of "where do you get babies" because it's not out of thin air. Why don't women want marriage and kids? What are the social forces driving this? A lot of it is economic - unless you have one partner with a lot of money, it's not really feasible to be a stay at home wife and mother. If both of you have to work, then there's little chance to have kids because it all needs to be planned around education and careers, and then when you do, you're paying for childcare which is pretty much eating up one of your wages. You won't get a mortgage without two incomes, and renting is another problem (can you even find a place to rent, and if you do how high is the rent, and will the lease allow children?)
I'm not trying to blame men, I'm saying that there are no easy answers and putting all the blame on women alone is as unfair as putting all the blame on men alone.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
5d ago
Sure, height matters for men and there are studies out the ears about the advantages of tall men over short men in work and life.
But saying casually that you'll slap your sons on HGH if they aren't tall enough at an age you decide they should be a certain height grinds on me the same way that giving 16 year old girls boob and nose jobs grinds on me: something that is meant to be helping them but is more about stupid societal standards. I don't think a 16 year old girl needs stripper boobs. I don't think a 12 year old boy needs HGH unless there's a genuine medical condition there, not just "Dad thinks I'm four inches too short for the optimum life".
For me, it's the same with puberty blockers and the trans issues; we've only got the long-term usage history for them on kids with medical conditions like premature puberty, so jumping from that to "it's perfectly harmless and reversible and will have no effects" when you're talking about blocking normal puberty and development is disingenuous, to say the least. We don't know yet what the effect on normal puberty children is, and we won't until we get the long-term information from the kids being used as guinea pigs right now.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
5d ago
The problem is that that is the age most sensitive, and most under the cosh of brutal honesty. It may well be that you will have to wait four years to grow out of the awkward, shy, spotty stage (for both boys and girls) but that is cold comfort to be told that "jam tomorrow but not jam today" when you see (as you think you see) 'everyone else is dating and having sex but not me'.
Resentments do seed themselves at that time, and come to bloom in later years. There is no way around the realities of nature, but we try and wrap it up in cotton wool for good reasons. But some people will never find anyone, and it's not anybody's fault in particular. And state-mandated girlfriends are no solution there, neither are the AI waifus (though for some very bruised psyches, the perfect girlfriend or boyfriend you can tailor to your exact tastes who will never leave you and always love you will be an aid, the way spectacles or a wheelchair is a necessary aid for physical lack of abilities).
I don't and never cared, which saved me from the worst of it. But my God, had I wanted romance and love and sex in my teens and twenties, I'd probably genuinely have tried killing myself because of the need that could never be assuaged, because I'm too weird, too ugly, too wrong to get someone who loves me. Whatever flaw of nature means I don't feel the want of that really was a lucky one.
He seems to have believed it at first, was horrified by what seemed a huge amount of incest and sexual assault by the middle-class on their children, and eventually was talked around/persuaded himself to the view that it couldn't be true, but was instead a sublimation of the Oedipus/Electra Complex; children's first sexual attachment was to their parents as the nearest intimate relationship, girls wanted to marry their fathers and boys wanted to marry their mothers because of this, and once puberty and sexual awakening set in, these impulses were translated into dreams or fantasies of sexual encounters with the father or mother.
As medical/scientific treatment, it's terrible. But as a respectable middle-class Viennese doctor, especially as a Jewish man who was already suspect simply due to prejudice in society? It's understandable; he couldn't imagine such things to be true (any more than in the early days of the Catholic sex abuse scandal people could imagine it to be really true) so an alternate explanation that tidied away the facts was preferable. And then he swung all his authority behind it to show this must be the real explanation, which did all the damage.
More options
Context Copy link