HighResolutionSleep
No bio...
User ID: 172
HighResolutionSleep
6mo ago
As others have noted, the sexual revolution is slowly being reversed
Anything but. We're not witnessing the "reverse-engineering traditional sexual norms". They're reverse-engineering the half where men are 100% responsible for everything that happens before, during, and after sex. That's it.
Notice that there's no restrictions on women or power over them by men being "rediscovered". It's just the parts where men are responsible for everything.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
Look, there's a version of the progressive position that might actually be respectable. You can make a compelling case that human beings in basically any context have a very poor track record of resisting the temptation to use real or imagined differences in cognitive ability as a basis for a stratification in worthiness of basically any kind. You could furthermore make the case that there's not good evidence that we've outgrown these tenancies.
But if you're going to take the discussion of such differences off the table, they must be fully taken off the table—not remain half on and half off the table as they are now. You can't take the half off the table that involves the study of ethnic differences in cognitive ability but then leave the half on the table that involves forming public policy on the basis of a lack thereof.
It must be all the way on, or come all the way off.
HighResolutionSleep
9mo ago
Eye-opening event. Seeing some mantras being repeated that I simply can't believe:
-
You can't expect her to stop being a bachelorette simply because you married her.
-
It's "controlling behavior" to have standards in a relationship.
Anyways, shoutouts to this whole debacle for rekindling my fear of women, and quenching my fear of missing out.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
It's perfectly ingenuous.
I don't see anyone throwing their hands up and saying "well men are just stronger than women are so there's really no point in trying to resist that fact with law we just have to recognize biological reality" but people like yourself seem perfectly happy insisting that biology wrote our laws regarding paternity established family courts and decided their policy and there's just nothing we can do about it.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
The double standard is one enforced by biology.
It's really strange how when this subject comes up so many people transform into BASED proponents of natural law.
Rape should be legal. Why would men be stronger than women if it wasn't to physically dominate them?
As @raggedy_anthem says below, the sexual revolution was mainly about sexual freedom for men, and any consequences - positive or negative - for women weren't something its proponents cared much about.
Do you have any pieces of evidence to back this up? I've always known sexual liberation to have sprung forth from women's liberation movements as a means of freeing women's sexuality from the heel of men's control, and all the sources I can find seem to support this. It seems to require some justification to suppose that, despite the sexual revolution happening coincident with women's liberation and promoted by a lot of the same people that it's actually men who did it.
I mean, I've long suspected that something like this would happen—backed by seemingly naked reasoning that since it's benefiting men at the expense of women (it isn't—we're just blind to social costs to men in general), that it must have therefore been perpetrated by them. And, like, not all feminists were thrilled about it. It's exactly what I imagined while doomdreaming in English 3 all those years ago, which is weird.
Some men, and I think this is in part behind some of the 'incel' subculture or identity, have seemingly realized that the sexual revolution's free for all buffet clearly often applies primarily to the highest status/most attractive men in a kind of highly unequal romantic economy. But that doesn't mean they didn't 'want it'.
You have never set foot in or read any thinking generated by any incel community—please stop spreading misinformation about what they believe. They have been unambiguously skeptical about the sexual liberation and its consequences for reasons similar if not identical to yours for over a decade now—far before it became a borderline mainstream curiosity—back when they were a nameless, nascent subculture on r9k 1.0. I don't know how long you've been woke on this, but chances are good that's longer than you.
Anyways, while I'm feeling so goddamn ahead of the curve, I'll share my next prophecy: I see little skirmishes going on right now between fringe groups on Twitter about pornography use and how comparable it is to sexual promiscuity in terms of how debasing to one's sexual purity it is. This argument is the future. Right-wingers don't yet know it, but in the coming years they will be joining forces with feminists on this topic. As sexual mores continue to tighten here in straightsville and monogamy becomes more in vogue again, pristine male virgins will start to wonder aloud why they are being asked so expectantly why they aren't hitching it with ran-through born again virgins. Since for many cultural reasons we can't turn the clocks back to virginity being a female-only phenomenon, we'll be in need of a modern, horse-driven-car-frame solution, which this false equivocation offers.
"You defected too, anon."
While (many) women obviously enjoy sex, a cursory glance at even the smuttiest romance fiction easily leads to the conclusion that simply having sex, even with a very attractive man, is not really the attraction for women in the way the inverse is for men. [...] Most young women are not, even 50 years after the sexual revolution, fantasising about fucking around, which is pretty telling.
I simply don't understand how it's possible to persist this belief in a post-Fifty Shades world. Then again, it's become clear to me how impossible it is to dislodge highly load-bearing beliefs with facts, even it's something like the best selling book ever written by human hands. I'd say "excluding religious texts", but it's unclear to me that Fifty Shades of Gray isn't the religious text for the female sexual id. I suppose it's easy for me to see it that way, because I was never burdened with the Female Sexual Purity myth. You see, my secondary stomping grounds as a curious teenager was Tumblr, and if you knew where to look (which I did), you could hear what teenage girls were saying when they thought no one was listening.
And let me tell you, it's rather difficult to maintain an image of girls being somehow "less sexual" or even "more pure" by the time you're not even surprised any more to stumble across a thread with dozens of them waxing licentious about all the ways in which they would love to let fictional video game villain Sephiroth Ragnarok destroy their pussy. I was well aware at the time that a lot of this was essentially femmechismo—girls' locker room talk—but we've never let such considerations get in the way of how we perceive boys and men.
What wasn't as clear to me at the time was how universal this sort of thing actually was and is—but then, of course, Shades happened.
HighResolutionSleep
9mo ago
Who's on Threads?
Since it's insistent on being an "app" and not something you can use with a web browser, it's essentially inaccessible to me.
Oh god, am I becoming a boomer?
When Jane doesn’t have to choose between starvation and prostitution on the one hand and marrying John on the other, she’s not going to marry John.
I'm unsure how historically accurate this most extreme formulation is, but I'm sure that in a world where manual labor meant a whole lot more, something like this probably happened in some capacity. I still don't understand why people say it.
I've seen this statement a lot. I've seen it said in many ways by many different kinds of people across many different hues and shades of culture and politics. I've heard it said in a few different tones, largely ranging from triumphant to bemused—which isn't the way I would say it if I thought it were true and a major cause of modern trends.
The first thing I think when I see it is that I wonder what the endgame is supposed to be. I think that people who have fun saying it usually intend it as some kind of polemic call to men to DO BETTER. I can't help but notice that this often comes coincident with a political framework that generally rejects not just the morality but the pragmatic efficacy of such a posture—but I suppose that by itself doesn't necessarily prove anything. I have an even harder time understanding people who say it with a rightward perspective. How exactly are we supposed to have healthy family formation in a future where this is true? There does seem to be a handful of small, right-facing factions that seem to recognize this contradiction to the detriment of modernity and its consequences, but funny enough I don't usually see those types saying this sort of thing. It's usually people like JBP et al and the occasional cathposter. I'm not really sure what the point is supposed to be when they say it, or if they fully realize the implications for the future when they do.
It's difficult to fully describe the degree to which this statement inflames my passions. What I really want to say is something like "wow, with all this porn and sex dolls, women can't just coast into success with men just by having a moist hole anymore"—but as we all know, the rhetorical switcheroo never works. Nobody is going to stop and think about the myriad ways such a statement would butcher women's dignity as a class of human being—nobody is going to think about how such a statement utterly de-romanticizes women's value as partner and mate, or how it faithlessly summarizes women's unique sacrifices that in part brought us to where we are today before cynically discarding it like a wet torch—and if they do, they're never going to relate any of it back to what they just got done saying about men. They're just gonna call you a hater and move on.
Now, I'm not the kind of man who is seriously deficient in hole moistness earning power, but I don't care. The simple fact that this the way my civilization views my caste makes me worry not that it isn't reproducing. The world should be inherited by men and women who actually love each other.
HighResolutionSleep
6mo ago
Right, and if you zoom out, you find a near 1:1 correlation with female empowerment leading to libertine sexual values—what with the most male dominated societies on Earth stoning people to death for sex out of wedlock.
This is also difficult to explain if you think Men Did It.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
I miss the 2005-2012 inter-regime period where you could say almost whatever you wanted without the inquisitors showing up
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
sitting here with the horrifying realization that between its natively predictive-generative nature and massively expanded context window if i really wanted to and didn't care i could probably feed some logs into claude-3 and talk to her again
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
There's been a fair amount of discourse in lefty spaces over the last 2-4 years about how feminist/progressive ideology is good at telling men what things to stop doing but bad at teaching boys what they should do instead, leaving a lot of young men who want to be progressive without a reliable script to follow.
There's never been a shortage of demands on men from any direction.
The first gender ideology that finds a way to offer men not just a list of demands, but attach an actual stake in their society to it will win young men.
Modern right-wingers don't do this either. You can see this most clearly whenever someone criticizes the current marriage regime. The insistence is that sure it has problems, but you need to just stop asking questions and do it anyway. This often doesn't even come with a promise that it will ever get better. The fact it's a bad deal doesn't matter, as a man you don't have a stake in the family unit. You're there to serve it, that's it. Three P's: protection, provision, procreation. Stake ain't a P-word.
I think part of the reason JBP became so popular is that it kinda sounded like he was proposing a vision of masculinity that offered some kind of stake. This turned out to be wrong, but some men understandably but erroneously assumed that all of this talk of bearing the load would come with a stake attached. It didn't.
HighResolutionSleep
10mo ago
spare logitech controller
I refuse to believe that they only brought one.
HighResolutionSleep
17hr ago
I think roughly 0% of respondents would actually pick the bear. They are, to borrow a phrase from yesteryear, virtue signalling.
The more notable revelation is how cleanly this whole ordeal demonstrates that hating men is very much considered a virtue in some spaces.
Yeah I agree, this doesn’t contradict what I’m saying.
Sigh.
Some men, and I think this is in part behind some of the 'incel' subculture or identity, have seemingly realized that the sexual revolution's free for all buffet clearly often applies primarily to the highest status/most attractive men in a kind of highly unequal romantic economy. But that doesn't mean they didn't 'want it'. Many Western men (even many people here, I have found) are essentially temporarily embarrassed chads who are merely upset, if they are upset, that they're not on top of the sexual hierarchy of men, not that the sexual hierarchy exists. It is a problem of position for them, rather than one of system.
This is what you said. Incel subculture hasn't "seemingly realized" the consequences of the sexual revolution. They were always aware of it; it was a defining element of their understanding of it since day one.
They absolutely, positively, do not "want it".
They absolutely, positively, do not view themselves as "temporarily embarrassed chads".
They absolutely, positively, are not upset that they are not "on top of the sexual hierarchy, not that the sexual hierarchy exists."
They absolutely, positively, not concerned about "position, rather than the system itself".
It's actually incredible, because while there is a lot of variety in what the communities believe, your accusations represent perhaps the inverse of the positions that actually unite them.
In Fifty Shades, a plain young woman becomes the obsession of a handsome billionaire who will stop at nothing to make her his. The S&M is merely set dressing on top of this eternal romance plot, which is essentially Cinderella.
Are you serious?
Christian Gray is a combo ATM + Sex Robot. If this is the caliber of "romance" men need to match to stop the sexual rat-race you describe, I humbly rest my case.
Yeah, but in most of their fantasies and in the fanfic they read, Sephiroth is in love with them
That's funny, I don't recall reading that part.
they fantasise about him falling in love with them
Yes I am also aware that women do this in addition to fantasizing about getting railed by strongest, fittest men that they can imagine. When men do something like this, it's called a Madonna/Whore complex.
HighResolutionSleep
29d ago
The Many Eyes theory of software development worked. This was an incredibly subtle attack that few developers would have been able to catch, by an adversary willing to put years into developing trust and sneaking exploit in piecemeal.
I've watched a lot of doomerist takes on this one claiming that this proves many-eyes doesn't work, but I think it proves just the opposite. This was perhaps the most sophisticated attack on an open source repo ever witnessed, waged against an extremely vulnerable target, and even then it didn't come even close to broad penetration before it was stopped. Despite being obvious it bears laboring that it wouldn't have been possible for our Hero Without a Cape to uncover it if he wasn't able to access the sources.
If I had to guess, I would suppose that glowing agencies the world round are taking note of what's happened here and lowering their expectations of what's possible to accomplish within the open source world. Introducing subtle bugs and hoping they don't get fixed may be as ambitious as one can get.
That being said, I'm not sure that the doomerism is bad. The tendency to overreact may very well serve to make open source more anti-fragile. Absolutely everyone in this space is now thinking about how to make attacks like this more difficult at every step.
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
What more would you have done? Ban the people that upvoted it?
HighResolutionSleep
1d ago
Irrespective of who is receiving them, what's the number of visas that could be issued within the foreseeable future for which shaking your fist at couldn't necessarily be considered evidence of xenophobia? Would a billion do it?
HighResolutionSleep
1mo ago
I think one thing about inflation that I don't see people factoring in is that the wage growth that is usually a part of it usually lags behind. But another part is that it usually doesn't just happen for free. It doesn't happen that your boss one day up and decides to give you a 10% raise unprompted—especially if you are highly replaceable. So the everyman experiences inflation in a much more tactile way. It isn't the case that the growth of their savings slows as the appreciation of their assets quickens and it all kind of vaguely evens out with plenty of liquid lubricant to ease the whole thing, like it does for someone like me.
To the guy working retail, inflation is that months-long period of time where everything gets prohibitively expensive and they either have to fight their boss for a sizeable raise they probably won't get and then go looking for a better job where at best they have to spend months of extra effort (of which they likely do not have in large supply) relearning a new job and settling into new routines only to at best vaguely catch up to where they were before.
This, to put it simply, sucks—and it's likely the case based on the bad vibes that this adjustment period isn't over. It also may very well follow a resentment period. I don't know where stuff like this would show up in highly coarse macroeconomic numbers, and my guess is that it probably doesn't.
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.
What happens when he comes home after he does this? Does his community welcome him back with open arms? I feel like, as always, there's a part of the picture here we're not considering.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
I've been seeing this rhetoric from certain factions of the right recently, but now I suppose it's being espoused by someone whose attention may be accessible to me—so maybe you can help me out understanding this one.
Who, pray tell, is the audience for this statement? Cads who are looking to get married and start a family? Married men who are looking to fuck around?
What is the thesis of this rant? "Sorry fellas, as long as there are promiscuous men out there, your married ass can't expect fair treatment from family courts."
I am deeply confused.
HighResolutionSleep
1yr ago
I know that politics isn't supposed to makes sense, but this news cycle has made extra no sense. Everybody seems to be at peak rhetorical incompetence, from the left with stuff like the above, and the right with "Democrats are once again the real racists!"
HighResolutionSleep
7mo ago
According to the UN, the Gender Development Index is meant to measure "gender inequalities in achievement", not gender inequalities in economic well-being.
The commenters ignore this distinction the same way it will be ignored when these studies are brought forward to buttress social and political grievance.
HighResolutionSleep
6mo ago
They weren't married before or after all the fucking they did in the first novel, which is the one that sold so well.
Short and simple answer: because public policy is being made on the assumption that it's largely false.
More options
Context Copy link