Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
No bio...
User ID: 314
Disappointed with Musk here. Maximally inflammatory schitzoposting is the stuff that needs free speech protections the most.
This is an entirely rational and reasonable take. What percentage of musicians and athletes do you think are entirely rational and reasonable?
Congratulations! You've fucked around like an idiot and wasted an insane fortune! Would you like to:
A. Take personal responsibility for your bad choices and work on your self-control and behaviors.
B. Blame the people you hired to manage your money and tell yourself you did nothing wrong.
I'll bet there is also a more general psychological/narcissistic element. Those agents and managers and financial advisers and lawyers are mostly the only people in some superstar's life who can pressure them to do something. Imagine being a musician who is drunk off Speaking Your Truth To Power, and then noticing that all the Powers in your actual life have names like Greenblatt, Rosenbaum, Goldberg, etc. As you mentioned in another comment, sure the Jewish attorneys and accountants are mostly in NYC and LA... but that's where the successful artists go, too. Pick a city in the South - how does the rate of Jewishness compare between the general population vs the legal and financial arms of the local music scene or sports teams?
Again, I think you are entirely correct... but I think that this kind of venal, dipshit antisemitism is an entirely predictable failure mode for sacred victims with more money than sense.
"Is Islam right about women?"
To be frank, I suspect the same thing happened in previous generations, they just used drugs that killed them instead of making them fat and stupid.
Plenty of young people are still killing themselves with drugs. Probably a plurality of deaths from my graduating class.
But I'd always thought voice assistants overhyped because I couldn't relate to just how much utility they were able to provide the average consumer
The primary use case seems to be for a parent with an arm full of infant to call out "Ok Google, distract the toddler!"
I've referenced it a handful of times, and seen many more. Purported contemporaneous politics aside, it's a potent admonishment to remember your basics and common sense in the face of utopian promises. The usefulness in the rationalist community feels obvious.
This comes up a lot in rap music, too.
Ain't never gave nothing to me (Yeah)
But every time I turn around
Cats got they hands out wantin' somethin' from me (Uh, huh)
I ain't got it, so you can't get it (Yeah)
Let's leave it at that 'cause I ain't with it (Yeah)
Well, if you want Limited Government then I hear Somalia is a great place.
Somalia-the-meme was a civil war between a half dozen competing governments, many of which were fundamentalist Islamic. And that was still an improvement in most QoL measures over the previous socialist government.
Reddit is already there. "Satanists don't even think Satan is real, rube. It just means Logic and Science and rebelling against oppressive authority!"
There is a discussion that often comes up around alcohol and inhibitions. Does being drunk make you act like a different person? Or does it reveal who you truly are behind the mask?
The glaring issue with this example is that "charitable" is even a frame to come up. It's that, in a vulnerable moment where the mask is off, this person clearly does not genuinely believe in the doctrine of self-identification.
Maybe she will suffer social consequences for it. It would be tactically sound, if nothing else. Because opponents of gender ideology are going to be linking to that clip for a decade.
If he was gay, it could make sense that he internalized some of the hatred coming from a meth addicted/extremely homophobic dad.
I haven't seen the interview. My impression from what I had read this morning was of a father who didn't have much involvement in his life.
nor even any alleged anti-gay, anti-trans, or anti-groomer statements by the shooter at any time.
There is actually at least one neighbor who made incredibly vague claims the shooter has a history of some incredibly vague homophobic slurs. OTOH, the same article I read also said the shooter had been the victim of homophobic slurs in high school, and his fairly well documented internet lolcow history doesn’t seem to include any hate speech.
Definitely seems possible that it's a lie to troll or dodge hate crime charges. But it is interesting seeing people squirm in the hot seat on this question. If mere identification is sufficient, then how can you question this person? If you've previously held a standard that there was no legitimate gatekeeping, and that anything short of enthusiastic affirmation was transphobic bigotry, do you bite that bullet or flip-flop? If you flip, your enemies will use it against you forever. And if you bite the bullet, they'll use that against you forever too!
Very much a situation that highlights the contradictions.
My go-to reference for this is Alexandra Rowland, who was 25.
In a "what the fuck even is this timeline" update: Anderson lee Aldrich, the Q Club shooter, is apparently non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, and already had an Encyclopedia Dramatica article detailing his career as a 15 year old "professional hacker", calling him a pedophile, and describing his absent father as an MMA fighter and porn star.
I'm feeling very vindicated in my impulse to hold off conclusions... but I would think that, given my biases, wouldn't it? The real test would be a tragedy that looks at first glance to fit my biases perfectly and allows me to cathartically Boo Outgroup. I suspect that differences in media ecosystems have that less likely... but I would think that too, wouldn't I?
Plus obvious, audacious narrative updates in real time.
And our first echo shooting, as usually happens in the immediate wake of a highly publicized mass shooting. No apparent political/CW element, disgruntled employee.
I also have advice for when you see someone getting ratioed and you want to join in on the dogpile. But that advice is more of a charitable nature, like it would be helpful to the community as a whole, but probably not as much to you personally. If people are interested I'll add it.
If your addition is similar to things other people are saying, consider replying to one of them to reduce the flood of hostile notifications.
Wait, that somehow passes for porn? I've seen beginner DeviantArt and Wattpad pages have more... stimulating... writing and artwork than that- even AI can do better these days.
And I strongly encourage parents to keep their tweens off Wattpad for exactly that reason.
Humorously, it's also why their examples of "pornography" never depict any straight women or girls in similar circumstances- you'd expect that it'd be far more prevalent if the model the stereotypical "male pedo trying to seduce young girl" example that people who say "groomer" are intentionally trying to provoke was correct, but it's pretty blatantly not- and "male pedo x young boy" doesn't wash either because even gay men don't actually respond to oppression porn.
Did you listen to the readings? One is about a girl crying and saying "no", and being ignored and shut up with a cock in her mouth.
And sure, it might still be "female pedo x young boy"... but you're not going to find anyone's in any hurry to deal with that, either. Double standards gonna double standard, and complaining about that only really works for women anyway.
In the real world, women do consistently go to jail for raping their male students, even if they get lesser sentences than their male peers.
Aphantasia, being a voracious reader, easier to conceal, and being old enough to remember when pictures and especially video online was a frustrating pain in the ass.
I've read a lot of erotica over the years. The ubiquitous trend in the women-perspective stuff is of a man who knows what she wants, no, needs, without her having to ever ask for it or admit it until well after the point where it's just stating the obvious. Conversely, a very common theme in the men-perspective stuff is a woman who is frank and open about what she wants.
I don't know exactly why these paradigms exist, but it seems very likely that they do.
One, two and three, found by glancing through the last week of Libs of Tik Tok posts. I don't want relevant terms in my search history, so I'll just try to remember to link you one of the compilations of images next time I see one posted on PCM or someplace.
To be clear, I don't think that sort of thing ought to be in an elementary or middle school library, and I don't think it's obviously wrong for parents to not want it in a high school library either (same for straight stuff like IT). I also don't think the books should be criminalized. But actively trying to get kids to read that sort of thing is suspicious. If a teacher brought one in on their own volition and gave it to a student, that should flag mandatory reporter laws.
Kids also aren't supposed to be fucking in the school bathroom in the first place. An example of a boy lying about being trans to gain sexual access to women-only areas is not exactly a glowing endorsement.
In the context of the present culture war, and in particular as regards young people who don't conform to gender norms, I see an expansion of the term, in particular eliminating the context of a close relationship and intent to form a sexual relationship with a particular minor. Then, grooming just becomes introducing sexually related content or concepts to minors, especially when those relate to non-conventional concepts.
As part of the reputationally and financially ruinous lawsuits against the Boy Scouts, many examples of flagged behavior from their private archives were made public. One example in my area was a scout leader in the mid-80s who was banned from the organization after giving a half dozen teenaged boys access to beer and porn on a camping trip. There is no indication that he singled one out to try to rape. If we want to be charitable, it sounds like something The Onion's VP Joe Biden would do, "Hey boys, here's some Bud and a Playboy, then I'll show you how to do donuts in the 'Vette!" That guy was still banned from the organization, decades before anyone got serious about youth protection, because that behavior is such an obvious red flag that you don't need to wait around for a kid to get raped.
Actively trying to prevent and shut down that sort of behavior is so thoroughly not enough that the organization responsible was dealt reputational and financial ruin by the courts. So, by that standard, how should we think of, e.g. librarians who fight tooth and nail to ensure child pornography is kept in elementary schools? "Oh, it's not grooming, it's just being wildly sketchier and more cavalier with children than the organization that just had the shit kicked out of it for insufficient zealousness in protecting kids." It should not be a tall ask to have the "what I wish I'd had growing up" to be restricted to normal standards for age appropriateness.
The accurate parallel would be if someone condemned "These Nazis marching in Skokie", and every Republican threw a fit about "this bigoted attack on all white people". At that point, it is more than fair to say "My dude, you are the one conflating Nazis and white people."
Is it possible you're not accounting for the fact that men might be less likely to act creepy when there are other men around?
This is possible, but that would have to be a powerful deterrent effect that would be worth pulling out and studying on it's own. It would also necessitate some serious revamping of feminist talking points.
Because that doesn't meet any reasonable definition for incitement to violence, it is clearly a ban for being inflammatory and unpopular, which can easily normalize to banning for being unpopular.
More options
Context Copy link