PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
Why should we actually give them the low-status male slave class?
Who is "we" here? If you're posting this then you can just not give women what they want.
The rest of society will just give them what they want though.
Easy, its a lottery.
Obviously it is an argument in favor of Nazi style death camps, minus the whole "killing 6 million Jews" bit. Your argument relies on conflating these things.
With regards to the OP, I have (only a little tongue-in-cheekly) argued in favor of various feminist "solutions" to low-fertility: gender ratio control like this poster suggests, and also taxation-based polygyny (see recent paper making the rounds on Rightwing Twitter). When I promote these, the purpose is to show that the solutions require horrendous measures.
You might call this "accelerationism but for the future incel uprising"
The problem with this is that males become a kind of elite celebrity class, where the average male will have higher social status than the average female. Women would probably get jealous at this state of affairs. Many women would think, "why couldn't I have been born a man?" It wouldn't look like a feminist utopia.
I legitimately think that female envy (which is what drove Western Feminism) requires something of a low-status male slave class to rule over. Similarly, humans only think themselves rich when they have poorer neighbors to compare themselves with.
From this perspective, the humane solution to female emancipation is something like male p-zombies. Of course, that would require a Big Lie, so is it really humane?
Yes. The boomer attitude about personal prejudice is that it is a cognitive barrier to rational thinking (it will make your hiring less meritocratic and your company make less money). It is a-moral because boomers were not brought up in PMC culture, just around for early Civil Rights.
Casually Racist Young Man (as opposed to young man with boomer tendencies) is probably similar to Satanists. As a reaction to Christianity, they are still a slave to its moral frame, just inverting it. This is essentially Curtis Yarvin's primary objection to some of the online right, I think. So the young man is racist because he is rebelling against mom, basically.
Another way this is stated is that a lot (though maybe not all) of online right types are Blue Tribe apostates -- not Red Tribers. If we start to see casually racist Red Tribers, it would be weird. It would probably indicate that Red Tribe is really losing cultural ground to the Blue. I don't mean in the "is lower status than Blue Tribe" way. I mean Blue becoming so hegemonic that Red Tribers start to identify themselves with it at a level enough to be apostates and become enslaved to its moral frame.
If you go far back enough, anti-racism was a controversial position and so was a poor proxy for how socialized someone is. At some point, when Civil Rights and proto-wokeness started to become the official civil religion (that is, taught in schools etc), it became a pretty good proxy for good socialization. Afterwards, only dysfunctional people act racist. I couldn't give you the exact year.
I've never read Dune but this makes me think I might like it. Is it like reading a textbook? Do you like reading textbooks?
Both of the fiction books I've ever binge-read were hard scifi. I only read them because I had heard second-hand what the themes were, and they sounded interesting. Both of them had "that one chapter" where the author dropped the thin veneer of story to dictate the book's theme like a textbook. This is not a criticism exactly, but just something odd I noticed.
If apples are constantly falling up even though we're always told they fall down, it would seem to be a systemic, periodic problem and not just a silly premise.
So it sounds like: the initial Isekai premise is just the first instance of the inevitable general tendency to Make Shit Up (commonly called 'bad writing'?)
Thanks for your response, although I'll admit it didn't help me very much. For one, I didn't list "trash" as a reason, and the closest analog was "not enjoyable." I don't understand art criticism, so if art critics (or other taste gatekeepers) give vague criticism, I just phrase it descriptively as "they did not enjoy it." Should I just note that as your position?
"Not justifying major plot points" is interesting. Is a premise the same as a major plot point? In lots of fantasy there are magic systems that do not have any justification. I'm assuming that this is not a case where there are repetitive, periodic deus ex machina or a systemic problem with bad writing? If the premise is this unrealistic thing, like who cares? Is It's A Wonderful Life trash? Is the issue that Isekai tries to steal valor by having a dumb premise and doesn't even bother to do something interesting (="enjoyable") with it?
I hear Isekai and its tropes trashed constantly. Why is that? Compared to other genres (kung-fu fighting shonen, school slice of life), is it more predictable, more numerous, not as enjoyable, or something else?
I was always a "smart kid" growing up but I hated reading. Of course I discovered blogs 10 years ago and I enjoy reading Discourse about news and current events (and i don't do it to learn about the issues or the events).
I realized a couple years ago that I just don't like fiction and narratives that much. There are dozens of us maybe!
Whites, Hispanics, and Asians are not single-issue voters. "Jews/Israel" really means Ethnocentric-Israel-Single-Issue-Voters. Up until recently, their single issue hasn't been an issue -- being impartial to either party.
One argument for using it: is that the argument for not using it is essentially a kind of cultural relativism. The euphemism treadmill is real.
Another argument for using it: your main argument is an isolated demand for rigor - caring about the feelings of retarded people, but not about the feelings of losers, for example (whose condition is also routinely used as a punching bag).
What do you mean now by interesting?
Have you just tried https://www.astralcodexten.com/ comments on the blog? For example, there are frequent open threads.
If an empirical survey of actual communities and their evaporative cooling endpoints results in a particularly skewed distribution... how should we interpret that other than "unwilling or unable to have polite dialogues?"
Are you saying leftwing moderators are just bad at curating debating clubs?
Matt is just saying a tone-policed version of "Do better." to Israel. Of course Israel wouldn't want to hear that! And alternative theory 1 is just "How can Israel get what it wants?"
Mentioning such obvious facts like "actions are related to public opinion" does you no good. Saying "Actions determine public opinion" is a normative statement ("Do better.") disguised as a factual one.
Zionist model of antisemitism is the same as the basic model of all -isms: due to various antisemitic biases, people hold Israel to high and unfair standards.
I don't mean 2010s manosphere content was better, and so I find it more credible. I meant seeing misandry.
Looksmaxxing ideology, PUA, redpill, and incel are kind of like "alternative media" or "intellectual dark web." That is, they satisfy a demand that original information sources couldn't meet. A lot of people do not think mainstream sources are credible on the subject of "status for men." By mainstream sources, I mean ones that follow the background Western memeplex (which is feminism). If the question is, why do people feel feminism is not credible on the subject of "status for men," I am a little biased.
For me personally, it is probably because of being on the internet in the 2010s. For kids these days, I'm not sure. It's hard for me to imagine what its like to see the cultural landscape with fresh eyes. Probably all the boys these days notice that all the help goes to girls, and never to boys. Indeed, if any help were to ever go disproportionately to boys, the culture has a ready-made, uncostly way to rectify this and give proportionate help back to the girls. The reverse is not true.
- Prev
- Next

What? If men become scarce, then women will become desperate for men. That would increase mens' power, not decrease it.
The actual problem with the proposal is that this kind of society wouldn't actually be a feminist utopia. For one, women's hypergamous instinct is based on positional status, so making all the men tall or handsome doesn't do anything. There's nothing inherently short or ugly about Western men today. If they don't see the low-status men around, then the rest of men won't actually look high status! There's nothing to compare them to!
Indeed, even if the men are all the same (zero variance whatsoever), it seems unlikely this would make women happy. The purpose of hypergamy is to have a higher status partner than all your friends. If all the men are the same it might as well be a society without any men at all!
So the only thing that would happen is women will become desperate because men have more options. So the women will feel even worse than they do now! In addition to getting pumped and dumped, they will be getting dumped by actual losers! This will not feel like a feminist utopia at all!
It would seem women desire a male slave class.
More options
Context Copy link