Tanista
1mo ago
"Teach men not to rape" infuriates the political opposition
The political opposition was routed out of places like university campuses where this stuff runs rampant. It's aimed at fellow traveler men.
Why is "victim blaming" in quotes? You're actually blaming the victim. This is the second post I've seen this morning asking women to have more agency over being raped or assaulted.
Either it's not victim blaming because we tell other people in similar situations (e.g. leaving a car unlocked in a bad neighborhood) to take preventative measures without that label. Or it is but it's a specific thing where we don't apply the same logic to other places, which raises questions.
Either way, I can get people putting it in quotes.
If you tell me you believe in fluxberries and can define it and therefore I should do what you want but:
- You cannot provide a coherent definition of fluxberries when pressed even a little. In fact, the definition changes before our eyes when it suits you
- You actively try to bully, discredit or destroy people who demand a coherent definition or raise questions about why this a slightly different colored berry is not, in fact, a "fluxberry"
- You explicitly admit that you cannot define a previously concrete and less controversial term like "berries"
I have to wonder to what degree you believe you think you can justify belief in fluxberries - certainly you seem to believe in a distinct way to how you believe in say...policemen, or fish.
I don't see how OP's original point about the reluctance to square this doesn't apply:
My impression is that for quite a few of these people, they would be unwilling to clearly answer the question, "what are trans kids?" without getting evasive and yet protecting that category is a moral imperative.
Like, we know for a fact that some already do this with "woman", that one is not even debatable because Kentaji Brown did it in front of Congress - and all the same problems apply there. I'm supposed to grant extra charity on "trans child"?
Tanista
1mo ago
The idea of "irreversible damage" to kids bodies complements the idea of "driving trans kids to suicide." Together they are a recipe for endless back and forth argument, since both sides can position themselves as the ones most concerned about children's well-being.
Assuming that these are not rival empirical claims that can be investigated, yes.
In most of their their worldviews(there are several different factions with different answers) there is an intrinsic 'trans' quality that some people are born with.
Yes, and what is that quality?
The 'trans' quality frequently causes kids great distress around puberty
Frequently? So not always? So what else can we use to judge if a kid is "trans"? Dysphoria is hugely problematic (given kids desist) but at least concrete.
If we grant that there is an innate quality that we can easily distinguish, there is no problem. The point is that nailing this down in some definitive way seems to be difficult
Just as, if we accept that there is a trans-inclusive category called "women", there is no fundamental problem. Yet some random Daily Wire dad who dresses like an actuary has driven left-wingers into a frenzy trying to get an answer to this basic question.
This is a microcosm of this whole debate. All of this sounds good in the abstract. Once you start discussing it you not only get tough questions from traditionalists, but even feminists who ask how the markers of this innate quality are not regressive (it often boils down to stereotypes).
Tanista
1mo ago
As was mentioned, this clashes with Cesar Chavez Day so congratulations on pissing off at least part of the Hispanic voting bloc
Has the Hispanic voting bloc raised a stink, honestly?
Not a bad idea...under a Trump presidency. It looks like Biden might lose but it actually hasn't happened yet and he's clearly feeling pressure.
It is not a coincidence that the Jewish foundational myth entails their presence as a fifth column in a host civilization, within which an influential and trusted political figure spread plagues throughout the land- including the ritualistic murder of the firstborn sons of the gentiles by the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, culminating in a slave revolt followed by their ultimate expulsion from their host nation.
Leaving out a lot of context why the Golden Age of Egyptian Jews fell apart here.
The problem for the Tates is the set of scams they were running before they hit the jackpot. All of this is blowback from their alleged pimping days that their newfound fame as the internet's red pill gurus cast a light on.
I think Dr. K will be fine.
It’s clear that wokeness isn’t the cause of bad game writing. The very suggestion is ridiculous.
Obviously. This still doesn't really say anything.
I agree that Dragon Ball Z is badly written in many ways. The bloat is infamous, the way it handles succession to new characters (it doesn't) is bad, the plot is built on a loop of new transformations that boil down to differently colored hair and so on. These are all recognized flaws. So recognized that they literally invented their own Abridged series to handle the bloat. They charged people twice to get a passable viewing experience! And the fans bought in anyway. They know what they're getting.
Handing it over to woke American show runners would lead to a very different sort of bad.
Which is what fans care about.
Tanista
2mo ago
Andrew Tate isn't that.
Of course not. Thing is that they (and OP) accept that he is a role model, but even his non-exaggerated history isn't something most men are actually going to replicate. Most guys aren't becoming even passable kickboxers, though they might let one sell them NFTs. So why do their rival idols need to be "relatable"?
It reminds me of the complaints that skinny stars reinforce "unrealistic beauty standards" . There were local role models in my life who were reachable I suppose. I don't recall any kid being turned off from their favorite celebrity because they were on a totally different plane. That's kind of the point?
Tanista
2mo ago
Leftists want to change society and select for people interested in that. It's thus harder to depend on existing role models.
Feminism's defenders will counter that there are many existing role models available for men, often listing real or fictional people like Ryan Gosling, Marcus Rashford or Ted Lasso. These men are either fake orliteral one percenters whose lifestyle an average young man has no hope of to attaining.
"Unrealistic standards" is a feminist complaint. Most men will never be like Tate either. Every kid on the football pitch wanted to be Ronaldo, down to the overpriced boots and free-kick pose, even though it was obvious that he was a 99 percenter in looks, before we even get into athletic talent.
Don't disagree with the general point that (progressive) women seem to be the target for a lot of this, which is what stops many of these efforts from being effective, though. EDIT: Norms are also enforced bottom-up, regardless of your idol, but that's harder when no one can agree what they are.
Tanista
2mo ago
I strongly suspect that what's happened here is some claim about time preference ( you ask prodigal poor people "what would happen if you saved X% of your paycheck?" and they might give the correct answer but then never do it in practice or constantly have excuses) has become garbled in transmission until we get the idea that people literally cannot respond to hypotheticals.
Tanista
2mo ago
It's all part of the game at this point. The recent "leak" of the "Royal racist" in Dutch translations right when Omid Scobie's book was coming out was basically PR while maintaining the illusion of respecting the rules.
I go the opposite way: the Oscars should get more snobby and up their own ass and should frankly demoralize the people on Twitter and op-ed pages who want their latest topical message movie (Black Panther being nominated was ludicrous - thanks Dark Knight!) to win. Those films already make money, but people are now convinced the Oscars should be "relevant" by validating their taste.
Nope, the Oscars should act as a billboard for pretentious movies that'd otherwise not come to the attention of the general public. That's the main way I see some of this shit.
By that logic, BIPOCs also get less say in running society.
By this logic even BIPOCs should also support much lower migration to maintain a favorable balance of tolerant white paypigs to keep the system going
Nobody acts like this though (blacks are only just starting to turn on the pro-migrant party, when they see costs imposed directly on them) so Jayman is likely just an outlier and most people don't take this sort of thinking to that conclusion.
Which, in the Kendi framework, makes you a racist.
As OP says, the eyes of fat acceptance activists, taking ozempic makes you fatphobic. My thing is: I don't think anyone cares now that there is a viable intervention. Even they don't care, when they can make money.
This article is a potential clue to how it'd go:
So when patients ask for it, I usually prescribe it. Part of practicing weight-neutral medicine, I've realized, is supporting my patients' own sense of what their bodies need.
...
Being a body-positive doctor in the age of Ozempic has made me realize, sadly, that I alone can't stop the fatphobia that permeates our culture. As long as it exists, we'll have a market for medicines that make people thin.
What I can do is try, with each patient I see, to make them feel comfortable and safe, and help them realize that being healthy may have little to do with how much they weigh.
If this is the sort of thing former-Kendi disciples have to tell themselves before helping along their black patients, so what? Their cope is their business. But, at a certain point, the public will want what it wants and someone will cater. The people with nothing to gain (or lose) can write NYT op-eds but everyone else will profit.
Also, we give him too much credit. Kendi may be the most popular purveyor of a certain view, he/it thrives in a bubble and with the forbearance of the people within (he almost never does hostile media for a reason). He's a product of George Floyd and white benefactors like Jack Dorsey who want to Do Something. Who said they'll stick around once they hear X treatment will raise Africa's IQ (this could be the thin end of the wedge because even the anti-HBDers think there's room for enhancement there)? Who said black people will?
EDIT: There's also another world where white people get the treatment first and then there's talk of closing the gap, for equity.
Tanista
2mo ago
Then I guess the segment of the poor population that favors the lottery has to be relatively high IQ, or I have even more questions.
This is one I hear a lot and, coming from a low IQ part of the world myself, I've never understood. It never occurred to me that people literally couldn't hold hypotheticals in their head.
There are many bits of conventional "wisdom" I see in DR circles that I can at least relate to some experience IRL, even if they're unflattering or exaggerated. This one is just totally baffling.
Maybe it's hard to tell when you're in the boiling pot because you're all low IQ and within the same range. But I've lived in the West for about an equal amount of time now and, while many other things pop out, this was not one of those things.
You can slide Zendaya into the Taylor Swift bucket of "let's have meaningless barbershop conversations about how hot/overrated she really is" if you'd like. We can do the same for her talent. I love those discussions as much as anyone.
She's undoubtedly "hot" in the sense of being a prominent, respected young actress.
Clout-wise she fits with the rest of the cast. (Except maybe Chalamet who's pulling away from the pack. Pugh is very talented but she hasn't anchored a big one and, well, the current state of Marvel doesn't augur well for her first go)
Tanista
2mo ago
Point taken. But, in our defense, iirc part of it was the worry that the writers would feel that way.
Tanista
2mo ago
and demonstrating superhuman qualities.
This is the problem with cutting down on the BG ninja shit and having Paul's killing of Jamis happen in the last film and be relatively understated. When Stilgar seems to flip early on in Part Two, it's a bit less impactful.
In the books, Paul's defeat (and perceived humiliation) of Jamis alone was shocking to the Fremen. Jessica's POV hammers just how fucking strange (and terrifying) a creature trained like Paul appears, even when he's reluctant to kill.
My memory from the books is that Feyd-Rautha was, while certainly Harkonnen, actually both competent and powerful, in contrast to Rabban. It was his reliance on underhanded fighting tactics that made him an otherwise-comparable foil to Paul (who decides to not use the Voice during their battle, though he could easily have done so). I don't mind his portrayal overmuch, but portraying him as a skilled and even potentially noble fighter ("you fought well") is a definite and unnecessary departure from the text.
I just reread the book fight scene: underhanded Feyd and Paul are at such a level,with so many plans within plans, that it'd honestly be hard to show visually. Making Feyd honorable and having a more straightforward fight seems like an easy fix.
Since they cut out Hawat and a lot of the Feyd and Duke maneuvering around each other (here I simply give them a pass due to time), it's easy to also just "fix" the Coliseum scene by having Feyd show he's formidable but capable of being honorable. Otherwise you have to get into BG control words and Paul's inner struggle to try to play into the finale and...
I feel like most of the "Other Memory"-related plot points are included grudgingly, like Villeneuve knows he can't just abandon those entirely but kind of wishes he could. There are throwaway lines about knowing the past and predicting the future but unless you've read the books, I can't imagine getting much out of those. And if you haven't read the books, I can imagine being really confused about everything touching on the Water of Life. And they never address the "sandtrout" at all.
This is kind of my problem: it's hard to tell how all of this comes across to a totally virgin audience since I've known about some of the plot points so long. It seems that Vileneuve gave people enough to essentially grok what was going on (even putting aside Jamis' words and Jessica's own initiation, the Harkonnen reveal shows there's some ancestral memory shit going on - and how else could Alia be sentient?). But it feels a bit hollow from my perspective.
You could do this while admitting that rape is disproportionately carried out by Dark Triad types (especially when society has already been trying for decades to grab all of the low-hanging fruit of "normal men who just think this is okay") and not harangue Robin Hanson types as well. From what I recall from my early internet days when Jezebel was strong, feminists were insistent on rejecting this sort of point.
There's an element of class guilt that is also useful.
Also, if you believe rape is about power or some patriarchal ideology not sex, I suppose "teach men not to rape" sounds more appealing as an actual solution and not just a cynical messaging tactic.
More options
Context Copy link