ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
46m ago
Couldn't your conclusion that 'If Hamas manages to get an attack off it's the entire host nations problem as well' apply to Iran giving them a nuke in the first place?
No, because Iran is the only one capable of retaliating (in a nuclear fashion) hard enough to discourage that. And Israel doesn't need to go nuclear if this happens; a conventional war would be just as destructive for these nations and peoples. Perhaps that is part of why the neighboring countries are unwilling to host the Hamasi as refugees.
Couldn't Israel just state preemptively they will regard any use of nukes by hamas as use by Iran
Maybe, but I don't think Israel can win a war with Iran (hence the emphasis on keeping them down/contained). They're sufficiently equipped to wreck any country Iran allies with outside of that lovely mountain range that defines the western Iranian border, but unless the Americans want to put their boots on the ground and suffer the 3:1 attacker casualty rates to conquer Iran then Israel can't really touch them. Israel doesn't have those numbers, Iran's a peer nation (except for the nuclear weapons), and if either tries in the future are the Israel-hating Blues (and even Reds; Israeli influence might not be as stable in an era of Red reforms) even going to lift a finger?
Remember, the ultimate problem Israel is fighting is that, absent Rome/Europe/Washington and its religious fixation on holding Jerusalem, it is the natural geopolitical state of Judea to be in the Persian orbit. Hence the rhyme with Biblical times- Jews evict the Canaanites, then the Persians conquer the Jews.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1hr ago
many people still somehow think progressive lip service is fine or even morally just
This is natural- casting shade on people not wanting to conspicuously consume (in this case, from the society-wide patronage network that activists embody) is a thing rich people do naturally.
When you're rich in virtue, conspicuous consumption is saying "yeah, polygamy is totally for everyone".
When you're rich in rent-seeking, conspicuous consumption is saying "yes, my property values the environment is more important than developing the next generation".
It's not necessarily realized by people doing that, since this is just copying the fashions of the richest- but it is still that thing either way.
We have a few social techs for allowing non-genocidal acclimation of oppressed populations but when they can all be trivially overridden by the logic that "any observed inequality in outcomes is proof positive of ongoing oppression which must be rectified" then guess what comes back on the menu.
But note that this is a civil matter, caused by women/the womanly/progressives seeking more social power. Any nag they can get their hands on will be used, and nags are quite powerful in democracies (commonly referred to as "women's tears winning in the marketplace of ideas"). This doesn't even require women having the vote to work- universal male suffrage is generally enough, the 18th Amendment being a good example of that.
Not allowing credit and pride to flow forward in the same measure as guilt is also a woman thing, because women aren't generally wired to seek credit and pride in the first place- so it makes sense they would simply ignore it exists [at best] and actively seek to devalue it [at worst]. This is related to inherent male disposability in an environment of excess men, and right now there are simply too many men (which doesn't require you actually be a man; which is why women who function like men complain about this just as much as men themselves do).
The reason incomplete genocides could work in the past is because the rulers at the time were less vulnerable to them; the womanly could cry "no ethical consumption under capitalism" all they wanted, but at the end of the day the only way they have power [outside of a post-industrial society where women are productive in their own right] is if a man listens. And men with power are far less likely to bow to the demands of useless people.
Is this risk completely mitigated? Well, no- you can still have the Church organize moral movements, but even in that case the Church is made up of people and property, those people have names and addresses, and since they have organization they have pre-scribed outlets for any charity they might feel (it's their own money, so the moral hazard is avoided). In a democracy like this you can't pull off that kind of suppression.
No evolved solution to this currently exists. Men are not wired to resist women when they believe themselves rich enough to be above needing to put themselves first (for a bunch of complicated reasons), but this is not symmetric. Only once men have been exposed to being poor will this change, and that only lasts for a little while.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3hr ago
Certainly you can understand how that at face value looks incredibly stupid right?
The more obviously stupid the thing is, the greater the power flex it is to do it. This is why it only works in one direction.
Humorously, Westerners also tend to say 'African-American' even when the subject is not American- because the American propaganda (which they all consume) all says "but describing someone in the most obvious way is Bad, Actually". Capitalizing 'black' is the same thing.
"African-American" is commonly understood to mean American Descendants of Slavery, not Elon Musk.
No, it means "Black" (implication: description + privilege). As a bonus, this works on the entire West, since you can't be ADOS without being A (and it's a great way to tar cultures that were never racist with the same brush they use domestically).
they just need enough to make the cost of a nuclear exchange so high Israel would never risk it
But this has further implications that you omit.
If Iran has the bomb, they can provide it to a smaller, far more suicidal group of allies (the Palestinians) to lock the Israelis into their current borders unless they negotiate with Iran. Technology transfers, taxes, religious rites/rights, not purchasing American weapons, etc. is what that looks like.
In this way, the Hamasi would serve as the permanent Iranian veto over the [Ashke]nazi. Because they simply don't care if the Israelis nuke them in response- the fact is, the Israelis get hurt far more than the Palestinians, the Palestinians are suicidal, and that is sufficient to accomplish this goal.
Conversely, if Israel believes that Iran will, or already has, or will inevitably soon obtain, a bomb like this... then their only response is to start removing the local kebab as fast as humanly possible. They didn't like the paragliders the first time; imagine how much they're not going to like them when the settlers further encroaching on their territory prompts an air-borne SADMization of the Israeli countryside.
The Iron Dome can stop a lot but the bomber is going to get through. And sure, Hamas could always attack from another country (perhaps one in which they seek refuge after the dust settles), but in that case that other country [and its people] are collateral the Israelis can threaten such that Hamas is kept down- since if Hamas manages to get an attack off then it's the entire host nation's problem, and Israel becomes the one with the nuclear veto.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
21hr ago
Well, yeah; this is 100% an autistic Christian thing.
You make yourself an enemy of the God of America when you lie on the form, because He knows the contents of your heart and what is done in secret.
That is why "lying on the form about the contents of your heart" is accepted by American culture as both valid, and an offense that strips you of any right to participate in it so long as they see fit that the question remains on the form.
Interestingly, it doesn't actually make any moral judgment- it still maintains the presupposition that there are good people who are also [disqualifying class]- but then, if the man be good, he would not lie on the forms because [see above].
Thus lying on the form is, while a completely natural thing to do, a sin -> if you were good, you're certainly an enemy of God [and by extension, the country] now -> OK to revoke and eject on those grounds.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1d ago
What we instead got is this monstrous inversion where our successful people generally act conservative in their personal lives while encouraging self-destructive libertinism and emotional disregulation in the rest of the population.
Indeed; and while invoking Cain and Abel may flatter my personal biases, there's another one right next to it that very certainly does not: you can perhaps view [those humans given to be] traditionalists as Adam, progressives as Eve, and liberals as the Snake (and the sexes in that story are that way for good reason).
The liberals lie to the progressives so they'd take accept something that was too advanced for them and [that the liberal knew] the only reason they [progressive] wanted it was to be turbo-selfish with it.
The progressives in turn lie to the traditionalists, saying the thing was perfectly fine and good for everyone, don't think about it, just enjoy it.
And now everything's fucked up because beings that weren't supposed to have to deal with knowing [thing] now just have to deal with the consequences of knowing you can do [thing].
That, combined with the separation from God that comes from not being perfect with it, is how the knowledge from the fruit kills you!
Actually, both the Garden of Eden and Cain vs. Abel contrapose when read this way, but then the difference between the snake and Abel was that Abel acted faithfully and the snake faithlessly (and the siren call of the liberal t'was ever thus: did God truly say?)
It's strange that I've never heard anyone explain this in this way. Or maybe not, considering it's quite embarrassing, and especially to those "closer" to the fault (though there is ultimately no degree of "closer" in sin, and the traditionalists are too busy abusing it to shit-talk the progressives anyway in the "hurr Eve ate it first that means I'm better" sense anyway).
And maybe it's wrong, maybe I'm reading too hard into these... but if you're trying to explain how human nature and sin works to a prehistoric people then I'd say it describes the major players/impulses/excuses of the classes of humankind very well.
Of course, it doesn't say what each should do in response; the fact people can be bucketed this way is [and quite importantly] not part of the curse, but "the people more ready to accept 'did God truly say?'-type questions when they're posed in faith will instead desire and be ruled over by that class of people who are not so willing, and they will not be willing because they're cursed with having to work for a living until they die" sure is!
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
Why would having sexual intercourse in general be the equivalent of shooting to kill?
No, the purpose of having proper sexual intercourse (i.e. using your genitals "properly, for their intended use") is the equivalent here. Not just sexual intercourse in general in the "mutual masturbation" sense, which is as suspect (smuggled assumption: sinful?) as "using a gun only for target practice" is to certain other people.
Again, genitals (as with guns) can be used for pair bonding and pleasure, it's just that that's not their telos/"what they're meant for".
Your metaphor is subtly broken, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Using a gun for a reason other than to shoot ballistic missiles is suspect, because that's not what it's there for.
No, by that logic, it's "using/having a gun for a reason other than shooting to kill [its primary purpose] is suspect" (so 'I'm just here to shoot targets because it's fun' is immoral and weird).
Thus, by that same logic,
Sexual intercourse can be done for making babies and for pair bonding and pleasure (for example, post menopause or when the woman is already pregnant.)
"having sex for pair bonding and pleasure" is suspect.
Which is the Catholic position on sex.
It appeals to people who are given to being addicted to seeking sex, and Catholic Christianity treats everyone (both men and women, but the emphasis is traditionally more on men) as being in this condition by default. It makes sense that Catholicism draws in people that are aware they have problems with sex in this way, hence the assertion everyone does and that it's Godly for you to behave as if you were addicted to sex at all times[2].
Other denominations of Christianity, in particular the more Charismatic strains, treat dancing and alcohol/other drugs this way as well. Catholicism has a more measured response to the latter, but not for sex.
[1] Which forms one of the two prongs of the stereotypical Blue viewpoint on guns. They can't just be telling the truth, it has to be for some nefarious purpose. You'll recognize that rejecting that's true is also the [classical] liberal refutation of the Christian party line on the gays (and on those readings of 'fornication' and 'sexual morality' more generally).
It's more like a kind of mutual masturbation
[2] And if you're one of those men who tends to treat their partners like a human fleshlight during sex, then the smuggled assumption of "and that's bad" becomes trivially correct. Some (many?) men legitimately do have problems with this [source: I read the posts here], and when they do, following that rule is probably better for both them and their wives (and it forces them to have buy-in to the relationship through childbirth).
Of course, there's another answer in "well, just don't do sex that way lol" (and this approach is hinted at in a few other Pauline letters), but having "don't be fucking stupid lol" as the rule is about as effective as abstinence-based sex ed is at avoiding pregnancy for most people who [spiritually] require the structure of Catholicism in the first place, so...
Well, you can have that, or you have the traditionalist/progressive projects which are just unironic rewrites of Harrison Bergeron (the only difference between the two is the hair color and name of the antagonist).
(And that story itself is basically just a modernization of Cain's justification for killing Abel.)
But man I wish we had more liberals/libertarians posting here.
Sure, but most of us aren't filtering that through 7000 levels of irony and then getting butthurt about it being perceived as pointlessly-hostile nonsense.
The problem is that [too much acknowledgement of] HBD is just as destructive to classical liberalism as it is to progressivism for reasons that should be obvious- once you start treating HBD as prescriptive rather than descriptive then there's no reason to be anything but a hardcore turbo-trad. If your political philosophy suggests society should maximize its "gain" from realizing HBD is true and immediately go full Apartheid, then you prevent those with [the characteristic that predicts poor performance] but perform well anyway from properly developing[1].
This is OK for traditionalist societies in which one Knows Their Place(tm)[2], but there's only one way to compromise such that differences are sanded down over time, and that's by giving them more freedom then their characteristics suggest in the chance that, when members of that group beat the average, we enable both a eugenic effect and more effective suggestion that the HBD-disadvantaged group better assimilates. (Whether those things have worked is an exercise for the reader- I assert that they have, that what is left at the bottom probably can't be fixed, and that it is unfortunate that they look that way but our ruthless market system will pay them what they're worth backstopped by our infinite greed above all other moral principles.)
Since the entire conceit of liberalism is that good performers who are worthy of unrestricted freedom shouldn't be held back by bad performers who are not[3] (and those negative consequences of excess freedom correctly fall on the virtueless, which is the fundamental problem trads and progs have with liberalism since charity for those people isn't mandated), we can understand it, but we can't really do anything about it other than offer our velvet glove before we give 'em the iron fist.
That does mean HBD predicts those most likely to get the iron fist are going to be [characteristic predicting poor performance], which means we can have the potential blind spot of confusing [characteristic predicting poor performance] with [poor performance], and the fact we know that means we're vulnerable to the bad-faith rent-seeking my outgroup defines itself by having the right to do because Muh Oppression or whatever.
[1] And now you know why otherwise high-potential modern teenagers and early twentysomethings are so fucked up- arresting development like this has serious group-level long-term consequences, but we pretend it's OK because "at least it's not HBD".
[2] Knowing One's Place is not unique to Traditionalists; after all, Progressives have the same stack vocabulary, they just put themselves on top of it axiomatically, where with the Traditionalists they at least have the notion (albeit as unenforceable as the liberal claim that charity will fix the problems) that those on top are to perform like they're at the top.
[3] And note that liberalism doesn't inherently conflict with HBD categories from being imposed; you can still have a liberal slave-owning society, or one with limited franchise for certain groups, and nearly every place with a tradition of liberalism has been this way at some point. This is another weakness liberals have to progressives, since progressives will argue using liberal aesthetic but will destroy all protections for high performers in the process if left unchecked.
But it somehow falls upon America to disentangle a conflict we have little to do with
lol, lmao even.
The US has been playing stupid games in that region for the 10-15 years preceding the war- they wanted that war, and they got it. And Trump is still responsible for it, given that the destabilization efforts continued under his administration; we can blame upper military brass for hiding shit all we want but at the end of the day it's still the responsibility of the guy at the top.
And we can discuss the fact the war had significant economic consequences for the Fourth Reich Germany, too- the US took their cheap natural gas away (it wasn't the Russians that blew it up) and now they get to experience a 1973-style price shock in manufacturing because they were too stupid to figure out how to frack for themselves.
It's unwise to meet NATO spending targets because every non-US nation in that alliance is very well aware that the way they actually pay for it is "the US does something that damages our economy, which causes our GDP to drop by about the same measure that it would if we were paying for our own defense". And paying for their own defense is something that grows the middle class, because the elites are forced to pay their own countrymen for it (this is the idea behind the military-industrial complex), which is why just taking the hit and allowing the US to break client economies is deemed acceptable in said client states.
And [as stated below] if the US is intending to bail out the middle class (which is why Trump II, a reformer, was ultimately elected over the arch-conservative Harris), amping up R&D in the military-industrial complex is the way to do it, because it forces the elites to take a step back from their current objectives of enclosure [no growth ever + environmentalism] and race war and actually start approving development projects for once.
So I think the appropriate question that Europe should be asking is "how much should Europeans allow the Americans to wreck the pan-European economy because they wanted to go to war with Russia for shits and giggles"? If I were Chancellor of the Fourth Reich, my protestations would be as loud as my contributions symbolic, and I'd only start making stuff the Americans might be directly dependent on if they go to war somewhere else... which is probably why their military-industrial policy is currently exactly that.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
But as an adult I'm wondering how on earth you'd clean and maintain such a system.
It is self-cleaning.
While it is inevitable that some dirt settles at seldom-used outlets (especially those at lower points in the plumbing run), that problem tends to solve itself as soon as you connect a hose to that port by consequence of what the system does. And since when you're vacuuming an entire floor you'll use (almost) every port at least once, the remediation for ports seldom-used is "connect the vacuum line and run the system briefly".
Additionally, the hose opening tends to be a smaller diameter than the vacuum lines. So if you suck up something absurd, like a plastic bag, if it'll fit through the hose, it'll fit through the lines just fine. It would be wise to leave a couple of access ports, though.
The only real fail points are:
- the central unit itself (generally quite reliable, it's just a nicer Shop-Vac- solution: replace unit if it burns out somehow, hookup is standard)
- the hose between the vacuum head and wall (generally, electrical outlets are installed right next to the vacuum ports so you can run the vacuum's power head; the cord for that is embedded in the hose and will degrade with use- solution: replace hose, they're all standard)
- the access ports (just a sufficiently-airtight door with 2 low-voltage electrical contacts, both properties can degrade over time; when you connect the hose, the circuit is bridged by the metal and the vacuum starts up- solution: replace door)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
As in, "whoa, you're telling me she hasn't had a job since college, AND she never leaves her room, AND she has severe social anxiety? Now that's what I'm talkin' about, I want that".
Translation: she's got a cute face, and while she might be a bit of a fixer-upper that's perfect for someone "gifted" with enough autism/slight sociopathy (which is why it's a 4chan thing) to obviate most of the things that [we believe] would make someone that anxious in the first place. There is an element of "might not be self-aware enough/self-doubting enough to not entirely know her full value/potential, so will be available at bargain-bin social prices", or perhaps a bit of a savior complex, but that's underwritten by the implicit co-operation you get from knowing that their actually leaving their room/inviting you into their room is the hardest step.
Could you imagine any woman saying "you know I really just want an [cute but] unemployed loser, that's what really gets me going"?
This is the cougar effect; women being sexually attracted to men with... uh, growth potential. It's kind of a trans-gender behavior (their occasional pursuit of illegally-young men is too- there's very little biological reason for them to take on that kind of risk, especially compared to men for whom that behavior is evolutionary-biologically imperative), though nobody will ever fully recognize it as such.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
How, other than dropping shotguns?
More physical challenges. Practical shooting prior to this type of match (IPSC/USPSA, 3-gun/UML) demand more choreographed physical movements- you basically dance through the stages. Step here, shoot here, reload here, most accurate within the fastest time to last shot fired wins. At its worst, it's a memory game; at its best, it's exhibitionism shooting. This is why the use of shotguns is compatible with 3-gun, since those matches are more reloading contests than anything else (using a shotgun that you don't have to do that with puts you in Open division, where you're competing with people wearing 15,000 dollars of equipment).
Brutality matches are a lot more "perform this physical challenge over these obstacles, then shoot the gun", "run 400 yards then shoot a spinning target 300 yards away so many times it goes all the way over" (3-gun has some of that but not a lot), "throw this kettlebell and wherever it lands, shoot, then do that again until you get to the end". It turns out that it's quite difficult to shoot after significant physical exertion- that's why biathlon and (to a lesser extent) pentathlon are as challenging as they are.
Oh! Yeah, that were cool.
The project, and what it did to the rest of Guntube, form the genesis of my understanding of rifles in general. While 9HoleReviews and Ivan (the gun-printing one, either on his own or as part of Fuddblasters) are far more intelligent than IRTV is now, I wouldn't have the requisite level of understanding without them.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
but not any other relevant thing
The mud test is just one of the "sacred cows" that that channel was designed to challenge- that being "AKs aren't as good as you think they are, and M16s are far better than anyone thinks they are".
That's what their 'WWSD' rifle was designed to showcase, and the myths it was designed to smash: AR-15s are the best rifle system developed to date and don't need some stupid piston to "increase reliability and fix its fundamental flaw" [actually it makes the gun less reliable and heavier], pencil barrels don't shift zero any more when hot, plastic is just fine for parts that used to be made of aluminum provided they're manufactured with that material in mind, guns don't need to weigh 11 pounds to be good, and Chinese optics really are Just As Good.
After that paradigm shift they... just petered out, and became more of a social club to support Brutality matches (which I will note have changed the competitive shooting landscape significantly). And then 2020 happened and Karl went full conservative Progressive at that point- it wasn't really apparent (IMO) until then.
when girls were asked to make the same list, a high number said they need to be submissive during sex by allowing their partner to choke or slap them.
Wait a second. Women aren't generally watching porn[1], so where did they get this idea from?
And if it's true that it's 100% downstream from men watching porn then [insert Slootpost about hypoagency, in which case "yes, they do like to be degraded" actually being the correct posture to take for both sexes], but that's also completely ridiculous. Not that reality is itself not ridiculous, but I'm more interested in the men and women who actually have at least a modicum of self-respect beyond hyper-gooning[2], or trying to make love rather than just having sex.
But then, losing virginity (for teen-aged men or women) has never really been about that- from merely 'new experience' to 'just get it out of the way' to 'processing how your life's going to be now'- and maybe the people who are going to treat sex in the 'love' sense were always going to be fine[3] and those who couldn't or won't were always going to get fucked? I'd be annoyed if I got treated purely as a human fleshlight/dildo outside of a give-and-take context, that's for sure.
Of course, we're calling it "sex education", not "love education", so love is kind of outside the purview of this exercise. Which is kind of the problem with "women like to be choked while taking it in the ass" in the first place- wanting to going straight to that seems to reveal a profound incuriousity about [the physical pleasure of] one's partner in that case. But then, it isn't necessarily about physical pleasure, is it?
[1] You... don't read a lot of yaoi, do you? That shit's about as heteronormative in its seme/uke dynamics as breathplay is- maybe the Motte should compile an essential reading list.
[2] Someone said "human fleshlight" here once, and that stuck with me. I don't understand why having sex needs to be that way though from anecdote this is [a lot of the time] functionally what happens.
[3] People joke about 'cherry-popping' for various different experiences; part of that is the newness, but part of it's also the attitude being a 'virgin' to something bestows. The reason men aren't (or weren't, for a long time) considered virgins is because they're supposed to know everything already, which was the reason to be devoted to them -> the pathway to getting sufficiently choked in bed.
Actually, I think the people less likely to get off on those things as a submissive act are also those that devotion pathway doesn't work on, and the fact the people "[seeking to be] sounding the alarm" tend to be Liberated women in their 50s [where "men being sexually aggressive = bad" was at its highest- sometimes men even believe that] is significant.
[Edit: and considering TheNybbler pointed out the even more obvious- that is, "partners are expected to enjoy sex, clearly the youth are crazy"- it's another data point in the "performative shock by frigid old women who would rather be getting choked by 15 year old men, but demonizing said men for only wanting that with 15 year old women scratches that itch too" direction.]
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
lol, whatshisface
Anyway, that's pretty much it; if there was a serious conflict I think it would have been a more immediate split. Actually, the arc of the channel is like that as well- born of match footage, they made a competition gun that nobody was really considering at the time [and single-handedly ended the AR-15 Bad Because Muh Vietnam meme], and then drifted apart.
I think that the ultimate problem with Karl is that he honestly doesn't really do very much on his own (I believe he thinks he's quite a bit smarter/more switched-on than he actually is) and is prone to flying off the handle at times; his channel took a very noticeable drop in quality after the split and hasn't recovered (there was promise, but since none of it delivered after the split I think that's a pretty clear sign the brains of the operation left). The totally-not-sponsored-sponsored-content (half the time it's the KE Arms show) sections are more technically interesting, which I think is an issue.
Karl's views match those that traditionalist gun owners (i.e. Fudds) tend to express- because progressivism is [morally speaking] just traditionalism with the valence switched (which you'd think he'd be able to figure out considering he's a Satanist, but again... what he wants to be and what he is are two different things). Ian is, far as I can tell, clearly not like that- while he can run into too-big-for-britches problems (depending on who you believe) that's relatively normal for those in his position- not like he has time to do that anyway.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
We are three generations into the liberal experiment of the emancipation of women and the resulting sexual revolution and birth rates are already in the terminal phase.
The birth rate declining to replacement already happened 150-100 years ago- women were emancipated at the very tail end of that period. And note that that was when countries were far more rural than they are now, which skews the results significantly... if we assume 50% rural and those families are all having 3 kids, then 50% of the country is only having one kid.
Industrialization caused a significant decline in [real or perceived] socioeconomic opportunity per capita compared to the 1800s, which is why SK's birthrates are as bad as they were in the [urban] US in the 20s and 30s [combined with them being a country where the benefits of industrialization were more captured at the top; Japan is a case with a similar culture where that was less true and they're doing a bit better as a result]- it's just that, because the US won WW2, it got a temporary reprieve from having to solve the actual issue for a while. But we never solved the issue, and now it rears its ugly head again.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
By noting that "childish" isn't "immature" and "gay" isn't "faggotry".
As the post demonstrates, things are just simpler when you're inherently on the same page, but it's also [weirdly] a conservative thing; either of you could have had a more conventionally attractive relationship, but instead you chose this.
It's why the childhood friend never wins in coming-of-age stories.
I disagree with his framing (and yours) that women are just tee-hee frivorce-raping hapless men with the power of the state.
Starting from egalitarianism, I would expect there's likely the same amount of abuse of both processes by their respective bad actors when each was/is the dominant mode of abuse.
And then there's the illegibility of what that being a possible outcome actually does to the average citizen's behavior under that law; men talk about it all the time, so do women. (So do responsible parents when the topic of CPS comes up- same kind of chilling effect.)
I don't think one or other gender holds a monopoly on that evil (and am not really willing to consider it, because DreadJimming/DreadJilling is inevitably where that ends up). If both are permitted, each can check the other, but more total abuse then occurs at the margins.
it's not by listening to people who, frankly, hate the other sex.
Yeah, but arbitration and spending hours trying to pass the Turing Test for the interested parties is boring, I'd much rather complain about how cokes that have had 40 penises inside them are spiritually degraded or whatever instead.
It's obviously not one where you and your wife actually love one another.
I am reminded of the classics. The key word is learn to love, and there's no doubt in my mind that this is a learned skill for lots of people, maybe all of them, to some degree. Some more than others, some never do. There's growth potential- I think someone else mentioned "people who think in terms of pathological bargaining in marriage are all insane, those who see it as an investment opportunity prosper", which gets at this- if there was nothing to be learned it wouldn't be growth, would it?
you believe in the Good Old Days she'd just have to spread 'em anyway, no recourse, and if she resists, you could beat her until she stops resisting, and that is the past you want to return to?
As opposed to today, where he'd just have to spread 'em anyway (the folds of the wallet, in this case), no recourse, and if he resists, she can beat him (with another man's fists/State power) until he stops resisting?
Surely there must be some sort of compromise (we did have one in the past, but the problem is that men and women do not, in fact, have equal biological constraints)- a new paradigm is needed to account for a seismic technological shift where women have near-total control over conception and marriage is worth less and less in the face of better alternatives (at least, from a hedonistic perspective).
DreadJimming is just as destructive when women do it.
is to make it so that you can have as much sex with your wife as you want, consent be damned, legally
Which is why this was the historical norm in the first place.
Divorce meaning the man loses most of their assets is, quite literally, a pension plan for when a sex worker has had enough of the job. That this means they're grossly overpaid and encouraged to retire that way is a problem not unique to sex workers, but it does come from the same philosophical place as other pension systems do.
I don't think they'd going to threaten to do it, I think there would be no warning until some very important Israeli infrastructure just all of a sudden disappears. Besides, Israel "doesn't have" that kind of bomb anyway.
The point is to nullify the strategic advantage Israel has because it has enough bombs to check Iran (and outside US intervention is the only reason they haven't been conquered yet), and a smaller blatantly suicidal people are just the delivery vehicle Iran needs to do that. It doesn't matter if Israel then goes full Old Testament and kills every last Hamasi in the area (and maybe the US stops them, or maybe they don't, but if they stop they'll absolutely try it again)- the attack went off, that's what matters.
All the better if it hits something actually important (like, say, where Israel gets its water from), and while Hamas is surely too stupid to manage that... well, what if they aren't?
More options
Context Copy link