ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
1d ago
They want someone who can decouple sex from the rest of the cultural baggage around relationships... attracted to the idea that it's much easier to explain sex as a harmless game or a sign of special friendship
You've successfully discovered the psychological foundation on top of which "being a liberal" resides: being capable of decoupling X from the rest of the cultural baggage around X (and being disagreeable enough to point that out).
Unless you're in the 1970s (and even then), this is generally a liability, because the logical conclusion of that with respect to sex is "you're OK with fucking 7 year olds", a liberal of this type is ultimately being dishonest if he answers "no"[1], and everyone knows that (and you stated it anyway). This is also the genesis of the traditionalist's "it's a slippery slope from the gays to pedophilia" (but it's only really valid when criticizing classical liberals, which is why progressives appear to be immune to this type of criticism).
What they mean is that this man exploits the woman's unawareness of her potential value on the sexual marketplace.
And the claim that this is "abuse" hinges on this point. As the risk incurred by having sex is nullified and the marketplace value of sex goes to zero (pornography helps with this), this fades into irrelevance, and "the woman wants to have sex, because having sex is neat" becomes the more salient point.
The fact that this is a childish view of sex is actually really relevant (and I do mean that in a literal sense; when kids- the kind closer to 7 than 17- have sex or do sex-adjacent things, I have it on good word that this is generally why they're doing them). Of course, this only results in a neutral to positive outcome if one or both of the participants can say "I'm done, and this sex was only fucking around", and in practice that's not guaranteed[2].
By contrast, a traditionalist or progressive will say that, because sex is the main thing of value women possess (for a bunch of deep-seated sociobiological reasons), that people being allowed to decouple sex from the cultural baggage around sex is devaluing sex -> destroying a woman's livelihood. And because the traditionalist viewpoint is centered around the willingness of men to pay top dollar for sex, and the progressive viewpoint is centered around forcing men to pay top dollar for sex, those types of people are going to argue that abuse occurs when you devalue sex in that way.
(Note that this doesn't actually consider the age of the participant- which makes sense; neither traditionalists nor progressives are particularly bothered about the subject's lack of age- for traditionalists, we can see that ages of consent higher than that are modern inventions so being married was the salient factor, and for progressives, they think 7 year olds can be meaningfully transgender.)
Does this mean that the instigators of the sexual revolution, who, according to some posters whose names elude me right now, did it all only to bamboozle young and attractive women into no-strings-attached sexual promiscuity were ephebophiles? I guess they technically were.
Only if you started from the traditionalist viewpoint: that the liberals are being dishonest about the above and trying to steal [literal] meal tickets from women. If a traditionalist did that, it would be a grave sin for them to do that: it would be exploitation, abuse, trickery given that they naturally understand sex to be a meal ticket in that way, so obviously, because everyone works like they do, the people not doing that must be lying. (Progressives do this too, just from the other direction because they started out in possession of the meal ticket.)
Of course, to the people who aren't lying about that but can't or won't acknowledge why the traditionalist viewpoint exists, that's going to cause some problems and damage their ability to trust traditionalist motives. After all, if the truth is one way, but they say it's the other way, then the only reason to do that must be hatred and stupidity... which, from the liberal viewpoint, it is.
[1] Which is why the more progressive-sympathetic liberals were very keen on the adoption of "consent" as a framework; it allows them to have their cake (we can do whatever we want) and eat it too (unless society has deemed the other partner sub-human), but is ultimately vulnerable to the fact that, when a society gets poorer and due to the fact the sexual marketplace is a marketplace, regulatory capture in the "declare competition illegal" direction occurs.
[2] Which is the main problem with fucking people who aren't necessarily able to judge that up front, or don't (in fact or perception) have the power to force a disengagement (which is why the "single mom's boyfriend discovered to be fucking the daughters too" thing exists, especially since the mother is herself making that calculation, consciously or otherwise).
That said, fucking people who don't believe they have that power, or are merely giving in, tends to result in dead-fish lays, which means the thing they "should" actually be after (described by faceh in a sibling comment) can't exist in that environment... which is an instant fail condition for someone genuinely interested in casual sexploration (and considering how obnoxious adult women are when they go passive like that, imagine how miserable that experience would be were it an actual kid on the other end- impressionability only goes so far). But that's basically just restating the slightly-hidden thesis that "molester/possessor" and "interested in casual/exploratory sex with for its own sake" are very different things.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
3d ago
It's also less efficient at distributing labor, a large slave owning operation is functionally a mini planned economy.
And now you know why all planned economies are indistinguishable from slave-owning operations.
It doesn't matter if you're less efficient at distributing labor when labor is not the limiting factor in your economy's growth. When labor is so worthless that laborers are actively competing to give it away, you (as a seller of labor) will find you must abide by more and more restrictions to sell that labor. This can include working longer hours, suffering quotas and beatings, not offending the master, actively making your job harder, and so on and so forth.
Note that, as you've identified, this labor isn't actually free to a buyer- you need to provide food and shelter (or the option to acquire those things). You don't even have to post guards if labor is sufficiently worthless (you do need them to ensure you're extracting the maximum potential from your slaves' labor)- there's nowhere for them to go, no better deal to be had, and they know that. It's more economically efficient if you provide these necessities yourself at the lowest resource cost possible, but they must be provided.
A minimum wage under slavery can be (especially when slaves are captured through conquest) zero, but zero is the lowest it can go. When the minimum wage for labor goes negative in an environment like this your slaves have no choice but to come after you for what's stored in your pantry- once enough people die of starvation, the supply of labor contracts, the wage goes back up to zero and equilibrium is restored.
Now, you might think that if something happened that grew agricultural productivity by an order of magnitude that the minimum wage would fall out, but it turns out that's not the case- instead, it freed up so many people to do so many different things that the supply of labor, then educated labor, started to become a limiting factor.
You may know that period as the Renaissance- typified by abolitions of slavery in European nations, AKA the first society-wide minimum wage law. Slavery wasn't abolished in the colonies for obvious economic reasons: the cost of labor was still basically zero there (and subsidized by colonial governments' conquest of those places).
Then add on that the market distortions of "free" labor adds less individual incentive for owners to invest in new technology that could clear up the workforce to do other economically productive things for someone else who still needs labor. Why spend hundreds of thousands investing in automation when you have a free work force subsidized by the police state? And yet this automation is what we need, so workers can go do jobs that can't be automated yet.
No, slave societies invest in automation as much as they're physically able. The reason a slave society becomes a slave society is to get enough food that the most powerful are able to fund this, because if it is unable or unwilling it quickly finds itself enslaved by a rival society. That is why
and one lazy layabout who captures most of the gains for themselves
is ultimately bullshit. While it is a meme for a reason, and market distortions such as 'no rival powers' can result in this- eventually a stronger society comes along and destroys them. The Confederate States lost to the Union because the Union outproduced them, and they outproduced them because their society was more industrious.
Finally, note that the inverse of that statement, "a system with five lazy layabouts who still get paid and one person who does the actual work", is an accurate characterization of unionized workplaces.
stuff like this is the balance shifting too much towards workers.
Note that the market forces that workers' ability to completely capture the regulatory apparatus also leads to depopulation- because said capture will always eventually make it too expensive for workers to produce more workers. This is the real reason TFR was an order of magnitude higher 200 years ago.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
4d ago
The creation of the word cisheteronormative innately destroys cisheteronormativity.
Or rather, the word is made specifically to attempt to contest it, and thus is meaningless outside that context.
The same thing goes when we asserting we currently live under conditions of transhomonormativity, or "globohomo" for short, since that word is intended to invoke the same.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
4d ago
It's honestly too bad that bad UX on Li-Ion powered electronics understandably soured people on electric cars.
It's a subtle thing, but when you're using your smartphone and the battery says 100% until it completely dies in the cold, or has enough energy to say "fuck you, powering down", that has consequences when companies want to put the same batteries in electric cars- people remember their devices were [either only in perception, or in actual fact] used to abuse them and think "oh, these cars have unreliable fuel gauges and their usable capacity runs into the ground after X time".
Honestly, though, I just want a Roadster. Best product Tesla ever made, mainly because the only parts they did make were the powertrain.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
5d ago
Only insofar as 'conservative' hides 'what men want', and only then insofar as 'what men want' is more acceptable than it was 5-10 years ago.
The thing which horrifies me about ancient marriages was the power imbalance.
Yes, the conditions in the state of nature are indeed horrifying. I wonder if the past 200,000+ years of human evolution had anything to do with the incentives, motives, and options typically leveraged by its participants? Surely modern peoples are trained to understand those core motivations, and are honest about them, at all times, and not forming their basis of what is and is not good and proper based solely around purely instinctual self-interest. (Now if you'll excuse me, a pig just flew past my window.)
So I think we can get a better picture- both of what's fair, and by how men and women should act and be biologically wired to be attracted to- by imagining our initial conditions and going forward solely from there.
And in the state of nature case, for women, power is "you get to eat, have a roof over your head, and strike the best deal for resource sharing", and consent is "you enter into a relationship that provides the above provided you cook the meals, maintain the household, and open your legs as desired".
Informed consent is "if you don't, you'll die, or take a serious haircut on your lifetime earnings and potential standard of living". From a modern lens, that seems unbalanced, until you notice that men die if they don't work too. Sexual dimorphism means that men have to contend with the environment to eat, and women have to contend with men to eat- in both cases, of course, you're still working.
Now that we've described the contract- one that inherently includes sex work, it's worth noting- now we'll look at the incentives. For men, they want someone as young and attractive as possible (they heal faster from childbirth and it's easier for them to have kids, sex is better without having to turn the lights off) at as low a standard as possible (so they can get away with paying them next to nothing compared to themselves, to the point they could afford more than one). For women, they want someone as old and powerful as possible (more secure, more resources, more even-keeled) with as little competition as possible (so they're not outflanked by younger, prettier competitors with lower standards[1]).
The thing that sets the lower limit on the age of the women participating in this, especially when there's an oversupply of them[2], is sexual maturity. It may shock you to know that most men aren't sexually attracted to little girls[3]. They can't do the domestic stuff as easily, they aren't developed enough/don't have the v1.1 firmware update you get at puberty that makes them particularly interesting in bed, and they don't quite get how to provide the whole SaaS (that's sex-as-a-service) experience that is attractive to men (that thing they do where they act as a desirable sex object: women do this, girls only cosplay it)- in short, they're still growing.
Now, let's apply that:
"No, he is not some creep who wants to fuck 13yo's, he just recognized that mentally I am already 18 and our souls fell in love with each other. It is so romantic!"
So those are the words that come out of her mouth, but what is she actually saying? A steady union-backed job is absolutely an attractive, freeing prospect for a man, why wouldn't [something a woman instinctively sees as the same thing] be highly desirable for a woman? I can see an interview process going badly, or the job not turning out to be what was agreed to, to be damaging just as much as it would be for a man to suffer that- but in terms of "my prospective employer firing me or discontinuing my contract", which is what [at a fundamental level] this is, I see no need to protect women from this more than we protect men from the same. Residuals (i.e. pregnancy) are a different matter, of course.
Child molesters could easily manipulate kids into all kinds of behaviors which will be demonstrably harmful for their normal development.
Yes, that's the female interest motte (but, again, see [3]). The bailey is "men could easily manipulate women into all kinds of behaviors, and as a result the only women who will get men's resources are those more willing to do things that men want, and that's a problem for us women who don't want to do those things but still want those resources". (The fact that this slots women into the "kid" position is relevant- in an environment of equality, women have equal agency, so they're just as resistant to being manipulated as men are.)
As far as "well, we want a blanket law because we don't want to pay attention to circumstances"... I think the criticism writes itself, but other laws, properly enforced, should cover most to all of these cases. The thing that makes this abuse in the first place is specifically "submissive has no ability to disengage" [the motte of the term "consent"- where the bailey is any degree of "I'm not getting paid enough for those acts of submission"], which is the same thing women are trying to control with blunt instruments like this (and it is important they be blunt so that judgments default in their favor- an age of consent is intended as a bracket under which All Women Are Believed [to have been seduced], which is why places where either women or fathers have outsized levels of social power have higher ages of consent in modern times.)
[1] The female talking point around "protecting women" is equal to the male talking point around "protecting the borders/protecting jobs". In both cases, their direct competition are other men/women willing and ready to take their job- we use words like "exploitation", "minimum wage", "human trafficking/illegal immigration" (when those people are foreigners)- it's just that for women, the job is sex work and being attractive.
[2] Which is the reason polygamy exists, why limits on it benefit young men at the expense of everyone else, and why young men are alone in enforcing any prohibitions thereon- if sharing a husband will be a better contract for a wife than going with someone poorer, and if young men are drastically poorer than old men, then the rational choice for a women is to share.
[3] As I've described, it's in the interest of women to conflate "grown women just beyond the male evolved optimal sexual attraction age" and "sexually immature girls", so this needs to be restated even though it should be obvious. Actual pedophilia is a maladaptive anomaly, men wanting just-mature women is not.
I have this idea that power imbalances in sexual relationships which do not stem from a sufficiently informed consent are bad.
And I get this idea from the pornography romance media that women watch where it involves a complete lack of "sufficiently informed consent" (but lots and lots of the instinctual dynamics I described above), so I suspect women are lying about this being a negative in and of itself. I'm also not surprised they'd never admit that, because screaming "I don't want a consentual relationship" is obviously not in women's sociofinancial/sociobiological best interest.
I am sure that there are some adult women who wish that they had lost their virginity at age 14 to a 40yo driving a Porsche instead of a 15yo driving a scooter, but I am also convinced that they are a small minority.
I am not convinced: groupies are a thing for this specific reason and the 60s-80s were rife with them for that reason. (What, you thought women throwing their underwear at Elvis was somehow not sexual?)
I do not think that the motivation of fathers and feminists to be against minors dating adults is that they fear that they will ruin the sexual marketplace for women.
I do not think the motivation of (implied: traditionalist) fathers and feminists are the same. I've discussed why feminists do it, but for fathers it's much simpler: that daughter is his property, and he will manage and discharge it as he sees fit. Non-virgin daughters are worth less to men than virgin ones are, and it is in the father's interest that the daughter fetch a man of maximum price (i.e. a man that is maximally fit to protect her, and a rich man is obviously better-positioned to do this).
Note that the moral hazard here doesn't actually exist in the way feminists think it does (property can be managed incompetently, yes, but it's still ultimately in the interests of the property holder to manage that property appropriately), and most of that is an artifact of conditions changing faster than male instinct was equipped to deal with. Which is a great argument for "daughters shouldn't be property", just like it is for humans more generally.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
5d ago
Sure, here you go. You'll have to excuse me from re-typing all that, though if I have time I'll re-state a good chunk of this later in this thread anyway.
A pedophile, in my book, is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent kids. Often, the term might imply exclusive pedophilia, e.g. someone who is only attracted to pre-pubescent kids. This seems like the worst sexual attraction card to be dealt, while being straight, gay, bisexual, into MILFs, or into BDSM, or most other kinks means you have a decent chance of getting laid, the lack of adults who could pass as pre-pubescent means that there are no sex partners who could consent. If used as an insult, the unfortunate implication is that people are morally responsible for their sexual inclinations.
Your book is not the book most people are using. Most people don't think about sex in those terms (they don't really think 'straight' or 'gay' either)- otherwise, the group(s) that wants to impose those definitions/morality on everyone else wouldn't need words words words to do it.
For most people, "pedophilia" means "man on little girl" exclusively.
Men can't be raped, so we don't really care about man on boy (unless it's a political group we hate for other reasons that was covering it up, which in combination with that hatred is sufficiently scandalous to destroy them- we're not really after boyfuckers qua boyfuckers, that's a side-effect). As for woman on boy, our reactions range from Nice to "if we don't throw you in jail for this, society's standards might shift and allow man on girl, so off you go". And woman on girl is a statistical anomaly.
Feminists/gynosupremacists launder the moral disgust with "man on girl" into the "man on any woman" definition they've always wanted (though note that this is fundamentally a woman vs. woman thing about how best to exploit men rather than primarily being man-hating, which is how men perceive it). This is why they push to have older and older women be considered "children", and why white-knights (traditionalists and progressive men) accept that. It's also why all the "pedo" literature progressives use only features man on boy (or man on boy-dressed-like-a-girl).
As you noted,
I think that power discrepancy is why we have age of consent laws
is correct, but those laws aren't set up that way to protect children (they aren't the right tool for that). They're primarily for keeping young women out of the sexual marketplace and providing women-as-class a weapon to exploit men more powerful than them (to which they are inherently attracted).
Once you understand the concept of "consent" is a lie (and intended to confuse "raping little girls" with normal human behavior) you can start to understand how people actually think about sex. Then, you can also see that Rs have a better understanding of this than Ds do because they're more likely to reject this framework (to the point that even traditionalist Christian sexual ethics paint a better picture), so Rs are less likely to be concerned with "non-consentual" behavior than Ds are.
Also, a tangent:
It bears saying that a significant fraction of child molesters are not exclusive pedophiles but just men (mostly) with broader sexualities who use the opportunity of the power discrepancy between kids and adults.
Well, if you're only looking for physical penetration as a subset of "abuse with sexual intent", yes, you'll find that's mostly men.
Men and women are different especially when it comes to the way they think about sex; thus we should expect the ways they intend and perpetrate sexual abuse would be different.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
6d ago
the most egregious motte-and-bailey that is currently widely accepted
No, the most egregious motte-and-bailey is "consent".
Note that this statement:
Call someone a 'pedophile' because they express attraction towards someone just barely under the age of majority, and uninformed onlookers might very well imagine that they're a predator who stalks 10 year olds with designs on kidnapping and molesting them.
is a specific version of the more general form, which is:
Call someone a
'pedophile'rapist because they express attraction towardssomeone just barely under the age of majoritya woman who isn't interested, and uninformed onlookers might very well imagine that they're a predator who stalks 10 year olds with designs on kidnapping and molesting them.
and the popular definition of "pedophile" is fundamentally just the most defensible/best Think Of The Children extension of that core idea. (Because no, that definition only includes man on girl; we pretend it includes man on boy when it's politically convenient to do so, but we don't treat the two equally.)
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
7d ago
From the looks of Wilson Combat's products (in particular) it looks like they're banking on people buying their product to change something about the grip angle of the gun (there are a couple of them that mimic the 1911/DWX) or to have a convenient way to make it heavier.
(Why you'd want to make a plastic gun heavier like that instead of just buying something like a Q5SF Match is another question entirely, but it's not like it costs WC anything to market it as "you could do it".)
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
7d ago
or holding a gun to the stomachs of your own pregnant women to threaten your enemy into compliance
Ironically, the set of people that's less likely to work on are also the set more likely to believe pulling the trigger in that case would be ending two lives.
I feel like this series of events has culture war implications.
SIG has absolutely been trying to leverage the fact there is a culture war to shout down people who now believe their guns are unsafe.
SIG lost two of those cases because they shipped a trigger shoe that did not have a Glock-style trigger safety, which would have hypothetically prevented an uncommanded discharge that occurred due to an undescribed mechanism.
The ultimate problem with the P320 is that it's a case study in extreme cost cutting.
Once upon a time, there was the P250. It was a very modern handgun, with a very mechanically simple firing mechanism. This mechanism is inherently extremely safe for the same reason it's safe on revolvers: the trigger pull is heavy, long, and even if the hammer let go and hit the firing pin somehow it couldn't hit the bullet hard enough to fire it. You don't need any other safeties[1] on a gun like this.
But the same things that made the gun safe and simple to manufacture also made it basically dead on arrival- the trigger pull is long and heavy. Not great for accuracy, or shooting all that quickly, or particularly usable by people who don't have a strong trigger finger. Understandably, sales weren't great.
Now, because modern guns cost far more in tooling to make than non-modern guns, SIG might have been in a bit of a hole financially. The plastic grips and triggers[2] for the P250 may be dirt-cheap to make on a per-unit basis, but the moulds for that plastic are incredibly expensive. To a lesser degree, this is also true of the barrels and slides (when you consider the CAD work for the outside and everything forward of the magazine would need no changes).
So SIG's engineers set to work designing a new firing control mechanism to fit in the same footprint as the old one[3]. By doing that, they could sell it as an upgrade for P250 owners, and recover the costs of that tooling- so they reused the maximum number of parts they could get away with and off it went to consumers.
It's at this point the problems start showing up:
[1] The new firing control mechanism is fundamentally less safe than the old one- they went from a gun that's completely incapable of firing a bullet at rest to one that is intentionally designed to do so (which in a vacuum is a perfectly valid thing to do: it makes the trigger pull much better than it is on competing pistols). So, design decisions that were fine on the old gun are all of a sudden not fine on the new gun- now they need a bunch of additional safeties to make sure the firing pin absolutely can't let go when the gun is dropped or when you pull the slide back a little.
This is what the second recall did- they milled out a bit of the slide and added another safety to it so the striker couldn't drop unless the trigger was pulled.
[2] The new firing control mechanism only needs a fraction of the trigger pull force, and a fraction of the total travel distance, to release the striker. Because inertia means things in motion stay in motion, a heavy enough trigger may have sufficient inertia that when the gun stops (by hitting the floor at a particular angle after being dropped) it still has enough potential energy to release the striker on its own. Now, in a vacuum, having a heavy trigger is a perfectly valid thing- if your gun can't fire until the trigger travels a great distance back under 10 pounds of force, there's no problem- but it stops being fine when the trigger no longer has to come that far back and must have much less force applied to it to activate.
This is what the first recall did- they replaced the heavy P250 plastic trigger with a much lighter one.
[3] The new firing control mechanism makes engineering compromises to stay within the footprint of the old gun. Those compromises include things like the effectiveness of mechanical safeties, as well as requiring certain parts be held to much more exact tolerances (because the size they'd normally be isn't possible on a retrofit like this). Now, if SIG kept making those parts to the initial standard, that's fine- but more exact tolerances cost more money. So, if you tell your subcontractors they can take shortcuts, and they do, a design that was just barely safe if made to those initial tolerances is now no longer safe, so the guns fire on their own.
This is why they're fucked now. They've sold so many, at so low a price (enabled both by being able to reuse tooling and aggressive subcontracting), that doing a recall is likely financially infeasible. SIG doesn't know which guns had parts made by which contractor or when they were made, so they can't guarantee that any gun is safe, and taking them all back to put parts made that are actually to standard in the first place is conceivably going to cost them more money than they ever made from the guns in the first place.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
8d ago
Meritocracy is, in some very real sense, "discrimination against dumb people"
And in that same sense, countries that grant their citizens broad liberties and freedoms discriminate against the stupid and virtueless.
"Ruining it for everyone" is the excuse to socialize your private virtue for those people.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
9d ago
“it is impossible to visualize the conduct of hostilities in which one side would be bound by rules of warfare without benefitting from them, and the other side would benefit from rules of warfare without being bound by them"
However, Israel factually is bound by rules of warfare without benefitting from them; while Hamas factually does benefit from rules of warfare without being bound by them ('there is a class of citizen that laws bind but do not protect, and then there is one that is protected by laws that do not bind').
Note that in the West, citizens in the latter class know it, and thus are far more likely to support Palestine- because not doing so is a refutation of their rights to that special protection in their own societies. Queers for Palestine is perfectly coherent through this lens.
The actual solution is to simply withdraw the protection that society has- if they don't want to follow the laws of war, they must lose the protection of those laws. Laws against genocide are there to protect a society that goes to war and loses from being slaughtered to the last; if a society wants to go to war and not fight that way, the law against genocide must then no longer apply. There is no right to the self-determination of a people without first respecting their right to self-destruction.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
11d ago
It's an unsinkable aircraft carrier whose location checks 3 regional powers that outnumber them at least 9:1- Iran (obvious), Russia (not quite as obvious), and Egypt (if a blockade/freedom of movement on the Suez needed to be enforced).
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
11d ago
incels
This is just a fancy way to say "dissident" when it comes from the mouths of the orthodox (who believe they are dissidents axiomatically).
and into Asian women
There's a stereotype that Asian cultures tend to encourage women to have a healthier relationship with what men want, and men who are not getting what they want right now are more aware of that. When the orthodox say that, though, it's mostly to attack Asian women for being pick-mes (orthodoxy defines itself in opposition to everything men might want, so their existence lessens their power).
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
11d ago
but it does assign normative responsibility based on the practices of nations
No it doesn't, and that's actually kind of the central issue: it conveniently leaves out any redress for another country fighting a war against such a nation. International law, or rather those states who appeal to it, are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
The Hamasi/Palestinians are breaking international law on this matter because it's the only possible way to prosecute this war- that's why they put their command structure in schools and hospitals, too. In a fight that complies with that law, they instantly lose, and they know that.
However, intentionally ignoring the provisions of international law must (in a system whose default state is anarchy) then also come with a withdrawal of the protection other international laws provide (and no other aid should come from the international community that is protected by those laws until they bring themselves into compliance).
Laws against genocide (and other related mistreatment of ostensibly-civilian populations) are meant specifically to protect peoples who follow the laws of war and lose from being completely obliterated in contrast to the otherwise-natural punishment for the crime of waging war and losing. If a people fails to follow those laws, intentionally (regardless of whether or not they have a choice), then the only redress available to the nation that people are at war with is the consensus that the laws that would otherwise protect them no longer apply.
Erasing the Hamasi from the face of the Earth is a legitimate act of war in the state of nature in which the Hamasi have collectively agreed to exist. If a Palestinian faction manifests to fight a civil war against the Hamasi we should aid them, but until that happens, that is all we should do.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
11d ago
just a sort of 'what am I doing here'
Finish Episode 3. Don't lose your head.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
11d ago
You had me questioning whether or not we watched the same show for a second there. Granted, it's been quite a while.
There is a whole thing where the two middle school aged girls are implied to have had sex or at least made out together which is why the other girl is a third wheel
If you're talking about this, Hitomi's just being stupid about it, and this is a meme for a reason. Also, I hate to break this to you, but 14 year olds do know what lesbians are, and if the mere mention of [a character that age considers that a half-reasonable explanation in the absence of other evidence] is salacious pedo-bait then I really don't understand what wouldn't be.
and their bosoms
What bosoms? Most of the girls are relatively flat; the only real exception to that is Mami, and I guess Sayaka's chestplate makes them look a bit bigger. As for the skirts, yes, drawing your attention to that part of the inner thigh is the reason people use that outfit.
Well I suppose it is but it's a standard I oppose.
Wait, you really think a 'sexuality' predicated on a lack of secondary sexual characteristics would be... enticed by outfits meant to accentuate them? That doesn't make much logical sense to me.
Instead, I think this is just your normal adult woman fetish being activated in a way you're uncomfortable with/not used to and being Very Concerned about it.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
13d ago
Yet I still see this quite determined hostility to re-evaluating.
I don't believe traditionalists' revealed motives are trustworthy.
It was absolutely a stupid, destructive idea to replace abuse and overreach perpetrated by men (traditionalism) with abuse and overreach perpetrated by women (progressivism), yes. We have noticed the skulls that gynosupremacy has created, including the fractional ones generated by concern trolling.
But the traditionalists are, at least in popular consciousness, insisting that we merely reset it so it's male abuse and overreach again, uncritically and unironically- where for everyone else, the problem isn't who's doing it, it's what they're permitted to do. They're trying to prosecute a culture war they've already lost, in the same way they lost it before, and expecting things to be different somehow.
correlation and causation
The thing traditionalists don't seem to have a satisfying answer for is "why is gayness uniquely bad"? Why does it uniquely fuel identarianism, if it does? When I consider the question of "if it wasn't this, would it have been something else?", I think back on all the times it has been something else, and note that there's nothing unique/special to non-straightness that lends itself to being used as a weapon in this way.
Because the traditionalists (as a natural consequence of being traditionalist) are unwilling, or unable, to come up with an answer for why it is unique (vagina-having and melanin-having being the two used for this before, with dishonorable mentions to religion and nationality) without ultimately falling back on some variation of "sin"- if they had a better argument, they'd be making it- then I judge they're no different than those who also have the same definition of sin but with the who and whom switched.
The axiomatic rejection that gayness (or whatever else) at times can be productive/the right answer to a particular pair-bonding question means that the needle cannot be threaded/competing interests cannot be balanced between "these relationships function mostly like straight ones do outside of certain specifics; we don't need to hunt these guys down" and "doing this thing that just so happens to be more common in this subgroup creates externalities that are not society's bill to foot".
I'm not interested in swapping a failing axiom for an already-failed axiom (while I am broadly OK with feeding progressives to traditionalists I'm under no deception that's productive); either we grow together limiting/harnessing the axioms to guide us into a position that can be rationally justified, or we don't grow.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
13d ago
“Consent to allow someone to view something that exists only as a moment in time or exists only in their memory is very different than consenting to allowing someone to have something that remains a permanent object and can be shared or viewed indefinitely,” Gibson said in the interview.
Or in other words, she can't monetize repeat viewings, and her self-worth is (in this case rationally) inextricably linked to being able to do exactly that.
Holding both that "sex work is real work" and that it's proper to be unable to function for 2 weeks because the only quality you could monetize has been made available for free is a logically consistent position.
Of course, a politician who [clearly demonstrates they believe] their main asset is something they got for free should not be a politician.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
15d ago
Large parts of the right now won't accept being shamed full stop, by either side. They won't be shamed by the left.
What has accepting being shamed by "the left" brought them?
It hasn't bought them economic prosperity, it hasn't bought them moral prosperity.
The problem with shame is that you can always just say "no" if you're willing and powerful enough to do so. The "right" has regained that power, for the "left" emptied their stores of social credit on wasteful social investments that ultimately failed to pay off/legitimize themselves.
The erosion of shame as a social force is one of the biggest impacts of the Trump presidencies.
Shame comes with fiduciary responsibilities: it is the interest paid on a positive balance of social credit.
When the faction[1] stewarding the account runs out of social credit, or the social interest rate drops to 0 or (worse) goes negative, shame disappears. Wrong but aesthetically pleasing policies decrease this balance, like rioting, defending illegal migration, and hysteria over an uncommon cold- the trick is to limit your imposition of shame to the interest only so you don't run out of it. A virtuous people can do this, but being too focused on your social credit balance compromises you in other ways.
A minimum level of shame (and interest) is required to enforce message discipline. Once you stop having that, you stop being able to generate interest entirely, and the opportunity for rival investors appears to take over stewardship of the account- once the interest rate rises, they're locked in until they overspend or the bottom falls out of the social economy again.
This is now what has happened- the right overspent hard from 2016-2024, and now the left is hunting the right's institutions of social capital generation (academia, etc.)
they are storing it up to be brought down on their asses in much larger quantities later
I disagree. If the left/classical liberals can deliver on its promises- that fixing the abuses of right-wing/progressive privilege will make things better- then the left will start generating social capital [and thus shame] for itself and transition back into being right-wing. The 'first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win' cycle typifies this- social credit holders always eventually go bankrupt, and this happens slowly, then suddenly.
Elon Musk's claim that empathy is the most dangerous force in society would be the peak example of this phenomenon.
Elon Musk is a liberal (definitionally, but not popularly, left-wing), so he doesn't believe the right should be allowed to accrue any social credit because when they do, the typical abuses happen. Left-wing thought has the opposite problem in that, when the economy switches from a positive-sum to a zero-sum mode, it failed to store up social credit and gives way to whoever the right-wing is at the time; this is why classical liberalism ultimately died in the '80s, and part of why it has returned now.
[1] Right-wing thought is defined by the desire to keep a balance higher than what market conditions otherwise dictate; or in other words, the dominant faction that's seeking to increase and wield a balance in this way is by definition right-wing. (This is currently Progressives- the people who call themselves left-wing- so it's very confusing.) This is also, by definition, why the left "always wins" (Progressives simply believe that calling themselves "the left" means they should always win, but winning ain't a left-wing idea and "correct" isn't a real political identity.)
Being reflexively anti-right-wing is not the definition of left-wing, to the point he couldn't identify posts more friendly to left-wing thought.
More options
Context Copy link