ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
Yes- progressivism (the current dominant ideology of women and their corporate arms- schools, etc.) is omnipresent and an extremely socially conservative force, very publicly allergic to any kind of human dignity (typically referred to as "risk").
Sure, they sometimes pretend to be on the side of "liberalism", but they cheer when kids get arrested by CPS (or are themselves doing the arresting) for not being visibly accompanied by the head of the household, something they have in common with fundamentalist Muslims. That doesn't scream "freedom-respecting and risk tolerance" to me no matter how much leather they're wearing.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1d ago
Caveat is that the kids seem to be rejecting it now, because the kids think Dad is lame.
In an unusual win for equality, it's more that the kids think Mom is lame.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
it considers those outside the movement to be hopelessly mired in false consciousness and thus incapable of having anything to contribute; this is exactly why it's so intransigent in the face of external opposition
Which you can see from the traditionalists in this thread, too- they're so stuck on a very particular version of sexual ethics that they believe the argument to be won is the axiomatic acceptance of those ethics.
They are unable or unwilling to understand that "but teh pedos" is not actually a slam-dunk defense- they want to discuss why progressive sexual ethics are wrong, but without the elucidation on why (and that doesn't depend on progressive language, since the first thing they'll reach for is 'consent'... itself a progressive sexual ethic, and the master's tools don't work on the master's house) they fail.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
You're not actually refuting the central claim that there is a strong current in contemporary leftist thought (critical theory, post-modernism, queer theory) that is okay with exposing children to sexual material or activities
I don't need to, because:
the only way you get sexlessness is if you go so deep down the rabbithole where you deconstruct every the very concept of sex doesn't exist
Yes, this is what progressive actually believe (what did you think "all sex is rape" meant?). They don't want sex to exist and act accordingly; that's why all of their "pedo literature" is oppression porn and why all of their efforts to educate children about sex center around portraying sex as ugly and terrible.
That's not consistent with traditional/your understanding of how pedophilia "works", but my assertion is that that/your understanding of the situation is completely wrong, and you haven't engaged with that at all.
the concept of childhood innocence.
Again, if you actually bother to read, this is what progressives fetishize. So do the traditionalists, for that matter (almost like it's the same impulse driving both); that's why all of their purity pomp and circumstances (especially surrounding their daughters) looks and acts so incredibly pedophilic.
To an overwhelming degree, it's a possession/preservation fetish.
If you're wondering what the opposite of that is, well, I wrote about what that looks like here.
I would suggest the reason pedophilia hasn't taken off despite it's presence in leftwing thought is that it is so intrinsically and self-evidently evil and disordered that most people can't and won't accept it even when they might accept other elements of the ideology in the abstract.
Again, you're unwilling or unable to engage with the actual argument. Progressive thought fetishizes innocence, so what we would expect from that is a bunch of so-called "pedo literature" that fails to actually contain any pedophilia [in the "straight man on little girl" sense], and what you actually should be looking for is, again, the fetishization of what they consider innocence.
And because a progressive defines innocence as "everything outside men having sex with women", It is not a coincidence that they advance all sexual causes that are non-straight because, by that definition, they are more innocent and deserve the privileges (when a progressive says "drag queens are innocent fun", this is the meaning of "innocence" in that statement). And the fact that the LGBT stuff dunks on the Trads is a nice bonus, but again, not the primary objective either.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
Well, no surviving ones, at any rate; the most famous one was the mass of women cross-dressing in the '60s and '70s. Of course, that movement was so overwhelmingly successful that it's just the room temperature now.
There's also tomboyism, though that's not really an organized subculture so much as an emergent phenomenon.
The main way to tell whether a particular crossdresser is doing it for fetish/sexualized reasons or not is to look at how well they fit into the surrounding environment. If they're in formal wear when everyone else is casual (which covers both your average drag queen and Sam Brinton) it's 100% fetish/sexual, but if it's not then it's reasonable to assume they have other goals (where, sexual or not, they're unlikely to try and make it your problem).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
Well, if we're just lazily copy-pasting, might as well. I figure I'm entitled to do that, since your argument has indeed been copy-pasted by every other traditionalist when complaining about the Left for the last 40 years and as such it's been 30 years removed from any relevancy.
If the Left is trying to advance pedophilia, they're clearly doing an absolutely terrible job of it, considering the average age of virginity loss and general age of consent has done nothing but rise (making these ages gender-neutral is not really a liberalization of the law) and the newer generations are more sensitive to this, perhaps as a reaction to constantly having gross sex stuff they hate forced into them every waking hour. Considering the cultural power they have to change these things, this failure is out of character.
They aren't following the gay rights playbook of "fix the perception that X is a complete and utter rejection of social norms so that the average Joe thinks you're sufficiently like him that he no longer sees fit to stop you"; instead preferring only to ride the wave of gunboat diplomacy that is the trans rights movement (which, in fairness, doesn't exactly follow that playbook either).
It should be extremely telling that there's basically zero "groomer literature" that features a relationship the average boy or man would ever be interested in (given all the pairings are gay men, gay boys, or gay men with gay boys; if a woman is ever featured it's lesbians- my evidence is that the spiciest stuff the Right can dig up only includes [young-ish] boys, because if it were [young] girls they'd trumpet that instead). One would assume that if the movement was purposefully pro-sex-with-kids thing their literature would feature a lot more girls or straight women for what should be obvious reasons, but since that's not the case that claim is obviously false.
Now sure, that's still damning with faint praise given that we already know the Left is perfectly fine portraying boys like that (and will not hesitate to call them bigots for complaining about/resisting the same kind of unwanted sexual attention from men that women have been trying to banish for decades now), but I think the trads doth complain too much; their brand of Junior Anti-Sex League has the same end result, they just doesn't like the concessions the progressives leave for man-on-man (or the bullying potential progressives leverage from the narcissism of this small difference, as viewed from a liberal perspective).
The thing about [what you call the modern Left, and what I simply call 'progressives'] is that it's all about destroying sex altogether, 1984-style. It makes complete sense why they fail to see a difference between pedophilia and non-pedophilia because their end goal is that nobody has sex ever; indeed, that's why progressives seek to push the age at which women are considered children ever higher and higher (outside of man-on-boy, but since boys are just men, and they hate men, they don't care about what happens to them plus it's free Oppression Points/owning the Trads).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
I was hoping for more of that Marxist feminism source material directly. Other than that, I think that's the most incoherent thing I've read in a long time.
and nobody seems interested in making it stop working
Your standard excuses; the only people who understand sexuality clearly enough to correctly condemn it are too tired/busy, and that leaves the rest of the traditionalists who have zero desire [or ability] to actually understand the problem (per the "obviously this is all male pedophiles" comment around here somewhere) and therefore cannot solve it effectively. It's just low on our list of priorities these days, just like everything else.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
Source for that paragraph? I'm having trouble finding that in the links above, and there's clearly room for much more beyond what I've managed to deduce about these people already.
a way to fetishize the child as both dependent and sub-human
That isn't just slow-pitch, it's tee-ball.
It's darkly funny how people always insist "muh child sexualization" has to be from male child molesters and discount the obvious conclusions even without the iron-clad evidence: that there are female child molesters, that this is how they work, that they're trivially identifiable (and how to identify them), why they think the way they do, why they should be kept away from your children at all costs, and that most of the weird sex shit in the classrooms is not only their fault, but done with this intent.
but as usual there's the ultimate defense of "that's only a crazy fringe that all the moderate liberals are only slowly being trained to support, so stop noticing it"
I am reminded of the Catholic Church and its intentional failure to notice molester priests. But you know what? If you wanted to make a boy [or girl] feel dirty and in need of Christ's grace forever, institutionalized buck-breaking is such a fantastic way to accomplish that goal.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
The ideology of social conservatives is not “the kids must do less drugs, and I don’t care about anything else.”
No; given that social conservatism has failed to provide health, social connection, and happiness (indeed, it believes that teenagers should not have those things in general, a viewpoint they share with progressives) I judge it completely fair to say that the ideology of social conservatives is exactly that- or at least, it's not opposed to sacrificing health, social connection, and happiness on the altar of "the fun things in life are evil" because those things are not terminal values.
POSIWID.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
It doesn’t require much to start, just a practice of actively coordinating unattached acquaintances of the right age.
we’ve done quite well at stopping underage sex
These two things are at odds. If you believe teenagers should be thoroughly desexualized (and if you even use the term "underage" that way, you likely do), you're going to think the "right age" is 25-30 for both parties. By that point you have enough sour grapes from the men and enough "thottery" from the women that your "active co-ordination" isn't going to be better than the Tinder status quo. One of the things you want from a marriage is the concept and expectation that you'll grow together, and that's much more likely at 20 than 30.
her husband is a 667 programmer and therefore relatively wealthy but unable to date
Indeed, money makes all the difference. The Japanese might have the right idea with the company dating services, and since you only see your spouse for a couple of hours one day a week the dynamics of a marriage aren't exactly going to be that deep.
I don’t get it.
It's the same thing you just described, but up one level: if you don't understand how men and women actually work (perhaps because you think man bad woman good, which is the traditionalist-progressive compact, or because you're just not self-aware enough or too tired/don't have time to deal with it, which is the issue with the liberals), then you're not going to be able to fix issues built upon faulty understanding, you're just going to make them worse.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
The idea that you should find a partner by fucking around through your teens and twenties until you find a girl you want to keep is incredibly recent, though. Basically Europe/Anglo only, between 1960s and now.
Yes, the ability to have sex and be more or less guaranteed for that not to result in pregnancy is an incredibly recent development; and the kinds of people who take advantage of that technology (and encourage taking advantage of the same) tend to be somewhat less encumbered than what the past several million years of evolution suggest they should be, to the point that someone closer to that prediction would/should believe that a serious malfunction.
You can have either position but not really both, especially when you cripple your childrens’ game and then throw them into the tinder meat market at 20
There are two types of conservatives: those who have realized this and ally with the less-encumbered as described above, and those who turn inwards and die (their daughters become progressives immediately after leaving the house and remain that way for the rest of their lives, and their sons don't figure out becoming progressive is a bad move until it's too late for them to ever leave the basement).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
but no one who was upset about the kids having sex or doing drugs is happy about it.
Oh, don't get them wrong, they were happy about it back when their kid was 12-20. Every conservative parent's dream, really- no sex, no drugs, and otherwise content to be seen-but-not-heard. Just follow the process and your life will surely start eventually.
But now you fast-forward 20 years and they're still in the basement. Encouraging their children to reject the more pleasurable (and riskier) parts of life may have had some unforeseen consequences, but if your judgement as a parent is that the best way to make sure your child isn't living in sin is to encourage them to refuse to live then, uh... mission accomplished, I guess?
It seems to me that quite a few people take the Bible literally, and even more take it seriously, at least in terms of what they believe.
I still know some people like this, and was this way for most of my life (I am not this way any more but still remember what it was like).
To that end, it's at least an argument for a church set up in such a way that it actually can have good answers to the Genesis question simply to scratch that gnostic itch (that is, I feel, the reason why some Christians really do want/have a psychological need for the creation story to be overly? literal). Then again, a structure that can answer that question can also get it wrong.
Giving it up also pattern-matches to the standard slippery slope that, everyone, and Christians since they've been on the losing end of the fight for freedom of religion for the last 50 years are more sensitive to it, intuitively understands- and while the removal of Jesus (and some strains of Christianity do indeed have a metaphorical Jesus, though that is a contradiction in terms) is explicitly addressed in one of the New Testament books the notion of "giving up on position X" is one that's going to pattern match as a descent into "giving up on historical Jesus" (literally the foundation of the religion, pointless without Him). Most of the Pentateuch is on relatively shaky historical ground, and a good chunk of the most dramatic, and miracles that remain in the collective consciousness, come from there- giving them up into metaphor doesn't really help their explanatory power. (I'm honestly not sure how the Jews handle it.)
Oh well, at least we can all just compare ourselves to AI models converging or diverging from Christ as everyone becomes more familiar with those topics, so now we'll get to have the fight over Calvinism if and when that idea starts occurring to the mainstream.
because shooting people with criminal nature and intent regardless of their social status, connections, or cleverness in concealing their actual crimes would wipe out huge swathes of the people we consider movers and shakers in modern society.
There may be an oversupply of these people (either in economic fact/if post-scarcity economic conditions exist, or in social consensus; European and Asian societies take this option, though none quite as seriously as the Cambodians, North Koreans, or to a point the Chinese).
One could argue (or perhaps simply notice) that, in Western societies, these people are generally called "men" (and you will notice that the real-world politics used to justify this are exactly the same).
When the penalty for murder is death, you're already at the bottom (top?) of the escalation spiral, so the penalty for doing more murder is not different -> no longer a deterrent.
What else are they going to do to you, especially considering that Abramic societies generally tend to avoid things like intergenerational punishments (and for good reason)?
After all, you can't turbo-kill the criminal and send them to turbo-hell, so if you're going to have the penalty be execution (including life imprisonment, or a significant fraction of life imprisonment, especially in a system that isn't an exile simulator) you can no longer scale up from there, thus meaning that, for the criminal, there might as well not be a law against it... at a time when the means and opportunity are right there.
So I'm not surprised that "I didn't like this school so I'll take it out on the faculty" naturally evolves into dead kids in the hallways too- just a target of opportunity at that point. Naturally, nobody tends to draw that distinction because they're more focused on "I told you so"-ing and trying to win political arguments (and this post is not technically an exception), but so it goes.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
because it can pull commuters away from driving
I could own a car and go wherever I want, whenever I want. It'll take me 10 minutes to get there and another 10 to get back. I can buy heavy things or more than I can carry on my own. A lot of times public transit doesn't get me to where I want to go (especially if it's another city, and in that case I'd need to get a hotel and hope their own system takes me to where I need to go) and sometimes what I'm transporting is not allowed on public transit. I can open the windows, turn on the A/C, I control the music, and I'll always have a place to sit.
Or I could take public transit, where it'll take me an hour one way (transit + walking + transfers), I'm limited to my physical strength (so no Costco runs), I'm more or less limited to where public transit goes, not even guaranteed a place on the vehicle during rush hour, I can't take certain things with me, and I can't stay out later than the last bus or I'll be stuck walking for multiple hours. Or I could take a taxi, but the cost of doing that particularly often is comparable to car ownership in the first place.
The reason people like cars is that personal vehicles of this nature are Good, Actually. We can argue about the size (though because a great variety of Westerners are landlords compared to those in hyper-dense areas or Europe, we tend to prefer trucks large enough to lend to the land's maintenance) but there's a reason even in extremely poor areas the dominant mode of transportation is not public... it's a 50cc gasoline-powered scooter.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
and how the imagined criminal just resigned himself to rampage once he was targeted as depraved-- because he knew his planned life was over anyway
I don't think this is that unusual. The penalty for murder is already death.
Mass shootings that aren't explicitly political or religious in motivation tend often to turn into this (three of the four most famous American examples are "I managed to get myself locked into an elementary school classroom while on the run from the cops, my life is over anyway, might as well shoot a few for fun" [Uvalde], "I'm a jilted lover so I'm going to shoot her, she works at a school, no harm in racking up a few more on the way out" [Sandy Hook], and "the cops aren't coming in, I'm bored, might as well shoot some more" [Pulse nightclub]).
Or they're just your bog-standard nutcases, and in those ones you get "I'm just going to wildly spray bullets everywhere without bothering to actually aim, if they die they die as Xenu (or whatever) wills it".
Body counts among mass shooters tend to be low relative to what their firepower would otherwise suggest (even among knife-wielders) and I believe this is most of the reason why. Japanese mass killers in particular tend to be more successful lighting people and buildings on fire, as the incident at Kyoto Animation demonstrates.
In other words, a sudden snap from the normal mooring to cultural mores, to say nothing of the rule of law.
The expression "running amok" is Malayan. Seems like this is cross-cultural.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space.
Wrong. On its face, in fact- if you're going to tell me "but racism and racial discrimination for its own sake" aren't the same (which is what you appear to be doing) then perhaps we need to do the same for "rights". Which you also do, of course, but moving on.
Being against [trans rights] my orthodoxy is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason.
How convenient.
People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Which is why the trans rights faction is hell-bent on doing exactly that (misgender = prison + your kids get taken away to a Residential School).
Fear of men isn't actually the driving force here (though it would be convenient); "trans rights" are fundamentally an intra-orthodoxy fight. One group of women want to gain an advantage over the rest by asserting that they are in control of defining exceptions to "man bad woman good", and then doing those things (like putting men in women's prisons and washrooms) and the rest are more serious about "man bad woman good" as their moral core (those we call TERFs).
And we could talk about the actual issue with transpeople- which is simply that they refuse to accommodate for anyone else in any way resembling self-reflection and are also insisting on making everyone else repeat a lie at gunpoint (if they stopped doing those things there'd be a lot less of an issue, but pretending society is turbo-hostile is a cornerstone of progressive thought and power: I will note you never answered the charge of "Discard the liars and nutcases, then ordinary people will be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt" likely because you appear to believe that those outside the orthodoxy are more dangerous; something I'd dispute heavily given the track record of orthodox social policies)- but again, it's not really about that, it's fundamentally about who the sovereign is and the exceptions they'd like to define.
You seem to be under the belief that you're just arguing with someone who agrees with the orthodoxy on every point but this- but you're not, you're dealing with people who believe both the orthodoxy and the dominant group therein are evil because they insist on putting guns to people's heads in the first place. Hence your emphasis on "misandry" being the root cause going unanswered, where the correct emphasis rests on the fact women shouldn't have the power to dictate these things in an equal society (something you're not on the side of, outside of your private definition of equality that just so happens to just be indistinguishable from "man bad and owe good women merely for existing").
He was. The problem is that while a good chunk of his insights on his pet topic are correct (I think my "r u alt account?" counter sits at either 1 or 2 for him for that reason), he was a single-issue poster on said topic to a degree that would embarrass even SecureSignals and seemed to cross more into trying to [forcefully] recruit for that cause so he flamed out pretty quickly. (Of course, you either flame out quickly or turn into Sloot, which has its own problems.)
The unfortunate thing about the troll/single-issue/unorthodox posters is that while they do ultimately need to be removed, without them my worldview and politics wouldn't be the way they are; I think I've gained value from every single one of them, though perhaps not in the ways they would have intended, and certainly not in ways that are complimentary to their worldviews through the sort of normative/moral lens they themselves are using (where you have to legitimately be an amoral bastard to consider them properly).
Perhaps future forum technology will account for the knowledge base of the community that way? We hint at it here in the way we use the forum with the quality contributions and some posters' tendency to back-reference themselves, but it's not particularly discoverable and so we "lose" those contributions.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
Oh, no, they have “stop flushing the fucking paper towels” in the factories, too. At least it’s a sign they know how to flush it, I guess.
However if you prefer, let us taboo the term "racism" and instead discuss "racial identitarianism".
The same should also be done for "sexism" -> "sex/gender identitarianism", which not only covers feminism/gynosupremacy, but LGBT/homosupremacy too.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
Honestly, in terms of the symbols of those Olympic games, I preferred the Goatse submission [SFW]. The "Lisa Simpson blowjob" one just didn't hit the same way.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
Maybe I am inclined to believe that those who seek truth for the sake of truth do tend to come out with a "liberal" bias.
This is a tautology, but the reason they come out with a liberal bias is because these people are in fact worthy of the individual rights liberalism suggests exist inherent to every man simply because they naturally do this.
Not all who claim to be liberals are actually liberal, though- hell, that's why progressives call themselves "liberal" in the first place! The problem for true liberals post-1980 or so is that, because socioeconomic opportunity started to dry up around that time (as compared to the '50s-'70s), society started selling those rights with the belief they'd be rewarded with other things that, while they feel good to have, are less aligned with the truth. Short-term moral gains at the expense of long-term advancement: affirmative action, gynosupremacism/feminism, [inorganic at the time] gay marriage, further destruction of negative rights (parental rights, self-defense rights, "freeze peach", free association), etc.
So progressives dressed their corruption in the skinsuit of what liberalism was and carried on with the slogans. And this worked, for a time; the transition kept otherwise low-information liberals believing that they had inherited the movement, and so did the details of being for things like feminism and non-straight sexualities.
Around 2013 there was a Great Awokening... but it wasn't the progressives that woke up, it was the liberals realizing they needed to take back their own label. They found natural allies in the enemies of the progressives (which is why the average liberal is seen as "right-wing"- classical liberalism is a conservative view now) because they know, and knew, that liberals oppress them less than progressives will.
I feel more strongly that the painting of universities as institutions of
liberalprogressive indoctrination deny entire cohorts of students their own agency in developing political beliefs
I think that for any student in a liberal arts degree (including those who are only capable of that, and assuming this education is an accurate assessor of intelligence- the people for who that is not true tend not to emerge as progressives) progressivism is a natural adaptation because these people are in massive oversupply, and their policies are a natural reflection of this fact. That's why they need the absurd amounts of illegal immigration- after all, the easiest way to correct a problem of "too many chiefs, not enough indians" is simply to import a shit-ton of indians (literally, in many cases). As we might expect, academia was simply ahead of the curve here, because they were championing this stuff 20-30 years before this would become apparent to the average citizen.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
Asking people to bend over backwards doesn't make sense to me.
The problem here is that this only goes one way. Respect’s a two way street, and if the response of, say, feminists once they’re on the high side of separate but equal start reinforcing that and solidifying that into privilege, the correct response is the iron fist present in that velvet glove, not further prostration.
Or in other words, it’s oppression pornography (or reverse pornography in the "reverse racism" sense).
It's still devoid of any other literary value and is just a masturbatory aid for progressive women, but the difference is important (and the first step to figuring out that in an environment of equality, unusual in a state of nature, their sexual misbehavior is just as much a problem as it is when men do it).
More options
Context Copy link