ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
1d ago
The criticism against the Talmud is as follows: among the very many authoritative rules which religious Jews follow with extreme care, are also rules that appear evil. The evil rules are not currently followed, but for what reason? Is it only because they can’t get away with it? Are they just biding their time until they can?
Hence the trouble modern churches have.
There are a few rules in the Bible that also appear evil, and opponents of the Church can thus ask an incredibly effective question- is the only reason churches outwardly compatible with classical liberalism do that so that, as soon as everyone's a member, they can do their best villain laugh and reimpose the evil-appearing rules? Obviously some churches deal with this better than others- the ones that throw themselves prostrate before the community (you can tell the ones that are like this because they have Current Thing stapled to them, usually a Pride flag) eventually scatter to the winds because throwing themselves to the floor to be trod on destroys any community- the movers and shakers give up and leave, then everyone else does. Ask the Boy Scouts about that.
And Christianity, which derives its power based on something inherently not of this world, just doesn't have a good answer to that "but will you turn evil again someday?" question- or rather, the answer they do have is not really something one can deliver in a press release[1]. Christianity is alien, and Christians forget that at their own peril (and if they are aware of that, they tend to come off like this).
[1] The most recent Superman movie was about this exact thing. It didn't have a satisfying answer to that either since the dog bailed him out of everything, but then again, Christians are also supposed to trust that Dog God will bail them out, so...
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
1d ago
a bit like how McDonald's still exists in Russia after McDonald's International left the country
Well, no, for 2 reasons.
First, software isn't fast food. In a restaurant like that you already have a bunch of employees who have the institutional knowledge to remake it from scratch, but for tech the platforms are a lot more complex. Not that a Twitter clone is technologically out of reach of the EU, but they couldn't really re-use anything.
Sure, "but Elon Musk did it by firing 90% of the company", but that only works if you're Elon Musk and still have the infrastructure running. But Twitter EU loses access to a lot of that infrastructure (and the code repos) the second the plug is pulled.
Second, because the product is software, the US alternative doesn't suddenly cease to exist. They don't have to have a corporate presence in a country to sell there. They don't have to have EU divisions for any reason... other than "we'd like to use local labor for things like localization and lock down the smarter workers coming out of the universities in those countries". Which are good reasons, but in the face of EU sanction the best thing to do is likely to pull out and let them fend for themselves while the ad spend continues apace. And in a sanction fight the EU loses for the same reasons they're losing here now: they let the Americans capture the power that comes from building -> owning the international banking system for reasons that had to do with the domestic balance of power, so the EU telling banks to not process payments to US companies because reasons is not going to be particularly enforceable.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
1d ago
Have I badly misread this or is everybody else crazy?
This is the "just build your own financial system if you want to [political act]" finally deployed against the outgroup.
Which is why people are cheering it. It's that simple.
But then again, this is what happens when you willingly outsource your technology and financial system to the Americans. It doesn't come for free; just like membership in NATO, the cost is not "X% of GDP on military", it's "the US gets to fuck around in your country, delete your sovereignty, and there's fuck all you can do about it".
If Europeans didn't want to be vulnerable to this, they can build their own system. Oh, but that costs money and requires paying for the kinds of talent that run to the US at the first opportunity, and if there's anything European elites hate more than being told "no" it's having to pay their countrymen at fair market prices. So the response to this will be impotent at best- maybe more EU sanctions/finger-wagging to American tech companies because their AI can deny the Holocaust or whatever (and I'm sure it was coincidental that the French launched an investigation against Grok for that around this time).
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
4d ago
This requires taking a gamble on the other person's capabilities/potential.
Oh, so that's how sexuality works.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
4d ago
Or, to phrase it a bit differently, girl-boss feminism states:
Men are inherently better than women [usually stated as "the patriarchy exists"]
Ok, so there's your foundational anxiety right there. If men are better than women, then women are inherently subordinate to men. How best to negotiate from a position of weakness?
Men are better than women because they are more powerful [usually stated as "men and women are the same; the ideal woman is a woman's idea of a powerful man."]
See above.
What you have to do for a man shouldn't define you [usually stated as "Being a mother is not an identity"]
Humans aren't meant for captivity or subordinacy, so yeah, I get it. Childbirth is just as much a curse as toil, and is arguably worse because this involves a man. This is the standard hippie "quit being a slaaaaaave, man", and most of the other stuff feminists say about this follows naturally (also, this + "men are better than women" = all sex is rape). Hazing for 'you lack ambition' (ironic) or 'I can balance a job and kids' or 'your husband is a misogynist' (by being better than women, he definitionally isn't entitled to anything) framing.
So, you should lie flat and demand everyone else take care of you [usually stated as "Rid yourself of society's burdens."]
Because The Man itself is bad. Women are never The Man. The peace, safety and stability of modern life are never at risk. The Man can't take credit for any of it. The Man is just all the bad things. So you rid yourself of the limitations of The Man, without worrying about destabilizing. You will get all of the freedom and it will have no negative implications. Because, the stability of The Man can be taken for granted.
No additional comment.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
4d ago
Family formation and TFR were dropping at precipitous rates when housing prices were low.
And yet, there was a baby boom when economic success per capita in the US was at an all-time high, with TFR far higher at that time than at any time after the US became an industrialized country.
It's not just the rent, though that is a part of it. Countries that don't have the housing problem (and aren't clearly being sabotaged for the purpose of pumping up rent; and the US in particular still manages the highest TFR in the developed world despite that sabotage) still have a population contraction problem, anyway, and the market for family formation is (like all markets) irrational, dependent on limited information, and as life-alternatives get better the clearing price for forming one goes up anyway (the "stop educating women/ban porn and birth control" memes are pointing at symptoms of the root cause).
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
4d ago
The real problem is the extended adolescence of the modern elite.
No, the real problem is that it's not economically viable to get married at 20 (the fact the modern elite has successfully memed that one shouldn't want that is a separate problem, and certainly one they financially benefit from as net beneficiaries of the education-managerial complex). For a woman to get married at 20 you need to have economic conditions that allow 25 year old men to become attractive to them (read: economically established), and the ability of a single income to sustain that for a while.
The age of family formation closely follows those economic conditions.
When economic conditions are good and you can get a career straight out of high school, that age goes down and families form rapidly (though the market of existing potential buyers has to clear first). As that happens, the population goes up and economic opportunity per capita goes down, so this only lasts until the slack in the economy is taken up.
When economic conditions are bad- let's say housing prices outrun the ability to afford one on a single income (pick your favorite reason why)- that age goes up. If it goes high enough, you've priced them out of the market, families don't form, and children are not born. However, as that happens, the population goes down and economic opportunity per capita goes up, so it's self-correcting... unless steps are taken to stop that from happening, like mass immigration.
A society in economic equilibrium has a TFR of 2.0.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
5d ago
I would dispute that state-mandated safetyism should be construed as a craven commitment to self-preservation.
It is the worship of Safety.
the lives of the poor, stupid, reckless children called human beings, who cannot be trusted to seek what's good for them
Thus they center themselves on themselves and worship themselves as the source of that good.
As the source of preservation and sustainment ("they'd be dead if it weren't for me").
As a reflection of Holy Safety herself.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
6d ago
· Edited 6d ago
The existential threats to young men who actually absorbed some of the "don't rape" lessons in grade school include:
You go to Room 101. 1984 is literally a book about this exact thing happening. The English released a modernized version of that (from the Party's perspective, of course) where [a younger] Winston just straight up kills Julia, as was his fantasy [and per his justifications] of doing in the beginning of the book.
Men and women simply can't agree on the rules of flirting.
Men and women will not be allowed to agree on the rules of flirting. That's what the Junior Anti-Sex League does (the attempts to make all intimate images [implied: of women] legally equivalent to child porn are a pretty good example of this). If they figure out a way to get along the older femcels (and the Chads who find that idiocy useful, since it keeps men from things like "having standards") will lose their power.
Now, if society somehow evolved past the notion that women are more inherently valuable than men- and in modern times they are less valuable due to the way they actively damage society for shits and giggles- then that might change. But that's going to take some doing, and it's not going to fix the damage that's already been done.
Women have a near total
legal controlphysical control by proxy over sex, whereas men have near total physical control in the moment
It's also going to have to be women that disarm first (and fight other women on that point, and train their sons out of the "don't rape" propaganda), and stand firm against the hedonic treadmill of risk mitigation (or just insist on having more daughters, I guess), though it's possible that this continues forever since a birth rate of 0 still won't imbalance the genders. We can't retvrn to the 1950s-1970s; we aren't as rich as we were back then, and to be more precise women are [at the same point in their lives] comparatively richer now as compared to men, and therefore [feel, and are] in a better position to make demands like this.
If men are in socioeconomic oversupply, and as we can see clearly from the dating stats that they are, then there's still going to be sufficient men willing to enforce the physical-control-by-proxy (as no law survives an intentional lack of enforcement). Men can't enforce a fix for moral hazard from a position of relative weakness.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
6d ago
It's an artefact of training it on the internet
Well, here's an idea: maybe only train it on literature and transcripts from before the early '90s? Nothing says you have to train it on Reddit comments and Twitter shitposts, and maybe then the prose would be better.
Of course, a knowledge cutoff like that would obviously have some drawbacks, but in terms of "not being actively hostile to the user" I'm unconvinced it would be worse.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
10d ago
it's weird that people jump to "so dumb 'em down and marry 'em off by force"
You believed an innovative solution would come from what passed for progressive thought 50 years ago traditionalist thought, especially when parroted completely uncritically? This is just mostly just men being butthurt.
Thus, the fact that the discourse keeps presuming the latter rather than the former feels like an artificial move to guide the conversation to a place it wouldn't normally go.
You believed an innovative solution would come from what will be traditionalist thought in 50 years progressive thought, especially when parroted completely uncritically? This is mostly just women being butthurt anyway.
or figuring out why young men are under-socialized, undermotivated and underpaid, or whatever.
There are no table stakes. We're not interested in investing in youth outside of how much interest that student loan is going to generate, we banned all development that would make their current salary appropriate, and we're too invested in "teach men to not rape" to make sure that those who weren't going to do that anyway aren't getting treated as pre-emptively guilty (we have taxed their virtue to redistribute it to rapist men and stupid women, and now wise men don't want to exercise that virtue or see doing so as too risky? And now they have anxiety and won't come out of their room(s)? couldn't have seen that coming).
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
10d ago
Then maybe college should be intended for mothers who are already more or less done with the 'housewife' job?
That's how the Boomers did it, and that actually worked out pretty well for them.
I'm sympathetic to an argument that posits that there should be an effort to get men established quickly so they have credentials or financial backing to offer women (one always benefits from some seed money to court bigger investors), then try to matchmake them with an appropriately-younger cohort fresh out of high school. Then, in 10-15 years, they can join the educated/workforce as desired (perhaps subsidized if you had at least 2 kids).
Seems like something that would solve the issues in Korea, at least, so you don't have women complaining about men taking spots at workplaces ahead of them their experience/education suggests they deserve instead (ignoring the fact that men are unable to gain that experience due to the mandatory military service, and that is part of the compensation package).
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
10d ago
and yet the people who characterised it as such are refusing to acknowledge this, or in some cases (not necessarily yours) denying that they ever did so to begin with.
You're expecting a creature who knows naught but naked will to power to apologize for the way that it is? That denial is still an exercise of that, by the way- "yes, and?" is better phrased as "bitch, you ain't gonna do shit about it". They may have lost, but you (and reality) are still too weak to hold them to account.
I don't expect contrition from bugs when they appear in my pantry, and as a consequence my opinion that it is wrong of them to be there doesn't matter- only my ability to physically remove them does.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
10d ago
Trump used coerced prostitutes
Everyone knows that's false, though, for reasons Sloot covered above. And most claimed "coercion" is just progressive/selfish-woman-speak for "he said he wouldn't keep supplying/buying me X if I didn't put out/consent" anyway, so using that standard I'm forced to conclude it's very unlikely the Rotherham girls were coerced either.
The fact that it's continuing means at the very least some of the people were under 16
In a landscape where the media tends to blow its load all at once I sincerely doubt this is the case.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
10d ago
let alone calculate in their primal math brain that they must let them kill the child for greater reproductive profits
Women are making the same calculus with their daughters when they let stepfathers fuck them: "if I don't whore them out, he'll get bored and leave". I have no reason to believe that men can't make a similar decision with their same-gender offspring too.
I don't think there's any other calculation going on besides maybe an over-exaggerated fear of having to find someone else. I also don't think this is something that happens consciously given that "battered housewife" can even be a stereotype in the first place.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
10d ago
Is there any clarification on "by underage we mean 17" or "we mean 13"?
They mean 16-17. If they were 13, they'd have said 13.
The anti-Trump faction has a significant, perhaps even majority, element whose entire objective is to pretend there isn't a distinction between 17 and 13 in this matter. Pointing out the adultery adultness of these women works against this goal, so they won't do that.
The pro-Trump faction is well aware of the above, but they also don't have any other effective tools to oppose that viewpoint other than flagrantly ignoring people who claim they're the same. Saying "well, akthually, they're adults" works against this goal, so they won't do that.
The demand for sex crimes (as with hate crimes) vastly exceeds its supply.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
10d ago
For all the talk on here about men wanting their own biological children and wanting sons to carry on the name and heritage, that didn't seem to hold true here.
His existing child was actively hindering his father's ability to do this. My assertion is that he believed that the stepmother was so much a better fit that if her price to have [a greater number of] biological children with her was "kill your son so I [and her children] have more resources", it would be granted her.
From the father's perspective his son simply died from exposure.
Apes kill rival children all the time; this is just the girlboss version of that. The only shield they have is the cuteness factor, and that doesn't work as well when it's either not your kid, or if you're unwilling to resist the ape urge telling you it's that kid or yours.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
11d ago
but what the hell was this man doing? "Oh I don't want to make a fuss because she'll just blow up at me?" or even worse "So long as I get laid regularly, I don't care".
It's rare to see the spear counterpart of "he was fucking the stepdaughter for years- so long as he keeps paying my bills, she didn't care", but it clearly does happen. Stepmother vs. son is typically a murder thing, permitted by the father, since the son is [or will be] a drain on the resources that the father pays the stepmother to stick around.
By contrast, stepfather vs. daughter is typically a rape thing, permitted by the mother, since the mother pays the stepfather in sex to stick around.
Of course, the mother seldom goes to jail in those latter cases because sexism, but still.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
11d ago
charter schools are vastly outstripping the performance of the public educational system
Yes, because of two things:
- A parent's ability to afford sending their child to such a school is strongly correlated with the intelligence of their child, and mid-to-high human capital still benefits from competent educators
- Competent educators self-sort into charter schools and are expected to perform like it; if they don't, they're out
How the educational system can reconstruct itself around those differences I’m not too sure.
It already kind of has; we just... don't bother teaching about things any more. Too dangerous, you see.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
11d ago
I'm not sure it's relevant yet
Bailouts for the education-managerial complex are always highly relevant.
In this case, bailing them out means "the government aids in forcing everyone they can into paying their salaries".
This is the primary driver for credentialism (and more recently, for handing out student visas like candy in countries with semi-private university systems). Legal requirements are a form of [corporate] welfare, it's just that corporation is a union of a large cross-section of society. And yes, it obviously robs the youth of valuable time and money to pay professors and administrators who have no business being there in the first place, just like everything else society does.
I expect other New World countries to nationalize universities as enrollment falls to enshrine the welfare program permanently.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
15d ago
· Edited 15d ago
Edit: I haven't ever seen this point made, but classical liberalism is a statement of value-finder supremacy. This is distinct from communism and fascism, which are worker-supremacy movements (when workers are in oversupply or undersupply, respectively), and monarchism/oligarchy, which are goal-setter/manager-supremacy movements.
This is why classical liberal societies (and those inspired by them) all converged on this viewpoint.
Through this lens, women are "complementary" to men only insofar as the servant complements his master.
Sure, but the excuse made to constantly assert this is that X designates servant, and further, used as an excuse to be lazy about/completely ignore that's a deadweight loss if a master X (or a servant not-X re: Peter Principle) exists.
This is why societies that are sufficiently mercantile tend to be the freest ones, since the base condition of what allows them to be so mercantile is a deficit of laborers to produce whatever it is they sell. They're more concerned about exercising and expressing natural talents because encouraging more of that makes the society more productive, rather than a dirt-poor society where that would be a net-negative due to lack of resources or market.
(Also, if you're a Christian society there tends to be an associated meme of actively checking for overlooked potential for what ultimately comes down to... better service. The US is obsessed with underdogs partially for this reason.)
"women are bad at everything other than their biological prerogative, so they ought to stay in their lane while the men handle everything else of import"
to the trads: they already know that, stop rubbing it in, that's only making it worse
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
16d ago
But even for the ones who grasp the scope of traditional feminine obligations, they fail to understand the other side of things. They ignore or denigrate everything men do - often aspiring to literally prohibit them from participating in anything they deem important, or imagining them as a kind of leisure class - and then claim that the things they have reserved to women entitle them to supremacy.
I don't think it was an improvement to replace the sexism and entitlement of men with the sexism and entitlement of women.
I might find your average conservative man to be kinda sexist, but I don't think he
Compare: the popular conception of racism is "saying [slur] to people of [race]" rather than what racism actually is, which is the hatred of anything associated with that race.
And for the most part that hatred actually makes some amount of sense; that's ultimately how it's laundered. No, wishing the boys in your care acted more like [your favorite stereotype of] girls, and punishing them if they don't act like it, is not guaranteed to be hatred of those boys, but it's functionally indistinguishable from it, even if you can come up with some justification for why forcing boys to act like girls is better. (You'll notice this is how the wokes define "hatred"; their only problem is that they're selfish pricks that think this is everyone else's problem but theirs and take steps to define themselves out of ever being convicted of it- a classic conservative/right-wing-style move. Men are correct in pointing out that the academic and managerial tracks for women are where a significant cluster of these people reside; quite literally the "old girls' club".)
X-ism is, in a meritocratic/mercantile/worth-of-a-[hu]man-defined-by-the-service-they-provide-others/Christian? society, a crime of the heart because it's an abject refusal to find value being left on the table for [one or more of the 3 missing "conservative" moral foundations] reasons; but being a crime of the heart is why it's so difficult to deal with. That was what the standards-based/meritocratic regime of yesteryear(s) was supposed to avoid, but no plan like that has ever survived economic contraction. That's why modern gynosupremacists take pains to pretend this is still the way the system works, after all.
At the very least, if you claim to value women, treat them adults with an equal say rather than some cross between property and a child you can fuck.
But it takes, like, effort to do that.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
16d ago
Yeah, they're all total looser's.
ThisIsSin
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature
16d ago
I mean, Americans have a history of going "fuck the Feds, we're keeping our slaves, get off my lawn before I shoot you", which resulted in the only large-scale civil war in the nation's history. Could have gone either way, too.
Of course, the group currently keeping the slaves, and arguing that there should be more slaves, and doing anything they can to acquire and encourage more slaves has built their identity around "being the people who ended slavery". So they couldn't be slavers (or "oppressors" more generally) simply by defining their identity away from it.
Besides, what they're doing is only "illegal immigration" and that doesn't mean "growing a group of sub-citizens that have zero rights and is as such more or less wholly dependent on their massa's good graces to stay fed and clothed, and keeping them around because you only have to supply [a proxy for] those things"... right?
Then again, I'm sure the Confederate soldiers thought what they were doing was right too. Ironically, that is the one thing Blue cannot admit.
The traditional viewpoint is that women- by definition, the passive partner in any sexual encounter- cannot rape.
Why would you expect any society to bother proscribing a logical impossibility? (Not that it stopped them from "can you be gay with yourself", but...)
More options
Context Copy link