ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
6mo ago
We torture children to death every day as a consequence of how we've decided to order our society; suicide is among the top killers of the under-12 (and under-18) population in all Western nations (and Eastern ones, too). Sure, there's a baseline rate of suicide, but given it gets worse around certain times of the year corresponding to things like exams I'm far from convinced it's all natural.
It turns out it's very economically productive to treat them the way we do, and should we create conditions sufficiently bad that they kill themselves to escape we have, effectively, tortured them to death for financial gain. Thus the amount of money for which we would torture children to death might be relatively high, but is clearly not infinite.
Frankly women can enter as well, were it not for the nannying and tutting.
In other words, only transgender women who are sufficiently divorced from [as perceived by the other gender] their gender's primary flaw can enter this space.
That flaw, being (in my opinion/experience) unrestrained anger/disgust, is the GP's point about why non-transgender women are motivated to destroy male spaces in the first place: they're angry that they have to follow the rules to get anywhere, and something inside them renders them wholly incapable of doing that, so their attempts to simply destroy the space for "reeeeeee"-asons are a natural evolution of that.
This isn't to say the standard feminist "all the important things happen in places we're kept out of because something something gender" steelman doesn't still apply (since the primary problem with men is that they're stupid), but that it's almost certainly overblown by people who wish they were more capable than they are; I think it's fascinating that feminist political thought starts with cargo-culting what are effectively transgender behaviors, leading to everyone being shocked to discover that most women aren't transgender, and [the selfish version of] their conclusion was that it's not them that's the problem, it's the notion of gender itself (the productive one was just going out and building other institutions that reinforce transgender behavior in an ostensibly discouragement-free environment; which is why [female division of things men are naturally better at] exist in the first place).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
One is about a girl crying and saying "no", and being ignored and shut up with a cock in her mouth.
So the absolute spiciest part of the book they could find was... pretty lame, minimal, and not particularly played in a dramatized, titillating, or positive way. As such, I'm not concerned. (Maximum charity says "book left over from a time the school had way more of a grade range".) I find it interesting that it's about as spicy as another book I was forced to read in school (in pre-woke times, no less), and while it was pretty clearly intended to establish the morality-pet and villain status of 2 of the characters it was also similarly not played up (it took... 3? sentences to describe, I believe). Even 1984 was spicier than that.
Of course, my contrast is that one other book I got shown by a classmate around that time which took about 5 pages to describe in precise detail... a teenage boy masturbating in a pool and dying gruesomely (I cannot find the name of the book that was in, something something pearl diving). Granted, I'm pretty sure that one wasn't in the school library.
But then again, I believe there is a qualitative difference between "matter-of-fact description [in text]", "a full page of describing organs coming out his ass [in text]", and "basically Emergence/'177013' [graphic in the novel sense])"... and I suspect you do, too.
it's also why their examples of "pornography" never depict any straight women or girls in similar circumstances
Specifically, there's no distaff heterosexual counterpart for "Flamer" (and any of the picture books like it). If there was, it would be the (maximally inflammatory) example instead; absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.
Does anyone know gay men who don't want to have sex with men?
I think they're typically referred to as "bottoms".
And... I really don't think it's all bottoms, but from a mechanical standpoint the preparation and cleanup involve dealing with a lot less shit in places shit isn't supposed to be. It's fine for shit to remain in one's ass and it's even designed to expel shit in liquid form (thus can handle other substances reasonably well); said shit is also naturally found around one's ass after shitting and the other fluid typical to sex is more amenable to cleanup. This also applies to straight sex.
Contrast tops; you're going to get shit and maybe blood on and in your dick if you just stick it in without prep on either side, and it's still going to be nasty even if you're wearing that dinky piece of latex (scent still gets through gloves and you're still probably going to get shit on you when you go to take it off regardless of how careful you are). So I really wouldn't blame them for either not wanting to do that, or (and the impression I get from a few other openly-gay posters here) it just takes them a long time to work up to doing it, which, as with straight relationships in general, is probably partially why the average top is a lot older than the average bottom.
(That last dynamic is also probably why you see a lot more "predation"- age gaps just make the tricks work better, and it's not like gay sex has much of a barrier to entry and is likely not, in more of a social vacuum or for higher decouplers- both things men tend to be- as traumatizing or formative as women claim casual sexual activity is. Which is kind of a steelman for double standards and certain kinds of gay culture, but I digress.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
English's indefinite articles are not gendered
The fact that there are two of them serves the same linguistic purpose.
The a/an distinction is exactly like the le/la or un/une distinction in that it's fundamentally a smoothing tool to make the language sound correct when spoken, and is something you just end up getting a feel for after a while because you know by the character of the language which category you're in. (And "gender" is... kind of an ideal way to describe that.)
Are you sincere that parents’ interest in their children’s education is a property interest?
Yes; what else can it be? From the religious angle (which is typically used to justify this) it's maximizing the chance their property makes it to heaven- they'll phrase it differently, but this is how it functions. From the secular censorship angle, any "seductive misinformation" damages the chance the property has to accept a way of life conducive to [what is believed by the elite to be] the global maximum of desired social behavior.
Either way, it damages their property in the same way that ChatGPT output unflattering to Blue tribe damages OpenAI's brand- it's something that they might have to put in extra effort to deal with.
Unlike artificial NNs, though, natural NNs cannot be reset, so once they know it they can't ever un-know it- causing permanent damage. The conclusion of the NN may be different at best and counterproductive at worst, like (with no other political valence) a pet going feral. Bad for the owner, bad for the pet.
Or is this a slightly hostile summary of what progressives believe conservatives are actually mad about
It's certainly unflattering, but the progressives work the same way with respect to them learning traditionalist ideas and I don't think the underlying (biological?) mechanism is any different in either case.
Could you elaborate on what specific harm showing an anatomically correct sculpture to sixth graders does to them?
It's possible 11 year old straight girls and gays boys will experience arousal at the sight of a naked male body for the first time and seek out other depictions of naked men, leading them to engage in sex too early.
It's a violation of property rights. If I'm paying six figures a head for 18 years (well, on paper; in practice it's closer to 25) of latent ability to challenge me innocence, you better damn well believe I'm going to go after anything that threatens that. While I understand that I can't dictate society impose my standards- would that I could- it disturbs me that my property might be made to grow in ways that run counter to my interests.
I don't think it's more sophisticated than that. It's not maximizing the objective well-being of the kids we're worried about; they don't matter and are objectively worthless to society (a long-term net negative, if TFR is any indication) beyond the tasks their parents have for them.
The concept that society cannot violate parents' property rights over children are a socioeconomic wage in the calculus of having children- anytime someone says "but what if my kid grows up to be [undesirable thing]?" this is what they mean. If the wage is too low, society doesn't get kids, so society must defer to them or even the people arguing for these wages to be lower (for culture war reasons, or just rational ones) go extinct.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
Ask the auditors of your employee benefit plan.
Bible says (or at least heavily implies; it's been a while) "children are property of their parents", extends blessings to children who obey this and execution to those that refuse.
The employee benefit plan of Christianity is mostly rear-loaded; the retirement plan can be accurately described as "out of this world".
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'd want to maximize the chance my child takes advantage of it, and we can start by covering up everything that matches the naturally-emergent sin disgust heuristic, starting with a fig leaf on this nude statue over here. Why gouge out one's own eye (a popular and plain-ish, though not necessarily correct, reading of the passage) when you can see no evil by less traumatic means?
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
simply using UBlock, or Brave, or any one of the dozens of other ways to block Youtube ads is a really easy way to upgrade your quality of life to a surprising degree.
iOS has no on-device ability to block ads. Yes, you can do it if you set up a custom VPN, but that's work and added expense.
Android has several, including NewPipe and the fact that Firefox actually runs natively there (and as such uBlock works), but their devices are twice as expensive, get vanishingly few updates, and their top-end processors are 4 years behind what is available in an iPhone for half the price.
So you're stuck with an expensive boat-anchor or a nice device with ads; I don't begrudge the latter their choice.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
That's what the internet's for.
Yes, there are specific points around the 'ring' that are more sensitive than others.
No, it's not a surprise that the remnants of the cover will retain some of the cover's effects when that cover is amputated since that's where the nerves would normally pass through.
Honestly, cutting that piece off is as stupid as the routine tonsillectomies were, for the same reasons (apathy, anger). Penises are supposed to have that ferrule installed for the same sorts of reasons they're on fiber optic cables (so that the thing covered by that ferrule remains as sensitive [to light] as possible). Of course, since this ferrule is biological in nature, it requires maintenance (and can malfunction) for reasons and in ways similar to the female end of quick-disconnect air hoses.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
4mo ago
or making their husband's life hell until he files for one.
I don't think this works as well as the women think it does; men have memes about this (ball and chain) that aren't meaningfully replicated across the gender boundary. Head-crushing (by men) and heel-striking (by women) behavior is the baseline for Biblical gender relations within the context of a marriage, after all.
Any medical professional/social worker who worked at them or still does that took any sort of oath to "do no harm" knowingly and deliberately failed that promise and is a disgrace.
Why? If we Truly Believe that teenagers are still developmentally children, then if this sort of approach works on smaller children it's only natural to assume it'll work exactly the same on larger children too.
As such, these efforts are "doing the least amount of harm" by our definition of "harm", since we depend on that particular bifurcation of human/subhuman for other reasons and won't let it go even though there's evidence (and hundreds of thousands of years of doing it some other way) that suggests it's wrong: this definition cannot fail, it can only be failed. (Kind of like the modern Western understanding of homosexuality, for that matter.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7mo ago
a better world for everyone except those with unearned privileges. They certainly don't believe they're fighting for a world where 9,999 people out of 10k are going to be worse off.
This is a contradiction in terms. They know those people are going to be worse off; they're OK with that as they believe those people deserve it ("unearned privileges" has taken literally every form under the sun already).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
Wait, goatse qualifies as existential horror?
I guess it's true what they say: you gaze into that abyss, and that abyss gazes back into you.
The broader society and its consensus is… less like this.
Well, yeah; they don't currently perceive the barbarians are at the gates.
And unfortunately for those [men] whom the existence of barbarians is a time-tested way to extract payment and investment from broader society in exchange for security guarantees (and has been since the dawn of humankind), they're correct; this is why the entire society must rationalize its newly-enabled refusal to pay them.
Hence, degrowth as religion; men staying in one's parents' household until they're dead would in a normally-functioning society be hideously perverse, but it's certainly a clear reminder of the human cost of the actions of their social cohort (and probably the rational thing to do in a society like this).
Yes, investing in growth is objectively the right thing to do, and will make the society even stronger in the long run, but why do that when you can just hoard your gains until death takes them from you?
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
It's not any easier on the train.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
Why should the US allow China to exercise the same kind of narrative control that the US is doing on other social media platforms?
True- why should the US allow US citizens to use Chinese printing presses?
After all, they could print seditious or blasphemous material, or find out about our culture and weaknesses through our writing, and surely our own printing presses are sufficiently neutral and decentralized to result in all content legal under the First being printable so there's no reason any of our citizens would need to go around that. Our citizens always act in such good faith towards each other that this is not a valid problem.
That's the main reason I'm suspicious of the ban, and read other legislation that specifically targets the ability to bypass bans as running up against 2A issues. (And yes, I'm aware that Chinese-made weapons are banned from import through the same legal mechanisms- too bad that import ban greatly benefits US industry so the lobby groups won't ever touch that one; I doubt the EFF will lift a finger over VPNs for similar reasons should it come to that provided the Blues pick the right initial target.)
[To piggyback off a sibling comment's argument]
but would they need [pressure to be anti-DR] at all?
True- the Chinese have a history of "fortifying" Blue politicians in the West (evidence of this always red meat for red tribe).
My objections center around not being sufficiently convinced this is true on their platform right now; I support the ban coincident with my certainty that it is.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
Then we took a u-turn with modern art and focused on the most absurd, ugly, and unnatural things the human mind can create.
Don't worry. If it makes you feel any better, AI image generation should do a good job in making this kind of art commonplace, thus low-class. To distinguish themselves, artists will need to pivot back to things the AI really can't do very well, and fine detail (along with, well, an understanding of general beauty) is one of those things that AI tools currently struggles with (I think the fact it struggles with placing fingers is indicative of this).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
Wait, that somehow passes for porn? I've seen beginner DeviantArt and Wattpad pages have more... stimulating... writing and artwork than that- even AI can do better these days. And if that's the absolute spiciest thing LibsOfTikTok can come up with (does it get spicier, or is that just to stay within Twitter rules?)...
But actively trying to get kids to read that sort of thing is suspicious.
The reason they want to get kids to read it is because, first and foremost, it's "oppression pornography". You know, the kind of porn straight educated women really like; and it's fig-leaf deniable in the "actually, it's about ethics in gaming journalism the loli vampire is really 7000 years old" way. And since it's porn women like (and women really like heteronormative gay porn; they self-insert as the tortured bottom that the dashing top comes to 'save'), and female sexuality isn't inherently threatening, they get far more leeway (remember the headlines when 50 shades of grey came out?). However, when it comes to the question of 'is it sexual', though, it might be intended to be but in practice it's not going to "groom" anyone because it's garbage lol.
So while sure, you can point out the object-level, society's cover to women is going to be too strong for anyone to really do anything about it. (Humorously, it's also why their examples of "pornography" never depict any straight women or girls in similar circumstances- you'd expect that it'd be far more prevalent if the model the stereotypical "male pedo trying to seduce young girl" example that people who say "groomer" are intentionally trying to provoke was correct, but it's pretty blatantly not- and "male pedo x young boy" doesn't wash either because even gay men don't actually respond to oppression porn.)
And sure, it might still be "female pedo x young boy"... but you're not going to find anyone's in any hurry to deal with that, either. Double standards gonna double standard, and complaining about that only really works for women anyway.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
13d ago
Glen Youngkin won in VA largely because he said "Hey, stop teaching kids woke stuff in public school."
Maybe, but I think there's a difference between "stop teaching woke stuff" and "stop copying the Catholic Church's playbook". I seem to recall a significant rape scandal at that time (the school administration was just relocating the boy-in-a-skirt rapist from school to school, then the cops arrested the victim's fathers when they dared to complain)?
There's a lot of tolerance for the former and most parents don't really care all that much about it (considering how averse they seem to be in terms of trying to reclaim their rights). Heck, even a "we're so powerful we won't even bother to cover up the fact that trans rapists are A-OK in our books" has only so far prompted the election of one more sympathetic governor; if that's the full extent of parental organization and power here, well...
I think the core female complaint is that there aren't enough good men to go around.
The men say this too.
As the alternatives to (and opportunity costs of) selecting a bad partner pile up every time some new media comes out, the bar for who is marriageable in the first place rises, which means a man or woman who had marginal personality/attractiveness in 1960 is probably not getting out of that pool in 2024 without substantial mitigating factors (the "666" dating app meme is a symptom of this).
I think gender dynamics predict women will be more resentful of this than men specifically because it is the sociobiological role of women to be wanted. I think the "it's your duty to serve me and my interests" attitude from women comes from the same place it does from similar-quality men; incels say "state-mandated GF", femcels say "all regretted sex is rape", and they both seem to want to problematize anything that could possibly be sexually arousing to anyone (hence the DignifAI thing for incels, and 72 genders/drag queen story hour for femcels).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
but not really in the US, I think
"Miata is always the answer" is a meme for a reason.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
or Elric of Melniboné
I'm more familiar with Elric of Amestris; he is a bit more well-rounded when it comes to the topic of forbidden knowledge. While his actions do cause a great deal of suffering to himself and others, he isn't actually evil.
The difference is that most of his actions were in (or eventually orient themselves towards) the cause of serving others and not just serving himself; the person most affected by his actions in the first episode knew there were risks involved (though, inherently, not necessarily which ones).
Which is, ultimately, the difference between "we're pushing the boundaries with an objective goal in mind even though we know there are risks involved" and "that you felt like a girl one day is good enough for me so here's the pills, this'll really shock the squares/your parents/the outgroup, I swear I'm prescribing sterilization surgeries because it's helping the patient and not because I'm getting off on the idea of young people being castrated/that all men should be like this, etc.".
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
Obligatory "iPhone SE", but that might be too expensive for what you're looking to do, the screen might be too low-res, I wouldn't buy one until the 4th gen comes out, and you're giving up NewPipe + proper Firefox with uBlock + being able to run whatever you want by going with iOS.
You do get a lot for the money, though; it's the third-fastest phone available (leaps and bounds better than everything else; the 2nd gen is merely on par with those phones- Qualcomm's main business is very expensive modems with CPUs that are already 4 years out of date attached to them) and is as simple as you want it to be, being that it's an iPhone 13 packed into an iPhone 8, with everything that implies (including parts availability).
You... do know this is primarily a reactionary forum and is consequentially going to have a right-wing skew (thus be a bit more concerned about traditional purity, per Haidt's Moral Foundations) to it no matter the actual leaning of the participants, right?
The problem is that "anyone interested in teaching sex stuff to the under[age] demographic implies they're [at least not dis-interested in or concerned with] potentially increasing the number of under-[age]s having sex in the world" is... well, it's more trivial than it really should be to find edge cases where this is actually true.
But it's trivial to argue the opposite from a purity standpoint- average age of virginity loss is at all-time highs and Gen Z/A are on average more sexually conservative than their Gen X/Y teachers. So the progressive argument that more sex ed is having a cooling effect on under[age] sex is actually valid, but you actually have to make that argument in the first place, and it's confounded by the rise in transgenderism (though you could just point out the increased emphasis on it in schools lags its rise).
Of course, that's still not going to be enough to justify the abuse of State power to abduct children from families, but in fairness nobody tried to justify that one.
More options
Context Copy link