ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5mo ago
Gay is an identity (something you are).
Banging other dudes is an action (something you do).
Men do, women are, so men naturally assume that when you ask them this, you're asking them to apply the woman's label. Unless you're a man predisposed to Gayness (which forms part of the problem with Gays, from the average man's perspective), that is inaccurate, insulting, and outright dangerous.
Of course, that also means they won't be part of any discussion when women and Gay men are trying to create an identity to describe this phenomenon, so it's not like the mistake theorists in those groups are even going to get a chance to know that. And the conflict theorists do it intentionally because male-coded sexuality bad.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
"Demisexual" is a stupid term, and especially stupid to lump under the anything-but-boring-straight rainbow umbrella, but it's not a universal descriptor for a "normal" woman.
"Demisexual" is a nearly perfect term for a "normal" woman to use, though; you just buried the lede as to why.
If it is in the interests of Most Women to assert a need for an emotional bond[1] before sex, but market conditions (where the marginal value of "seeing a woman naked" has dropped to zero, so it is simply an expectation that women offer sex to men up front rather than exchanging it for commitment as their biology and instincts are screaming at them to do) contradict that, then it is only natural that they'd seek to hide behind the framework of sexual identity as a bargaining tactic ("you should pay more because I'm Special, also other people will think you're lesser/bully you if you don't buy into my brand"[2]). Asexuality is used in the same way, by the same sorts of people, for much the same reason.
Furthermore, it is in Most Women's interest to deny that liberated women who aren't quite as encumbered exist, because from this socioeconomic standpoint, they function as strike-breakers in comparison to the emergent collective bargaining of Most Women (and it is beneficial at the margins since 'man's willingness to risk -> break pointless rules' is generally attractive to women in itself).
The first story is The Feminist
It occurs to me that in a recently-established environment of equality we should expect mothers to [not necessarily intentionally] sabotage their sons romantically by failing to explicitly point out how and why female sexuality works. Uniquely, men are evolved to do this with their daughters with respect to male sexuality because up until about 150 years ago the inequality tilted that way- since this is a new requirement for women, an outsized proportion of mothers will fail to do this (and will then hide behind "social justice" as a means to escape blame for that failure).
[1] More cynically, this is "before the man has offered the desired price [in commitment] for the sex; the emotional bond is instinctual after that".
[2] Pair-bonding/dating is inherently a market negotiation; "all marriage is just prostitution" is the correct framing so long as you give prostitution a neutral moral valence (furthermore I assert that when people don't, it's also just basic instinct- a company seeks to protect its trade secrets, and both Men, Inc. and Women, Inc. don't like it when you reveal relationships follow market dynamics and/or resent being a slave to them).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
23d ago
it's just a grim reminder we should have banned tiktok ages ago.
As opposed to brainrotted Boomers who think women and minorities are oppressed.
They didn't need Facebook to come to that conclusion yet arrived at it anyway, so the problem rests with the people, not the technology.
back the last century
If by 'last' you mean 'the 19th', sure, I'll grant that. At no point past 1920ish was this true for women (so no woman born/raised in the West knows what it's like to be uniquely oppressed- that it happened once upon a time is their origin myth, just like it is for the Indians); for minorities, at no point in Boomer living memory (post-childhood, so 13+: someone born in '45 would be post-Brown v. Board at that age) were they really oppressed.
It's something their parents and grandparents had reason to take seriously; what we're seeing now is the echoes and turbulence of a once-truth so widely held industry sprung up around it reaching its sell-by date. (This is also why, if LGB organizations did not embrace and pump up T, they'd have faded away like MADD did: their original grievances don't exist any more, hence the lie that they do must be defended ever harder.)
how much Trump's "51 state" shenanigans mattered?
Ever seem to notice how the old get into wars the young have to fight, and love excuses to have those wars?
This was a referendum on whether we should fight that war or not.
Naturally, the old love that idea (and in fairness, jingoism with respect to the US is a part of the [Eastern] Canadian identity), and voted accordingly. Since Canada doesn't have any checks and balances against those people running roughshod over the rest of the country, that's all that's needed to win.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and this is one of those times. That said, I hope the East loses this trade war and gets annexed quickly, or Alberta successfully petitions the USG for statehood, so the good people out there/here (and they do exist) don't end up suffering too much under the retaliatory tariffs. The productive, industrialized areas of Ontario voted all against this war anyway (just like they have voted against this government in every post-2015 election) and the Western provinces became even more tilted towards the Cons [their regional interest party] despite Eastern Boomer bluster (even the cities, it's worth noting, with the obvious exception of Vancouver).
All that remains to be seen is what Alberta will do in response- Smith (and to a point, Moe) seem competent enough at this game to get the tariffs reduced on energy, but as far as running an entire country I don't know.
Remember that the part of Canada that defines what Canada is [the East] has effectively no land border with the US (it's 100% dependent on long bridges these days), and the part of Canada that does not define what Canada is [the West] has literally all of the land border. Additionally, remember that each province does more trade with the US than they do with each other. An EU-style state of affairs (with respect to Canada and the US) is economically the correct one, something we were closer to at one time (before 9/11), and to a point where we've been headed all this time (especially given NAFTA; the way you stop your best and brightest running away is to become a part of that country yourself) but the US needs to control our immigration policy for that to work. And I'm OK with that given how it's been abused already.
At a certain point such an adversarial relationship results in no one wanting the job
At a certain point such low pay relative to perceived risk results in no one wanting the job. If your paramilitary members (which, make no mistake, is what these particular cops are) have to risk that for every criminal/enemy combatant they kill as part of their job, they're risking sociofinancial execution, it better be paying ludicrous sums. That sum can be social wealth, that can be financial wealth, or they can be a mix (exhibit A: veteran's discount), but they must be paid regardless.
Progressives can never pay them properly because their preferred version of the paramilitary/police are the criminals that the paramilitary is supposed to be shooting, and their core revealed preference is that they just want to force men [and increasingly, the women who work like men] to labor and risk for free (just like Traditionalists reveal preference for free female childbirth and risk) which means they're incapable of fixing that.
I don’t know how to design a process that doesn’t incentive both to claw for more power.
Liberalism was that process, but we are unwilling or unable to afford it any more (which resulted in people being able to claw for more power, and ripped it apart in the process).
Replacing gynosupremacy (current regime) with androsupremacy (ancien regime) is known to fix a security problem in the short term (which is why the Traditionalists feel, correctly, that they can fix this by "retvrning") but at the cost of everything above Security on Maslow's hirerarchy (which stops being a problem when the average man is priced out of everything above it anyway).
So yes, that means that the rough men will use the fact everyone else requires their protection to angle for more power (or must become rough men themselves, which is a victory for the rough men). If the ruling party is unable or unwilling to negotiate they get Battle of Baghdad'd (and the soldiers protesting here is a nano-scale version of that) as the soldiers throw down their tools and cheer for the Taliban... because the Taliban will give those men the power over women that the former society could or would not and every soldier or potential soldier knew it.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4mo ago
Do American leftwingers think that men should be allowed to shun fat women? I mean legally yes, but morally.
Traditionalist-progressive thought posits that the only worth women have is their beauty (and it is the social role of men to offer the highest price for this service). Progressivism privileges women at the expense of men, so reducing the quality of the service men are forced to accept while not reducing the price for such means, in a zero-sum society/economy, more power and resources for the more beautiful. QED.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7mo ago
Noon-Is-Noon faction
Ironically, these are the same people who tend to be fans of SI (popularly "the metric system").
When I see those people do this I just laugh. Oh, so now you want to preserve a human-centric unit (like every system of measurement did before SI, metric or not) now that it affects you, rather than those backwards blue-collar people who do human-scale works with their hands? Humans don't divide evenly into fractions of the [wrong] size of the Earth; convenient for a state who wants to alienate its population, inconvenient for anyone who works for a living.
For me, the sun rises at 7 AM and sets at 4 PM. Which makes any job a salt-mine one, where you go down into work in the dark, and you go home from work in the dark. I'm more than happy to push sunset beyond the bounds of the workplace for at least some people because not seeing daylight for 4 months is unnatural, it sucks, and it kills because the evening commute is simply more dangerous when it's dark.
or is liberal
The problem is that "is liberal" tends to be an effective proxy for "is a gynosupremacist".
That's intensely corrosive to relationships for what should be obvious reasons, since someone whose axiom is "always take for I am better, never give for you are lesser" simply can't function in an environment of give and take (i.e. a healthy relationship).
And the reasoning is the same as the [steelman for the] virginity argument- "if she had any brains or working emotional regulation, she wouldn't have been given to man-hating in the first place", and being someone who could be vulnerable to social pressure/irrational hatred like that is a liability (corresponding copypasta: "if she's still a feminist, you aren't the one"). Will she fall back on blaming you just for being a man if and when things go bad? Will she take it out on your sons, resulting anywhere from simple quiet quitting to "I'm divorcing you because you won't gender-affirm the new daughter I would have rather had"?
I say this as someone who thinks "a lack of virginity means she's sex-obsessed with all men everywhere" is the spear counterpart of the above, and just as serious a problem, for the same reasons- as this is a clear symptom that the man has problems with his brain or emotional regulation, gives away a bit of underlying androsupremacy, and might take it out on you or his daughters if the relationship hits a rough spot (corresponding copypasta: "raising daughters is the ultimate cuck").
Partners just aren't bringing much to the table to counter the risks
Every new video game or porno-tech (though I repeat myself) produced simply makes the definition of "much to the table" that much stricter. And I think this is relatively equal across genders- the amount of inherent boorishness/laziness in the average man, or inherent entitlement/screaming harpy in the average woman, that can sustain a relationship... is far lower than it was 100 years ago. Personality types that don't measure up are now much less likely to make it out of the gene pool (and that's even before getting to "is he stable?/is she attractive?") and will also be inherently more loudly resentful of this fact.
That situation seems at least as bad as gay conversion camp
If it makes you feel any better (and it is literally the same thing, I'll add), my outgroup claims those don't work. Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they?
Where do you all draw the line? At what point would you intervene?
Depends on the kid, depends on the family. And really, you just do what you can within your strategic and tactical realities/liabilities; you can't influence if you're dead (either to them or more literally).
There does come a point where you just kind of have to trust the kid'll figure it out. Parents stop being the prime authority figures around physical adulthood sexual maturity (for blatantly obvious evolutionary reasons) anyway; this is why, when I hear "the teenage years were hell", I think "yeah, that's 'cause you were bad at parenting/were still under the pretense that the biological age of adulthood is 18, expecting the tricks that worked when they were 5 to work when they're 15, and taking it personally when they do not".
I once met one who was like this- 12 years old, standard fundie-type Christian family, tracked out the ass. Had a bedtime on vacation (wtf?). We watched Dirty Harry and he didn't object over the scenes I would have expected him to get upset over were he a party-liner.
Observably, he's going to be fine. Likely, so will this one.
His long hair was plaited, and every article of clothing was not even unisex, but just straight up girl's clothing and sandals.
Remember, the specific reason those who worship LGBTesus are destructive is that they impose an adult (sexual) outlook on a child not strongly caring about which gender clothes they wear (his behavior is still male, after all). I suspect that it would have been a fight to get him into those clothes if he actually cared; merely failing to care at this age is not really a sign of malfunction.
Actively adopting the other gender's clothes for the sexual reasons that the other gender wears them at a post-sexual-awareness age... that's different. (It's also only a reliable signal of malfunction in men, since there are no male gendered clothes except maybe boxers.)
When should the State intervene?
Given how hard it has been abused against me in favor of specifically this kind of child abuser? So long as the State is unable or unwilling to punish abuse from women in the same degree it does men my answer is "never".
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4mo ago
Combine this with the fact that physical courage seems to be dropping across the board
"Lying flat" is a type of strike/collective bargaining. It's not generally recognized as such because the people in power and the people who are thought to be on the side of collective bargaining are the same people, which is why China tries to suppress it.
the group who tends to have the most physical aggression and willingness to go occupy a building or storm a castle
Young men need to have an incentive to do that. They haven't had such a thing for 2 generations now- things have gone downhill for them since the '80s due mostly to enclosure by the old (through various justifications- environmentalism and safetyism being the most popular). In places that have less enclosure, people are doing better- TFRs are higher, wages are higher/costs of living are lower, the police force actually functions, military recruitment remains very high, R&D budgets are high, etc.
Now, young women generally benefit from that because young men will generally compete and distinguish themselves more for access to young women. But they've just discovered that the reward they offer to do those things- that being themselves- is insufficient. Their social credit card has been declined, and if you've spent the last 20-50 years forming your entire identity around having limitless social credit (and men fighting for the privilege to pick up your tab)?
Yeah, I can see how that could be existentially demoralizing. The lies stop being fun to tell when people stop believing in them.
Combine this with the fact that physical courage seems to be dropping across the board
The old also actively punish young men for exercising this virtue. If you remove them and create institutions that reward this it'll come back, but that's going to take some time and require investment.
Which is why the vast majority of new US power infrastructure consists of natural gas turbines, because the only time the sun shines (and to a point, the only time the wind blows) is when you don't actually need the power and no other workable storage solutions exist.
Since the only output from the turbines is... CO2 and water [and methane is arguably the cleanest gas in terms of CO2 to burn, given its outsized amount of C-H bonds anyway], there's no visible plume coming out of the stack and very few other contaminants to visibly wreck the surrounding area (SO4), so most environmentalist complaints about them ring hollow to the general public. Much like cars themselves, come to think of it, especially when everything's already a hybrid anyway.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
Every commentator I've seen has raised their eyebrows at the promised 50k PSI (iirc) of this cartridge
It's 80,000 PSI. The upshot of this is that this pressure is above the failure point of brass casings; that's why the head has to be stainless steel. This also isn't new technology; Shellshock has been selling this exact thing for the last 5 years in their pistol cartridges at a price point that indicates it's actually quite a bit cheaper than brass is to make. You can even reload it, too, you just need to modify the sizing die so you don't rip the base off when trying to extract the case.
Most of the "but muh feasibility" people are the reason gun owners have the reputation for intellectual curiosity that they do. Even rifles produced 80 years ago and designed only to take 60,000 PSI are still capable of not turning into bombs at twice that pressure; making modern metallurgy take 10% more pressure on the regular is not a difficult challenge.
Barrel life is also not likely to be the issue people think it is, partly because they're using better steel and coatings, but also because of projectile choice. The tradeoff you make with the extremely long projectiles that 6.5CM in particular is famous for (and how it gets most of its performance at extreme distances) is that the projectile's bearing surface gets quite large- contributing to accelerated wear.
On the armor piercing capabilities, he acknowledges that defeating level IV plates "unassisted" (which I take to mean with lead core ball ammunition) is not in the spec, so from my perspective we should assume it doesn't exist.
But if it can't defeat Level IV with assistance (as in, the AP cartridge that nobody outside of the military has been able to take a look at yet), then what the fuck was the point of switching cartridges? The thing to remember is that .308 and 5.56 AP also fails to penetrate (if the armor can't stop that it's not Level IV), but outside of that its wounding potential is higher, the rifles that fire it last longer (and already exist), and it has more room inside the cartridge for incendiary material.
(The article is simply wrong on this point- .308 AP and 5.56 AP, despite their name, do not penetrate Level IV, and Level IV is what the US/Aus military is worried about a mass of Chinese troops showing up wearing. They were certain the Russians would have had it too but, well...)
I refuse to believe the US Army (and the Australian Army, for that matter- they're also considering adopting a rifle in this caliber) is that stupid. Sure, there's always a chance that they want to go back to muh One Shot One Kill and fighting the last war (where they wanted a rifle that could perform from 0.8m to 800m, hence their use of the SCAR and re-issuance of the M14, and a usecase where the LVPO XM157 has a tremendous advantage- this isn't the XM25 where you had to lase the target for it to work, it's a scope first, manual rangefinder second).
I have a personal conspiracy theory that government support for environmentalism is at least partially driven by a desire to preserve the natural resources of the USA for a potential war... but I digress
They should have waited for Textron's all-plastic casings. I remember it being mentioned that they might run out of brass, which is already an expensive material to make functionally one-time-use casings out of. Being able to extrude the casing is the future of ammunition (just as it was back in the 1950s with the Dardick Tround- the ammunition was solid, the gun was crap), we just haven't managed to develop a good rifle for it.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
I also find privacy warrior claims rather, lets say, Joker-level anarchistic about rule of law. Everyone should have end-to-end encrypted messaging and the government should be locked out of private spaces no matter what.
The steelman for this being "if technology is basically just telepathy, why should "because it's technically possible" ever be a valid argument for society to have any right to monitor the contents of the communication"? The strongest right is one you can guarantee personally, after all.
In no other domain do we accept a claim like "this dungeon in my house is off limits even to detectives with a court order because it is my private property"
We have at least 2; attorney-client, and religious priest-confessor.
this digital cache of self-produced child pornography is something we can take to our graves regardless of any legitimate pursuit of justice.
We throw, and threaten to throw, teenagers in jail all the time over this. It is probably good that they take steps to defend themselves if they're going to engage in this activity to avoid the current environment of societal overreaction; the entire point of "rights" is to limit the damage society can do when (not if) it overreacts (the flip side of the coin being "ticking time bomb plots", but I'm willing to trade the lives lost in those for the ones saved due to them not committing suicide any more over this).
The level of hostility towards government here surpasses any of government's responsibility to protect its citizenry.
The overwhelming majority of murders worldwide in the 20th century were perpetrated in an organized fashion by governments targeting their own citizens (organized mobs using simple demographic criteria make up most of the rest); the impulse to make one a harder target against those is only natural. Proponents of this approach can point to things like census records being burned to stop an angry invading force from determining which people were going to the concentration camps and which were not. The Germans are well-acquainted with this; being that they have committed the overwhelming majority of murder on the European continent in the last 100 years probably has something to do with that.
The fact that privacy fretting appears to primarily afflict men (with notable exceptions like Naomi Brockwell) suggests that there must be something autistic about it.
While there are a variety of reasons why this is true, men are murdered more often than women; I don't think it's more complex than that.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
Since when has any man written a fanfic about One Direction or Twilight?
It still never fails to impress me that one of the more well-known movies in the 2010s is literally just Twilight fanfiction with the names changed.
Even the smut on FFN leans more toward male fantasy than female fantasy.
What do you even consider "male fantasy"? I'm pretty sure that "Hermione gets raped by Draco" is mostly a female fantasy (written by women, for women); while I'm sure you could self-insert as Draco I don't think that's the point. Yaoi fanfic is also female fantasy; you can tell because the dom/sub dynamic is pegged at 11 from the first word (the stuff that's actually intended for gay men is... different).
If nothing else, I'd consider yuri fanfic to be mostly by/for men; women aren't as interested in lesbians as men are. Most MLP fics (both porny and not) were probably written by twentysomething men (I don't think the target demographic for the show is that interested in seeing Pinkie Pie turn Rainbow Dash into cupcakes or meme about "Applejack pregnancy scare").
Then they can understand the full horror
I still don't understand why people consider this unusual. "I can imagine attractive character from the show doing the sex to me in a way I don't have to feel otherwise morally conflicted about liking, also doing something nasty but not catastrophic to the character the reader is supposed to identify with means he would like me more than her" is arguably one of the more vanilla fantasies (and the more extreme variation of that, being "also, the self-insert doesn't survive the encounter", is an overwhelmingly-female favored fetish anyway).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
This is why tomboys hate formal events - they are used to being able to be performatively androgynous without looking like they are cross-dressing.
And, in reverse, this is how you can trivially differentiate autogynephiles from everyone else (AGPs dress as formally as possible all the time).
I agree that autoandrophiles can exhibit this, but they often don't because the pull effect from "guy clothes" isn't as strong considering there's no article of clothing (except ones you can't see) that aren't trivially available for women; you'd have to go out of your way to be transgressive and most people wouldn't understand it being "designated guy clothes", they'd just see as "woman with unusually poorly fitting clothes".
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8mo ago
to report, not to kidnap!
Reporting is just kidnapping by proxy, is intended as kidnapping by proxy (much like swatting is), and children today are at a higher risk of being abducted by the State than they ever were of the more typical criminals.
You want to fix the birth rate, this heckler’s veto needs to go. But then again, parents have gladly, like good conservatives, sat back and had their rights stripped from them over the past 50 years, and that was pretty negligent on its own…
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
How accurate would you have been? My impression is not very accurate.
But it's actually very accurate (outside of certain kinds of immigration), given that 1923 birthrates are nearly identical to modern birthrates (though the shift to urbanization kind of throws this off; 1923 had 50% rural whereas 2023 only has 20% rural, and rural areas tend to have more kids for farm labor reasons and because there's nothing else to do) and far lower than one or two generations before that.
I assert that the financial conditions and constraints on the average potential kid-haver is probably the same, because the same thing is happening- rural centers hollowing out for centralized urban industry- and aside from cheap land, cheap transportation, and an abundance of well-paying low-credential labor becoming available in the 50s and lasting until about 1973 or so that drove this trend backwards (and led to the significant outwards expansion of cities into suburbs) we've regressed to the mean for Western nations.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
nor why anyone would describe him as a "loser."
"Once upon a time, I was discriminated against. I now practice that discrimination against others and am proud to be doing so."
Rejoicing in intentionally being part of the problem rather than part of the solution leads me to believe that person is a substandard human being. It's not much more complex than that.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
Is there a transformation going on in the right?
Yes- the people who drove "the right" are being transformed into corpses daily at a rate far in excess of people converting to progressivism. If their subsociety's memes are going to be allowed to survive (because the progressives will stamp them out given the opportunity, and to a large degree already have), they would be wise to throw their support behind the people who are going to treat them as a relatively benign curiosity rather than an existential threat.
Naturally he wants a reassertion of the traditional worldview.
Yes, but the problem is that there's only room for one traditional-type worldview, and the one that now fills that niche is dead-set on the destruction of the traditionalist worldview. Narcissism of small differences, and all that.
So now his side's only hope are the liberals. Because while the liberals of old did contribute to the rise of progressivism (in the sense that liberal mockery weakened traditionalism- which is why religious countries have anti-blasphemy laws), they're also by definition more likely to tolerate/get along with/not try to actively destroy less-orthodox family configurations, of which traditionalism now finds itself.
and a newer set, which regards parental behaviour as largely unimportant, and instead prioritises genetic predisposition.
Yes, this has been a traditionalist/progressive vs. liberals tension for a long, long time. Traditionalists argue that good behavior and virtue (i.e. cultural aesthetics) are terminal values, liberals argue the only terminal value are results, and the world turns.
and if we fall short, I don't see the Christians doing any better
you can think of it as being a permanent version of basically the hottest boy-anxiously-but-purely-asks, woman-gives-freely-and-usually-a-bit-more-than-he-can-handle-type /ss/ doujin you've ever seen, except instead of just sex the exploration space is infinite
[reference pictures #7 and #8 here, SFW...ish]
that is how the relationship God [the woman] wants to have with you [the shota] is supposed to work; infinite desirability and infinite depth in infinite ways comes to you, for free, in the same ways
sex might not be the best way to illustrate it because of the implications (and Christians have a rather famously bad relationship with it) but Song of Songs does it anyway so IDK lol; it's supposed to feel like losing every single virginity at once to a beautiful woman who takes you to bed simply because you asked her to
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
But Matrix is a mess.
It was broken by design.
People think federation is a feature for some reason, but the only people it helps are not people you should ever empower, because it allows them to bully you across instances for the crime of not sharing the same killfile.
"Federation" as far as the client sees it is just managing multiple accounts, which doesn't tilt the playing field in favor of the bullies.
Oh yeah, and the server needing 2GB of RAM to run is absurd. We accept that from clients, but when it's the server it's an entirely different story and makes it even more difficult to run.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
over half of 13 year olds have seen porn by that age. Pretty bad!
Biological adults interested in sex, news at 11.
Why should society's failure to reify the pretenses it currently has about teenagers, or parents failing to parent, ever be my fucking problem?
There probably exists some amount of parental options like this, right?
Those who failed to learn the lessons of the early 2000s are doomed to repeat them forever; what continuously puzzles me is the proportion of parents who were children at that time that don't seem to fully understand this even though they by all rights should. Censorship is effective- that's part of why we continually insist on doing it, after all- but a technological solution to a people problem doesn't solve the people problem that, as a parent, one should obviously be much more interested in actually solving (since the legislature won't)... and if they're not so invested, I don't see why I should have to subsidize these parents' pretense that their 17 year old is still 7 for just a little while longer. Letting them pollute the commons with this extra tax is not acceptable.
Younger children don't tend to search for porn because, should you be fortunate enough to remember what being one is like, it's gross and weird if you don't have the software package that lets you appreciate it. Hell, half of the reason parents even consider turning the parental controls on in the first place is because their kid brought them something they didn't fully understand (because clearly the way you reward your child's trust in you is to respond by revoking your trust in them; it's basically like telling your son who's smart enough to tell the neighborhood creep "no" despite never having received formal instructions to do so that he must now wear a condom at all times).
As far as the teenagers go, of course, you're past the point of realistically controlling them especially if they've inherited enough of their parents disagreeableness to find other ways; general purpose computers that can trivially bypass these blocks are easily-concealable and generally within teenage budgets.
As for your other points:
-
Realistically, they're just going to go to sites that happen to feature a significant number of results with participants a lot closer to their own age (worth noting that this is the main reason 4chan exists). So instead of being exposed to material traditionalist-progressives are merely concerned about, they'll see material about which they're absolutely apoplectic. At least it's higher-quality than whatever self-indulgent garbage progressives think is worthy of school libraries, and sites that feature this aren't generally trying to manipulate you into clicking on uglier porn like PornHub does, but it's the same "well they banned heroin so everyone just uses fentanyl now because it's easier to get" thing. Some jurisdictions are angrier about that material existing than others; I'm sure throwing the odd teenager in jail over loli is going to make things so much better for everyone just like it already does when they catch him with a nude his girlfriend sent him, and is definitely a good use of our resources.
-
Legislation can, and has, replaced parenting but only in the "makes it worse for anyone with an IQ above 70" direction. Bad parents don't follow the rules, good parents don't need them, and in its majestic equality the law prohibits both from ignoring them.
-
You misspelled "will"; this is a target for actors with State-level resources for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
-
Most countries whose citizens have at least a vague notion of free speech already get hauled to jail for posting edgy memes on Twitter (they're generally stupid enough to use their real names when signing up for their accounts). The porn equivalent of that would be bad, actually.
they're not supervillains doing evil things for the sake of it
No, it's just the more mundane "stop doing what I don't like"/"I don't want to solve the problem, I want to ban X" thing that slave morality modes don't see as distinct from evil.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
and it is not even a "revolutionary" solution
I disagree; I think uprooting and firing 90%+ of the current academic apparatus (it won't be economically viable to sustain them with 1/10th of the current enrollment rate) is very much a revolutionary idea, in the political sense.
Is that reform needed, considering how much money the education-managerial complex costs society? Sure, but as far as what it's going to actually give way to is completely unknown especially considering what demographic a complete collapse of that as a job will disproportionately affect (it might legitimately still be better for the young if the child sacrifice is permitted to continue).
None of the journos or the academics quoted in the article can bring themselves to question if these young adults should even be in the university
Indeed- it is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.
Your framing of the problem is wrong.
In a suicide, the fault for the death ultimately lies with the one who pulls the trigger.
Overdose deaths are suicides.
That was their choice to make, and an isolated demand for rigor: if we actually cared about this for human beings more generally, cryopreservation would be a much larger industry.
More options
Context Copy link