@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC 

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 3 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for June 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The tipping point was around 2012.  As you'll recall, that was when MS decided it'd be a great idea to trash the desktop UX in favor of a tablet UX everywhere, no matter whether or not it made sense on that device.


And they actually did have a bit of a point there- if you made it optional, you'd just end up with another Windows Media Center that nobody used, and what better way to force people to develop applications in WinRT?  There were significant benefits to doing so, too- mainly around sandboxing, though the problem there was that it made interacting with the rest of the computer an absurd hassle.  The original cheaper Surface RT tablet was made to push this too, and while an interesting piece of kit, it was also basically worthless beyond the fact it had an ARM-compiled version of Office on it.


They judged, correctly, that doing so wouldn't affect sales.  And sure, the iPad wasn't as destructive to them as they had feared (which indeed was a reasonable fear at the time- that people buying iPads would then proceed to eschew real computers entirely), but they've also never had an incentive to go back and properly fix what they broke.  And every version of Windows since has gone on to expose more of the rotten/unfinished foundation (and will likely continue along that path until Explorer is 100% React, takes 0.5s to respond to any button presses, require 16GB of RAM, and has to restart at least once a day because it gets overloaded like Firefox does when you watch too many YouTube videos).


The other problem is that there's no real need for MS to write a new OS any more.  Windows NT remains the gold standard for an OS (Unix was 20 years out of date in 1995, and the only reason it's still around is because you would be provided the source to build whatever you wanted) but after everything that made it the way it is has migrated to Azure and everyone just accesses your code through some flavor of web browser, what's the point of rebuilding it?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for June 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is just what 10 years of no QA department and any new development being considered a cost center does to you.


I can't switch out from Windows because the window management behavior hasn't been destroyed yet.  KDE has stupid defaults and limits which made window snapping flat out not work on high-resolution screens, so it was an instant non-starter (sure, I could go and edit the config... until it gets erased or moved in the next update, then you have to chase the setting down again).  And GNOME is just worse OS X.


It's fortunate that StartAllBack exists to fix the menu (and a couple of Explorer issues that I just haven't noticed are likely alleviated by this software as well); I've just accepted that I need to pay to fix issues now just like Mac users generally have to add things Apple refuses to implement (famously, window-snapping).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for June 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's odd; I thought all carbonated beverages were supportive of Palestine due to the gazafication step inherent in the process.


It's very difficult to tell a Jew cola from a Muslim cola, though.  That's why I prefer Gentile drinks, and you can easily tell which is which- if there's another seal you have to remove before exposing the cap (which may itself have a hole in it), it's definitely a Gentile drink, where the Jew and Muslim drinks never add that.  Powerade and those marble sodas are the two best examples.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 8, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


a scope for a hunting rifle




This is more a problem with US exporters not bothering to keep up to date on ITAR reforms (there have been a few that reclassified most of the stuff into a much laxer category) than anything else, though.


Perhaps something an AI could solve for them, but their market is large enough that they don't have to care.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for June 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Conservatives are less neurotic than liberals




Remember that, because Haidt's a Boomer, he's locked into Boomer paradigms where the [faction where the moral majority dominated due to that disgust reflex] called itself "conservatives", because for the majority of his life that was the case.  It ignores what we now know, that progressives [who are what "conservatives" used to be] and classic liberals are different.


This is also why the left/right paradigm is broken, and will remain so for the next 20 years simply because the median voter still uses paradigms common to Haidt's time, because they are of a similar age.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 8, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you can afford to be.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There are plenty of non-coercive policy options for promoting eugenic pairings.




That doesn't matter, though, because nearly all of them ultimately lead back to the "male oppressors incentivizing -> suggesting -> forcing me to do my job do the thing that requires I be dependent on a man" thing.


The only policy that will work is to valorize and protect those who do their job, but you can only have that in societies that are allowed to accept their own right to rule.  (Which is why women reflexively oppose any social movement that suggests this; after all, according to the stereotype, all social turmoil ever comes from the cardinal sin of ever permitting a man to think he can do something right.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ah, but the only reason they do that is to protect female class interests when the law has to be symmetric for some reason (women want it to be illegal to fuck young women more than they want the right to fuck young men [which affects a rounding error number of women, and the women who do engage in this are the pick-me-est of pick-mes so they're also hated by women in general]).


Eugenics is different, since the median woman assumes it'll affect who the median woman has babies with.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


under the impression it was an open secret




Not according to the demographic most likely to take it seriously (which conversely Just So Happens to be the demographic that suffers from SIDS the least frequently), who are likely to try and spend resources preventing it.




Plus, not many people want to be a big meanie and ask too many difficult questions to a parent (especially a mother) who just lost a baby




Beyond very obvious depraved-heart stuff like "gave birth in a bathroom and left the baby in the toilet" I think it's good such questions not be asked.  If they were, we'd only be prosecuting it if the mother was white, as a natural extension of who over-zealous CPS reporting is most likely to affect now.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for June 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I appreciate the fan theory that Connery's character in The Rock is fully intended to be "what if Connery Bond, but captured by the US for 30 years?".


I don't feel the same amount of grief, though, since the series is hit or miss- for each Bond that actually got 4-5 movies, 2-3 of them are good, and the others are a bit more forgettable.


I think the casting decisions made for each Bond were on their own pretty good.  I can't actually picture Connery in Moonraker or Man with the Golden Gun, for instance; Brosnan belongs in the Brosnan movies, and so on.  This applies especially to the Craig movies; he's just not the man the others are, so it wouldn't make sense for any of the others to portray him (except Dalton, I guess, since the cutting edge being 'a more vulnerable Bond' popped up in the 80s too).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for June 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The oppression is already here.  Men and women aren't allowed to agree on the rules of engagement, you aren't permitted a place to raise your kid without paying ruinous costs in rent because building is illegal, the list goes on.


Just because it doesn't on its face look like what Boomers (or prior generations) told you oppression would look like, and just because you can still technically bear it, doesn't mean it isn't oppression.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


if we defined "economic violence" equally broadly then it wouldn't need to be a robbery - a shoplifter pushing past a security guard would qualify.




Honestly, why shouldn't we define "economic violence" that way?


Stealing sexual value is to women like stealing economic value is to men (for control over that is what that sex uses to impress the other), so a regime that treated men and women equally should logically treat both just as seriously.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Female sexuality should not be looked at thru a rationalist brain.




Why not?  It's just the mirror image of stuff men do that women haven't correctly communicated when to and not to do, like that whole "take them seriously but not literally, also ignore half the things she says because that's how the emotional spam filter works [and the 'attractive self-respect' thing comes from the 'doesn't respond to every emotional outburst about X']" thing.


It's not a direct counterpart, but men and women are different and start from initial conditions (inherent scarcity, etc.), so it's going to be expressed differently.  Men (especially straight ones- it gets complicated when they're not) don't really have the circuitry to appreciate why you'd want a Cluster B werewolf billionaire, so it's difficult to know when to act like one (re: PUA, which as I understand it sums up to 'treat them like they're in a porno'; women will do the same thing to men sometimes, but less often because it's [socially] costlier for women to do that).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


According to research, globally, sex workers have a 45% to 75% chance of experiencing sexual violence on the job




That's one hell of an error bar, so the research is garbage.




many previous & current progressive movements




Repeat after me: progressives are not liberals.  I get that it's very confusing, especially if you're in certain bubbles that made much hay claiming they were the same (because in large degree the marriage of convenience between the two was still running at the time).  The difference is that liberals actually like sex and aren't turbo-butthurt about its existence, while progressives are existentially threatened by anyone else but them controlling sex and sexual expression (because it is all the value they offer- that's part of why they're so attached to education as an alternate path).  Needless to say this is mostly a thing with female progressives; the men might parrot it but they don't truly understand it (the ones that do tend to be traditionalists, which is just progressivism with the opposite gender valence).




I struggle to see how these individuals may square this perspective that sex work is valid, despite fitting the bill of objectification.




The clue is that progressives tend to believe it should be legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy it, which takes the price of sex up to infinity.  Any sex (or sexual expression) that occurs must be maximally monetized, or it's offering an alternative to that monopoly.


This is why progressives get extremely angry about older men dating younger women: the motte cope is "she's being taken advantage of", the bailey truth is "she's getting more money for the sex than I ever would, which drives the price I can get for my sex down".

When women say the existence of something "devalues sex", they're being literal because it actually does.




So it's not the sexual objectification they're objecting to, it's getting around the fee they feel is due.  Sexual labor (which for women is "being observed while sexually desirable") without pay.  Progressives don't like sex work because it makes that fee legible, which is a threat; its legality is generally a compromise they struck with the liberals in the original anti-traditionalist compact.  They do reserve the right to play at sexual labor, though, which is how they justify to themselves having made that deal, and is also why they don't really have much problem with non-straight sex (it's orthogonal to the market).


Which is why it's also important to identify what kind of feminist you're dealing with- some are just happy not to be under traditionalism (and will deploy patriarchy and equality arguments to that end- that's who they originally came from, and still have some truth to them), while others are trying to impose a matriarchy instead (and generally using the descriptive liberal arguments as prescriptive weapons).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
People use the term "predator" indistinguishably from "men" (and "straight" and "white", to a lesser degree).  Again, no evolved memetic defense system against this; it was reality that kept this from getting out of control.  Kind of like how in US politics you get extreme rhetoric but the Constitution prevents it from getting too out of hand.


Now that reality no longer gives men that advantage, you get both barrels, it's that simple.  Of course there are a few societies that can avoid this, so you find things that seem strange to Western ears where women defend certain extremes of male sexuality (re: female politicians defending loli), but they also aren't Western, and they still can't reproduce above replacement.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Perhaps, then, that's a part of why the ingroup vs. outgroup behaviors really evolved: if you have one ingroup and 5 outgroup tied to the track, you can sleep easy not pulling the lever specifically because they are your outgroup.  Remember, humanity didn't even invent 'love your enemies'-style accountability, and even that's pretty vague in terms of what you're actually required to do there.


Most of the equivocation about this topic mostly comes down to the fact that in this situation, and in psychologically-normal human beings (the sociopaths are going to sleep easy regardless), a justification will be found to either pull or not pull the lever, because the decision must be made.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Hence "have cake and eat it too".


Just because they're throwing the killer away does not imply [those who define UK society] are not in complete agreement that what the killer did was justice.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the killer refuses to accept culpablity and continues to insist that his victim was a racist, as if this would justify the killer's conduct even if it was true.




And he is correct.  A society doesn't normally prosecute soldiers for murder, because they are killing that society's enemies.  Why else do you think only that group is de facto allowed to go around armed?  (Canada at least requires you to have it zip tied to the sheath so it can't be drawn, but in fairness that was 10 years ago.)


Here, though, English society gets to have its cake and eat it, too- killing its enemies while at the same time being able to claim murder is bad.  Certainly confusing for the soldier in question- because here his claims that he was acting on society's general orders (to kill its enemies for their crime of existing, or "racism" for short) won't save him from prosecution.


Then again, soldiers get thrown under the bus all the time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


America definitely isn't holding Europe's balls or brains




Empires hold their provinces' balls or brains almost by definition.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They gave their brains and balls away along with the rest of their colonial possessions.




That's an unfair characterization.  They sold their brains and balls and the rest of their colonial possessions to Uncle Sam, because the European powers (and the UK) were back-to-back World War losers.


The Allied powers like to delude themselves into thinking their contributions made a difference but, uh, no?  Most of the materiel came from American factories, and Americans accepted the price for that materiel in mineral rights and real estate.


It wasn't "giving away".  It was war reparations.  The rest of Western Europe has paid similarly.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel like whatever issue there is with child actors will just be part of a larger trend with actors humans in general with AI, i.e. we just no longer need to place real humans in such dangerous or effortful situations anymore, thanks to being able to show the same thing using computers.


After all, life is dangerous and risky, and humans are no longer working animals.

As such, some consider it on par with animal cruelty the notion that someone would ever consider having kids.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Actually, MLP G4 does this as well for 3 characters in particular, come to think of it.




Perhaps that's a reasonable balance?




No, it really isn't.


I get that nobody really watches sitcoms any more, but I'm really not interested in making The Cosby Show or Home Improvement (or Two and a Half Men) illegal to produce simply because there's significant value in retaining an environment that can produce them.


I think removing the conditions that make filming Stranger Things or Terminator 2 (or IT, Super 8, ET, etc.) possible/practical would be harm to broader culture that far outweighs the higher variance in outcomes the child actors in them have as-is.  You're not picking an adult up off the back of a dirtbike they're too big for and then CGI-ing it into something else.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
NZ is also beholden to American interests in a way Argentina is not, re: Kim Dotcom, and those interests are generally Blue-aligned.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A slow Tuesday on Xbox Live?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


a live-action film in which the protagonist is a prepubescent child (e.g. Home Alone, the Harry Potter films) is not




Absolutely.  Fuck any real representation and wish-fulfillment for ~10% of the population.  Self-actualization should be confined to grownups only.


(Ironically, most kids and teens in animation are usually voice-acted by grown women; the few notable exceptions to that off the top of my head being TAWOG, Chowder, and the Iron Giant.)


You can fix most of the other issues with payment later or with some other contrivance, but I'm firmly in the 'stay in Omelas' camp here; the ideal number of burnt-out child stars in a healthy society is not 0 specifically for that reason.


"But muh creative freedom" is a nonsense complaint here, because what you're suggesting would completely destroy the ability to have sitcoms that feature families (alongside, uh, most of the Spielberg catalogue).  Erasing portrayals of that from TV and film because it's Unsafe will surely help TFR.