ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3hr ago
Personally I think it's because my train of thought gets derailed several times a minute by catchy lyrics, taking me out of the moment and forcing me to reorient myself each time.
I find that I, should I want to do serious creative work and listen to music at the same time, must listen to a piece of music I've entirely memorized. Which is why I tend to prefer simple songs; chiptune tends to do this due to the lack of complex instrumentation, lyrics, and the simplicity of the music brought on by pretending to be limited to only X number of voices at a time. You can do a lot with only 5 voices, but the other way to do it is to listen to something that only really has a few patterns but has a depressing effect.
In that way, the [fact that listening to the music is pleasurable] is decoupled from the distraction of ultimately being distracted by trying to digest its patterns; if the pattern is not digestible, or the instrumentation (generally lyrics but percussion as well) is distracting, it won't work.
Doctors have responded by shying away from the procedures which are most offensive to lawmakers. This is an obvious chilling effect!
Indeed, you've changed my mind about it. If doctors are soldiers, we can note that indeed, soldiers have a harder time dealing with the enemy when overly-restrictive ROE are imposed. Friendlies get hurt, even killed, if you can't deal with cases where it's obvious to the soldier on the ground who the enemy is, but not to the politicians back home.
But then, what is to be done? Establishing a military-style court in the form of review with primacy over the criminal justice system won't fix the problem (soldiers get railroaded all the time there too), doctors (and more importantly, the organizations paying them) don't want to take that risk, and you have a major fraction of the population doing the Queers for Palestine thing about babies (perhaps even literally albeit unintentionally; Jews do tend to become doctors). Maybe a Red state should only employ Red tribe soldiers/doctors so that the kind of cultural clash presented here is minimized, but even that's no guarantee, for the US was Red from 2000-2008 and [as I understand it] the shift to Blue coincided with more restricted ROE simply because the average soldier was Red.
Maybe the best choice, or the only choice, is simply to accept that living in Texas has certain occupational hazards; to accept that the optimal number of doctors prosecuted for questionable abortions is not, and will not, be zero; and to make sure there's still some semblance of a West to run off to when there's no mind left in the nation to be changed about it.
How do you get a doctor to kill a baby that's days from coming out and is clearly already a human?
Ignore the traditionalists and their desire to make sex have consequences because their religion says it's evil.
That is a distraction and irrelevant, as all cassus belli are.
If you accuse these people of sociopathy, then do the power calculus as any sociopath would. [Note that you're going to have to put aside the assumption that sociopathy has a negative social valence for this to make any sense; this is raw human interest and will to power, nothing more.]
First, let's assume that female privilege is axiomatically good.
Next, assume that banning baby killing in any way threatens female privilege (progressives are trivially correct about this).
Therefore, ensuring women may kill their babies at will is a legitimate objective. As such, those babies are a legitimate military target- an enemy to be destroyed. Soldiers are not committing murder when they engage the enemy, which is how abortion is categorically not murder (some militaries may impose rules of engagement and charge soldiers for killing that does not accomplish military objectives, like "you can only shoot if they're under 20 weeks old or are about to kill one of your soldiers").
At the limit, it's just that simple. (It's more complicated for whom the question of female privilege does not dominate, but as the operations become more extreme the network of complications ultimately converges on this. Every asterisk or added rule of engagement weakens that goal[1].)
Or, to rephrase. Does abortion qualify as a just [civil] war? Well, let's check. To qualify:
- The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
The damage here is highly symbolic, but smashing the patriarchy remains the goal here, and given how bitterly the outgroup complains about it this seems to be satisfied.
- All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
Self-demonstrating: "10 year old rape victim forced to carry to term". Apparently "teach men not to rape" is not working.
- There must be serious prospects of success;
Babies are completely defenseless, and the soldiers are willing to do what is necessary.
- The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Collateral damage is limited solely to the target and random baby murder by outside parties has not increased. We are told the baby feels no pain.
I will also point out that the more traditional forms of self-defense also qualifies as a just [civil] war under these conditions (the criminal dies, the existence of police and the memetic threat of armed citizens didn't stop them from doing the crime, only carry if you can shoot straight, only shoot if you won't hit the bystander behind him).
[1] This is assuming immediacy only and disregards any long-term damage. Yes, this goal may become repugnant or the focus on it eventually deemed excessive, but one woman's time preference is another's practice of making hay while the sun shines. The point of having power is to get to do things like this.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
17hr ago
Will not the new rulers find that it would be much cheaper than eternal welfare, and much cleaner than massacres, if much of the population can be guided into walking into their own deaths just due to subtle guiding of the popular understanding of what it means to be a Good Person?
Given how wildly successful over-replacement-level immigration has been I think you already know the answer to this.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
The show (and by that I specifically mean G4) ran for 10 years and was part of peak 4chan culture; I'm not sure what else you're expecting at this point.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
These laws just make doctors fear that if they perform an abortion for medical reasons (the baby or mother is extremely unlikely to survive) they'll be put on trial.
Ignoring that they could be put on trial for that more generally, of course. Everyone else has a reasonable fear that in a self-defense case this will occur anyway, and isn't that generally the justification the pro-abortion side trots out?
So the hospitals that pre-emptively prohibit the procedure are generally either just grandstanding (re: "Blues think they're the only bastion of civilization in a hostile country"), or are sunk into the tarpit of (Blue-style) extreme risk-aversion by banning the practice. Which they're incentivized to do, since this can give their side a few graves to stand on to enable the grandstanding, even though those deaths are ultimately caused by them and their power structure being insane people.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
2d ago
The concept of Original Sin, The Confession, Repentance, The emphasis of the sanctity of the meek, it's universalism, etc.
A good chunk of those can be found in pagan religions, though.
Let's take Communism: capital is the original sin, confession/repentance is done through continual revolution, the meek are the workers, Comintern are the missionaries, etc.
Woke, same thing: ability is the original sin, confession/repentance is done through continual humiliation, the meek are the disabled, USAID are the missionaries, etc.
So while I do think it presses the same moral buttons as Christianity (or perhaps more relevantly, Islam) does/did in the average follower (which is what I think people actually mean when they say it's a religion), I don't think it's actually a proper descendant.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
2d ago
Fine.
Every now and again there are throwaway lines in comments here about how Canada is a bad ally, or incompetent, or just generally bad-and-should-feel-bad.
If the US didn't exist we wouldn't be having this conversation; if you're a competent Roman, you move to Rome, because that's where the persistent investment is. If no Rome, we'd have to actually get off our asses, but if we did the investment and capital required to do that would turn us into America.
Actual, real, civil minded sacrifice to develop the country in some way (be it industry or otherwise) just isn't there; we can't keep it, and our culture reflects that, though whether the chicken or egg came first is an open question. And from a Western perspective, fuck Ottawa and Montreal, there's zero logical reason they should be making laws for me. I would be OK with sacrificing for an Alberta-based Western government, but the difference is they're not foreigners; Easterners are just as foreign to me as Americans (and even moreso under certain circumstances re: the things you mentioned).
The comments I'm talking about are usually hinting at foreign affairs, but even the most self-hating Canadian usually believes Canada is internationally respected.
I honestly don't think they think about us at all outside of occasional peacekeeping missions, but we (nor anyone else) have done much of that since the late '90s. I don't think about them either, really; we live on the same island as the Americans do and that means outside of maybe French tourists we don't get too much in the way of international exposure, both the threatening and the non-threatening kind.
To be honest, I'm not even sure how I'd like other nations to think about Canada, and I think that is the average Canadian's viewpoint. Part of that is that decisions that would generate distinction are made by the Empire- British before 1970, American after that.
But we don't have many foreign policy accomplishments or even know where to begin apart from "the Empire is doing this, and we're along for the ride". We accomplish the Empire's objectives far better than they do, but at the end of the day they're still the Empire's objectives. And I think most of the world sees that; and I think Canada is treated less seriously as an international partner because of that.
"Competent, with an asterisk."
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
2d ago
getting conspicuously upset about terrorists and commies
Doesn't Utah have a higher proportion of federal government employment? If they do, I suggest this is probably at least somewhat true.
the defining point of Canadian culture is [maximum snobbishness]
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I think it's an Anglo/French HBD thing. Fortunately, with all the immigrants they're importing at my direct expense, they'll soon be a minority; unfortunately, it'll be too late for me to gain financially from that because destroying any hope of that is why they are importing the people in the first place.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
The sequels did capture that energy, that's part of why it's a dead franchise. (Also happened with Bond; Craig, but also Dalton.)
"Navigating modern norms regarding sex" is the modern "leave room for Jesus" and the media spawned with that as the underpinning is generally poor.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
No, you need this system of education because it's a jobs program (and because Boomers are obsessed with graduation rate as a proxy for how well society is doing). The purpose of college is not to teach; professors are not evaluated on knowledge retention rates and are notorious for being poor at teaching.
Ironically the problem with this system is that, because its primary objective is not education (both lower and higher), it's proof that high-IQ people will be fine no matter how garbage and wasteful the education system becomes. Which means that if you reduced a degree to the IQ test(s) for which it serves as a hyper-inefficient proxy, you could save billions upon billions of dollars and refund nearly 8 years of prime lifetime to nearly every young citizen, something worth several hundred thousand dollars at current rates.
This isn't to say that we must abolish job training, of course- that would still be required- but it's also required right now on top of education anyway. Cutting out the middleman would probably be OK, though of course, employment in academia is one of the primary contributors to the existence of the middle class as a concept.
This kind of creates a circular reference, though, since the OT has nothing carved in stone about what 'women's clothing' and 'men's clothing' is, and who/what the deciding factor as to what article becomes for what gender is.
(If 'intent of the person creating the clothing', then pants are women's clothes and skirts are men's clothes [re: kilts], so it can't be that. If interpreting that as 'the clothes that provide sexual designation', that seems like a better dividing line, but it still suffers from the fact that to everyone else, pants aren't sexual designators any more- dresses and undergarments, sure, but that's not usually what they're restricting themselves to.)
I think that "women must never wear pants" is just an excuse to be traditionalist for the sake of traditionalism (or "fostering group cohesion by believing odd things"/"set apartness", if you prefer), or at least that appears to be the intent behind doing that.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
That's, uh, part of where my observation that they look like men comes from (they're not all like that, but some of them definitely are; 4chan also has better taste than average than some mostly-random aggregator).
I can accept that maybe it's just due to being bad at faces more generally, but the second-order of that then leads me to ask why, implying it's not the primary draw for the image. (It's also just considering the face, not the other characteristics; obviously you can usually see them in the picture.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
A cat is fine, too.
They do indeed all have snouts to some degree; interestingly, the longer [and pointier] the snout, the more masculine the character (exhibit A: Deltarune; exhibit B: the rest of e621 lmao).
It might just be a neoteny thing (which, again, places where the women appear to have a better cultural relationship with the men tend to express/emphasize more often; the worse it is, the more socially-offensive the look women tend to take on) though.
Are you saying that anime women look like men?
A good chunk of them do (it's less bad than any other Western media or RL but it's still at times present) but it's simply most obvious in the hentai repositories.
To be fair, most of my repertoire at this point is CGDCT from the late '00s-early '10s so I might be a little biased; and I think I'm overextending the connection in normal Asian media (because half the reason I'm more focused on that area is because they know how to draw women well).
I'll just come out and say it, then: I believe that Zendaya, in most of her appearances, looks like a man. And I'm assuming you're straight, so naturally that doesn't map as attractive.
I think “girl pretty” might just be a way for women to sabotage and confuse each other.
Most "girl pretty" outside the Asian sphere of influences make female faces more masculine, not less. By the way, did you ever notice that white tomboy women seem to have more feminine-looking faces than average?
I believe the reason for this is to signal the capacity for social aggression just as normal masculine traits stereotypically attractive to women signal the capacity for physical aggression. That's why models are cast that way, that's why the angry librarian glasses and angry-eyebrow jobs exist, and perhaps it's why white women are so obsessed with black women (I don't think that strong-man-Chad-jawed-homoeroticism is limited to men; I think this is just how [normal] women express it).
[It may be the case that, for tomboys in particular, their internal keep-yourself-alive compass points at 'to get stronger, you should get better at the physical aggression side of things'. Kind of sounds like a transgender thing to me, but what do I know. Same with femboys that want to get better at the social aggression side of things, for that matter.]
Furthermore, I think that to be normie-straight, you have to be attracted to the signals of how the opposite sex displays its power or worth. (I also think that men who don't tacitly understand this are doomed to have a hard time in relationships- it's just as much a mismatch as being in a gay marriage would be for most of the same underlying personality reasons (re: @aiislove's push-down-pull-up model of successful relationships being less viable when you're a mirror of each other rather than a compliment).
I'm sure you've noticed this on anime porn sites, by the way- 80% of it seems to be hyperinflation with no attention paid to the face (or the face actively looks male) because of this. The other 20% has faces that are far more palatable, but notice that 'cute' is not a valid search term unless it is combined with 'funny', and that combination yields 80% of the results (in that block of 20%).
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
This is literally just Kingsmen, though.
It occurs to me that there is a funny counter factual out there where people of different skin colors are really all nearly identical on all the measurable things that are supposed to matter (intelligence, crime, education, financial outcomes, hygiene, health, inhabiting clean a tidy communities, etc.) and then you have the racists making enemies of certain pigments
Once you control for class filter bubbles (i.e. if you believe the only people who exist are middle or upper class, and in that case/context, what you have stated is literally true) this is exactly how progressives behave (the pigments they hate are white and yellow). It's not ludicrous, it's personally advantageous- those classes are shrinking, so as any good whore rational actor would do they sell their dignity and do stupid things like "be racist against themselves" (the upper class that pays them loves a good self-hating worker who tells their fellow workers they deserve lower wages because of their pigment). That is how they defect against everyone else, by signalling that a lower [sociofinancial] salary will be acceptable to them, and the other workers who won't do the same thing should be fired (or killed).
It's the exact equivalent to a scab working behind a picket line, just using an expanded sociofinancial sense of salary, not just the financial one most are used to. Rational, yes; but the union response to that sends goons to their homes to extract a little rent of their own, and so far that clearly hasn't been happening for a bunch of reasons that are out of scope of this response.
There’s probably a leftist out there who would endorse the racist paternalism you describe, but that person is not an “average person.”
True, prosecutors and judges tend not to be average people. In that case, you have 2 possibilities: either the true belief is limited to them, or it's politically advantageous for them to act in a way indistinguishable from believing it [in which case we need to ask why that is, and we can assume that, because some of these are elected positions, that the charge of racist paternalism can be said to extend to a significant portion of the population, or at the very least it doesn't bother them].
they're just the most insanely racist people on Earth.
I think most of the moral sentiment that caused racism in the first place is absolutely alive and well (in that some people have a psychological need for an enemy outgroup categorized by simple observable markers like skin color and gender, and furthermore that people who do this are inferior themselves), and I even believe Progressives when they claim it's [relatively] uniquely a problem with whites. Perhaps ironically, I think this is an HBD thing.
Naturally, I am highly suspect of a race of people who then seem to exempt themselves because they say "look we're maximally discriminatory against ourselves on the basis of race", because the intent is the crime, not the fact it was ever done (which is also the problem with other X-supremacy groups, most notably feminists/gynosupremacists). The correct lesson, and one the classical-liberals tried to teach in the '70s, is that the correct way to not be discriminatory on the basis of race is to not be discriminatory on the basis of race; their folly is that this discriminatory behavior is, in fact, innate to white people (and cannot be trained out of them), and they were just laying the grounds for the (overwhelmingly white) daughters of the Confederacy to roll right back over them with their new racism after classical-liberalism reached its high water mark that decade.
Which also explains the related phenomenon where a non-trivial number of [assuming/acting in the progressive framing] "white supremacists" are black or hispanic (or married to one). That inconsistency is resolved if you assume Progressives are more guilty of the discriminatory-intent-mind-crime (which is what non-progressives actually mean by "racism") than those who they accuse of it.
It doesn't need to be if you accept the progressive framing that "white supremacy" means "being of a mental state that opposes the progressive power structure", but at that point "white supremacy" is not the actual crime.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
7d ago
phone autocorrect often inserts directional quotation marks
Unicode was a mistake.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
7d ago
It means he's pretending to be bad at computers, perhaps for stylometry reasons.
Much as how the key to type an em-dash is not present on your keyboard, the keys that type ‘ and ’ do not exist, so that had to have been pasted in from somewhere else. (Ah, the joys of Unicode.)
It's genuinely weird that the position of some conservatives is that we've moved backwards in division of labor since the 1920s, and that this is a good thing
Why is it weird? The only conservative answer for men is "fuck you, get good" [tacit: in return, the division and realities of labor are how you acquire social power/over women- hasn't been true since 1920, but with a temporary break from 1950-1970], which is why feminism was a natural outgrowth of it.
I've noticed in the discourse online about this is the conspicuous absence of right-wingers pointing out that cooking for oneself isn't a man's job but a woman's one.
Who's doing the talking? Is it the young men, who simply don't have this frame of reference, or is it the old men, who do (and are intentionally undermining it because their view of gender interaction never progressed beyond the 1970s)?
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
9d ago
If your dress and behavior sends a particular signal, its not really fair to get mad at guys who respond to what the signal usually means.
Which also applies to women when dealing with men in dresses and fake tits (and the signal that usually means).
"Clothing is not consent" is absolutely true
"Consent" (when it means as it is meant here, not the definition you'd expect from a plain dictionary reading) is the root of the problem, and the specific tool that is used to legitimize the excess here.
The way to write CRT is to assume ACAB- Assigned Cain At Birth.
You now imagine yourself on trial for the murder of Abel. CRT writings are the evidence of mitigating factors your team of defense attorneys brings to defend you in a modern court of law.
Not guilty because of mental deficiency or undiagnosed psych condition relative to Abel, especially one you can blame Abel or his father for intentionally causing (PTSD being the most popular; you have a right to never be under any stress whatsoever, just as Abel is never under stress). Not guilty because mens rea isn't there- why would you go and kill him, you can make sacrifices just as pleasing in your own alternate way relative to your own cultural and racial circumstances, no reason to kill him over this one. (And you do have conventional achievements, but they were not recognized as a scheme of Abel- even if you had killed him, he would have deserved it. Basically, his entire existence is an expression that reality itself hates you, and why should you ever accept that?)
It doesn't matter whether the arguments presented are even coherent, or if they're just filibusters- the judge is bound by his own laws to consider every single thing you say. You're playing to the gallery; if you are found guilty, they too will be convicted. Better to act now assuming you're right before case law can be established, right or wrong.
More options
Context Copy link