@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Tomboy miscegenation

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

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Tomboy miscegenation

				
				
				

				

					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
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
AIUI, the protestors came first.  The US was too slow to respond; by the time the air support showed up their infantry and their command structure were already dead.


If that's the case, this suggests an intelligence failure more than anything else- if they had waited for the US to show up, maybe they'd be in charge now.  But they aren't.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Which is, of course, why every non-US Western country operates in the "vibe around absorbing corruptionbux and not missiles" mode.


After all, who in a post-scarcity society would want a repeat of the early 1940s?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"I'm declaring your race irredeemably evil for historical crimes"




Or its related cousin, "I'm declaring your sex irredeemably evil for historical crimes", which is what the entire West has been doing for about the last 60 years or so.




about certain noble lies and keeping inconvenient data locked behind extremely secure doors




Or "respect" for short.


Let's think about a recent populist spasm- BLM: the noble lie we tell is that cops are to a degree beyond reproach, that movement sought to refute that, and it did billions of dollars of damage and lead to a 5-digit death toll of the population the populists claimed they were protecting (though indirectly as a result of higher crime rate, but if 'stupid people at the controls' includes Mao's policy of causing a famine due to killing sparrows, this counts too).  A clear-cut case of populist stupidity.


The higher death tolls of the 20th century are magnified compared to today in part because the 20th century hadn't solved scarcity like the 21st has.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'd say they don't like change




In other words, they're "conservatives".  They don't like that name because in their worldview (informed by a memeplex that began in the '60s that they applied despite its ideas being objectively too advanced for them) it means they're the bad guys.


I think the term TDS is perfectly appropriate for both dislike of the man and dislike of the change, because the former is how conservatives launder the latter.




The problem with (2) is that I would not say the vast majority of objectors fall into that category, because if it was you'd find quite a bit more measured discourse rather than, y'know, what we see right now.  And half of these also tend to fall back into TDS by going "Trump stupid, reeeeee", which you can see in every thread that talks about the guy on this forum, to say nothing of what happens in the wider world.




And at that point, you end up causing a crisis and delivering the government back to the very people you wanted to remove from power. You put on a flashy show, but just end up as a small detour in Cthulhu's leftward swim.




That's just kind of the nature of government, though.  However, I would mention that Cthulhu swims rightward- towards the conservative and the local maxima of corruption (International SJWery, at present)- not leftward, which is more just general chaos.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


far more than the total amount of abuse by religious figures.




Teachers are religious figures.  The Christian Right was correct when they made this observation back when they were a relevant political force, but they also believed that was in large part a good thing and were as such unwilling to actually do anything about it.


Which is in part why they got away with it even when the gender balance was closer to 50/50 than it is today, and now that it's shifted further into a majority-female profession, that gender's sexual abuse is harder to prosecute because [for the 50% of the population that doesn't benefit from being able to do it], a significant portion of men don't believe it's a coherent concept, and even if they do, they think that the only way it happens is not actually destructive (re: South_Park_Nice.jpg).


Yet, if you believe the statistics that show this population 'abuses' students in the male mode at a far higher rate than men did at their peak, it's likely that the female mode of sexual abuse occurs at an even higher rate than that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Has everyone forgotten the gay marriage debate so quickly?




I mean, you'll find people forgetting that Western society literally went full Nazi 6 years ago and destroyed ~20% of planetary wealth (mostly through inflation) in an ill-fated attempt to cure a particularly nasty variant of the common cold.


So not only is 20 years ago ancient history, but the loudest contingent opposing it has shrunk by half due to a dynamic best described by actuarial tables.  People who were 60 and driving the opposition to gayness in 2008 are 78 now, so half of them are dead and the other half have been brainrotted by social media, usually into TDS (these are the kinds of people you see at No Kings protests).




Children need both their parents




Yeah, that's not what the people who came of age during the '70s (and so are 65-70 right now) think (remember, divorce was [simplification] legalized at that time), which is why it's not a big deal for them to have family units with 2 'parents' of the same sex.  Which is why once the last generation grew too old to combat it, that "need" was done away with.




conservatives




Conservatives have conserved nothing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And now they want to tell us that if there is some creep who is jerking off to nude pictures of five-year-olds, that is a civilizational emergency and we need to bug everyone's phones to stop it.




This is just general man-hating; the women who vote for those parties want the power to ban all men jerking off to nude pictures of women (so that men can be maximally exploited by women) and 5 year olds are just the motte of that argument.  Traditionalists (or more loosely, 'Christian conservatives') and progressives are in agreement that this is a thing that should happen and the language differences between the two groups are just bikeshedding.




Half of them are in a church which a mere generation ago was systematically enabling priests to sexually abuse kids.




And their opponents are progressives, who are... also systematically enabling priests to sexually abuse kids, but it's totally different this time because instead of men in churches with an abusive hand it's women in schools with an abusive mouth.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The entire anti federalist argument against the bill of rights was that people may assume that what was not written meant the government could invade those rights. The response was the 9th and 10th.




Which, it turns out, was completely and trivially correct (the 9th was poorly-written but it's not like they could have done any better at the time)- they already invade the ones that are written down and invent novel legal theories to do so; how much worse would it be for the ones that are not (and are unpopular enough that would need a right to protect them)?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Rather, it's reasonable to look at both sides of the equation, so to speak.




Yes, that's called "victim blaming", and here's your obligatory apoplexy about how this means little girls will now get raped because they clearly wanted it.


The right way to deal with that is just to ignore it.  Men are slowly learning to do that, but it's not an instinctual thing for them to do, so it's going to take another few decades for them to evolve far enough to have a healthy response to this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


So abuse might be happening, but they lack the cognitive symbols that would allow them to actually conceptualize it as abuse.




And of those that can conceptualize it as abuse, they can't communicate that effectively.


To provide a concrete example, this is why the first label a traditionalist reaches for is "pedophilia" when [female] teachers teach 7 year olds they're transgender- and it's also why normies find that claim completely incoherent.


Ironically, to formulate effective cognitive symbols in that way, you have to think like [and value yourself as] a woman [would].  And I don't think many men really want to do that, and so with the choice they have they choose not to think at all.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The tds allegers are onto something that we find it hard to see past our antipathy.




That's because you're [now] a conservative, and furthermore, Trump has solidified what the reform movement that actually has a chance of damaging your conservatism is going to look like.  I am not really a conservative (or rather, what modern conservatism is right now does not advantage me), and as such have had the exact opposite gut level feeling about Trump for the last 10-ish years.  If neoreform wins, I'll likely become a conservative then.


I'm not particularly pleased with the Iran situation given that strikes at a rift in the current neoreform coalition- that being the late-'70s people who just have psychological problems with the Parthians vs. the early-'00s people who spent the past 20 years in that exact same low-level Middle Eastern ego trip warfare that seems to be threatened now.


But I would want the slave-importers punished, I want the slave importation (and offshoring) stopped because it undercuts my wages, I want the socially-accepted answer to "but it's social justice to accept that" to stop being "yes dear/ma'am" like [the '70s progressive-sympathetic liberals] currently do, and I want the current crop of conservatives out of power because they're more interested in DIE-ing than actual results (and will punish anyone who delivers results yet refuses to do so in a DIE manner).  They also mishandled the common cold and did a Middle Eastern War's level of economic damage simply because they were angry neoreformers had a better conception of the risks (which cost about as much as the 20 year Middle East war did).


Those things are as offensive to me as Trump is to you, and like the so-called progressives before me I tolerate what takes me no effort to tolerate while offloading the emotional turmoil it causes onto you.




they think this reaction is pathological and not based on anything substantial, whereas we think it's soundly justified by a wide range of facts and life experiences




And that's just how conservatives work.  I get that the progressives/"liberals" (as they call themselves) have kind of built a strawman around the term for reasons that have a lot to do with the 1960s and 70s (the people that came of age then are currently at the height of their political power, so naturally the lens through which they see the world dominates), but you have to realize that "I don't want to do it because I don't like it aesthetically, and I'm going to dig my heels in no matter what" is not a meme about conservatives for no reason.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 29, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree here, provided you have the right (meta) frame of reference.


In this case, witness the results of genetics predicting a higher likelihood of "latching hard onto the dominant counter-cultural-but-actually-not-really social issue of the day and holding onto it throughout the rest of one's life".


In the '70s, that narrative was white supremacy; in the modern day (late '10s), that narrative is gyno/trans supremacy.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 27, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


and his progressive/lib bias overshadows the history in videos like Reform or Revolution? 1830 to 1832.




I honestly found the last part of that video particularly funny, as it's his side (progressive/the current Establishment) that has been standing in the way and blocking elections from being won/any reform from occurring.


I doubt he'd've condemned it if he understood the full implication, but most progressives are invested in not understanding that, which is why they still call themselves "liberals".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Apparently, it's a shooter game resembling paintball, where squids (or kids, it's ambiguous) battle.


They spray brightly-colored ink at each other until the loser violently explodes.  The object of the game is usually to paint the floor, but can be other things.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Wow, those graphs are physically difficult to parse- in fact I'd actually say they're actively harmful to a proper understanding of the data. A "plain reading" (at least to me) of that data suggests 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 12 boys have been sexually penetrated in an unwanted manner before the age of 12, which isn't passing the sniff test given, if I remember correctly, prevalence of sexual contact by 12 is about 5%, or 1 in 20.  So I doubt I'm reading the graph correctly, but there's no way to derive the total context or get a scale of the proportions involved relative to all respondents.




Being sexually assaulted causes people to become non-cis




I think this is ignoring the obvious-to-me confounder that becoming non-cis can cause them to become a victim of sexual assault [or reinterpret themselves as such] where they hadn't necessarily considered themselves as such before.  This can also happen to cisgendered people, and women more than men for reasons that have to do with an asymmetric biological incentive to claim abuse for social or financial stability or gain (it's very popular to do this and makes headlines when it happens re: #MeToo, also, internal narratives matter to people re: 2rafa's comment below).




If you grow up poor or insecure or to young parents or female you become anxious and depressed, which leads you to be more likely to suffer sexual assault




Well, no, if you grew up poor, 2 things are likely true for kid-you:


    

  • Your peers, especially the adult ones, are more likely than average to have poorer than average impulse control (or "high time preference", for short)
    • 

  • Less stability means less trust in institutions, and less of a chance you try and 'rock the boat' (and give in to something you perhaps don't want to, or let it go further than you'd like)
    • 



Which means you're more likely to be "propositioned", and less likely to feel you have the power to pull back before it happens, and apparently this decreases monotonically by wealth level (outside of the 'elite' answers, whose error bars are very large- though I can believe this becomes truer for elite children simply because the chance for catastrophe in that scenario becomes large/taking 'no' for an answer and being driven enough to take risk kind of selects you out of the 'elite' group, obviously).


Also, and perhaps most importantly, we don't actually hear the first question: what's abuse?  The analysis buries "indicates that they might be the most enthusiastic participants" in there, which suggests the question of "abuse" wasn't worded properly (i.e. in the legal sense, not the objective 'it was unwanted' sense- and I'd expect a survey designer who claims to value childhood autonomy to know better), which is a massive deal, especially when it comes to drawing conclusions on the last question.




Perhaps the second set of data will be more illuminating, though I'm not holding my breath on this one.  If the base question/premise is bad, the analysis won't get better.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


normielib friends who seem to have lots of latent violent cruel nationalism suddenly unlocked




Jingoism is the natural state of society.  We forget this because it hasn't happened for a long time, but the latent-violent-cruel-nationalism is very much alive in Western countries, typically by the 65+ crowd.  It's usually accompanied by some slogan related to a stereotypical national past-time, perhaps "elbows up", and lots of said crowd claiming they'd be more than happy to pick up a weapon.


It was radicalizing to see it happen in real time, even among those who nominally aren't particularly interested in even having a military; should these people get the violent conflict for which they were agitating, it wouldn't be them on the front lines.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Maybe it was a bad breakup. Former boyfriend is now pissed-off and is threatening them that unless they get back together, all their intimate photos and videos will be shared with everyone. Or maybe former boyfriend skips the threats and goes straight to uploading this on porn websites etc.




And this is different than the general blackmail case... how, exactly (especially in the AI context)?


We already have laws to deal with this case (and in the cases where we've chosen not to have them/are prohibited from doing so, we've already made the tradeoff).  You don't need another law like that, or at least, you wouldn't if this was actually about protecting people from harm and not just a case of




In other words, invoking "consent" is the one-word fig leaf to cover up the fact women are blatantly abusing privileges meant for the people they claim are the most vulnerable, and to claim that if you're opposed to this abuse it's because you want 7 year olds to be raped. It's quite effective, as you can see.




which is perhaps why you did exactly that in the first edit.




Or would it just be more "women are sluts who need their sexual autonomy removed and to be controlled by fathers and husbands the State" fuel for the fire?




Given my assertion is "that's exactly what women themselves are agitating for here"?  Of course, it's not really "controlled"- it's always legal for women to have sex for reasons that have a bunch to do with an echo of '70s sexual liberalism- it's just permanently illegal for men to participate in any way


First it was just sex itself, then it was sex-adjacent activities, now it's pictures (real or otherwise) of it.  Salami-slicing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I have to exert considerable resources to change that.




And yet so far you've failed to do so.


Of course, "maybe try a different approach, here's why" (rather than getting glazed for your efforts) may understandably be offensive to someone used to sending their problems to their room if their first pass doesn't work.  But hey, at least I don't have to live with the consequences of that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


He's repeatedly had trouble just sticking to the course




Yeah, I totally can't imagine any other reason, at all, why that would be.  How could "boring and pointless bullshit" [from the victim's point of view- if this was interesting, you wouldn't be having this problem] ever lose to some readily-available distraction?  This sort of thing has been stumping parents since time immemorial.


Perhaps not setting appropriate metrics is the actual problem?  When I tend to procrastinate and go down a YouTube rabbit hole (or, y'know, write comments on the Motte) it's because either the time I have to complete a particular task is far longer than it's actually going to take (especially if I don't want to do it for some reason), or everyone's agreed it doesn't matter and I'm rationally deprioritizing tasks nobody cares about for stuff that's actually important (even if it's just important to me).


This is especially true when it's a parent ordering their kid to do something they really don't have much experience in themselves, so they have no idea how to set goals/metrics, meaningfully check in, or motivate progress (or have no idea that they even need to be doing those things).  Which means that the task of figuring that out now falls to the subordinate, and if that subordinate isn't particularly motivated to do it, you're going to get some, uh, interesting answers.


Organically, I notice that others trying to learn songs will tend to set goals based around practice times- have this song/technique memorized in X practices from now- and the timetable imposes itself intrinsically based on how long that process actually takes.  Some take a long time, some do not, but the key there is that if it doesn't get done, the next conversation tends to be "well, then what the fuck were you even doing, scrolling through Shorts for 8 hours?".  Figuring out how long something's going to take is a skill that needs to be practiced too.  (So's justifying it, for that matter.)


Also, here's your obligatory "trying to use tech to solve a people problem".  Besides, what do you think's going to happen if you manage to accomplish your goal?  I bet your answer isn't "they stare blankly at the wall for most of the allotted practice time", but I have first-hand experience in employing exactly that strategy in the Before Tech times, and they'll likely do it to you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's because "consent" actually means "waives Female Privilege to profit from sex after the fact", not "accedes to".


Women cannot legally consent to sex (or any sex-adjacent activity, actually- 'revenge porn' is yet more salami-slicing away of that ability) today in any Western nation (the US is, perhaps ironically, the least far down that path- but it is still criminal).  South Park made fun of this with the consent forms, but the fact that wouldn't hold up in court is actually the main issue here.


Sex with them is thus as potentially legally dangerous as it would be with a 7 year old- the group "consent" was made up to initially protect.  We can see this by how laws tend to get changed so the man can't protect himself by demonstrating in court the women intended to discharge this and lied after the fact (i.e. the Jian Ghomeshi case).  It's also why Western/feminist anti-prostitution laws only criminalize buying sex, not selling it.


In other words, invoking "consent" is the one-word fig leaf to cover up the fact women are blatantly abusing privileges meant for the people they claim are the most vulnerable, and to claim that if you're opposed to this abuse it's because you want 7 year olds to be raped.  It's quite effective, as you can see.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Irrespective of ideology or movement, an enormous percentage of women simply want to have as much power as possible and are willing to abuse sex to do it.




Indeed; that's exactly what we're seeing here, just like every other time a woman complains about not getting that power in exchange for the sex she had 50+ years ago.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


so much as pointing out that accusations of sexual deviance were not first levied by the pro-trans faction.




Yet those accusations are the bread and butter of the pro-trans faction.  "Why do you want to know about their genitals?" [intended with this implication] is kind of the standard pro-trans canard; hell, you're actively using it yourself.






Philosophy Bear's concept of 'inadmissible knowledge' gives the example of someone whose father is a murderer.




I'll start taking that seriously when [the set of people who are overwhelmingly likely to be pro-trans] stop blood libelling me for being part of the murder gender (and conversely, granting themselves extra privileges for being the should-protect-from-murder gender).  Granted, this isn't directly the argument you're making, but it does point to the pro/anti-trans thing being more who/whom, and the actual "gender euphoria" is arguably just as much about ramming your ideology down everyone's throat (remember when 2010s atheists used to say that?  Guess that aged poorly) than it is the psychological effects, or personal benefits, of dressing as the opposite gender in public.






I don't think it's generally right for what someone is and isn't allowed to do to vary based on accidents of birth.




Ok, so what about kleptomania or pedophilia (in the "older man hits on your 5 year old daughter" sense- not something that would raise 'consent' issues)?


I'd give you points for being consistent and accepting both on its face (after all, how could mere speech be harmful?)... but if you don't, well, now we're just haggling over the degree of "is and isn't allowed based on real or imagined harms to the participating parties, willing or not".




I'm not interested in the pretense that it isn't a sexual deviance.  It pretty clearly is, on its face in fact- what we're actually debating is to what degree that should matter, and who should be forced to accept what.


Which is why the motte of the anti-trans argument centers around "they are completely unwilling to accommodate for anyone else"- something you yourself acknowledge.  The bailey is stupid and absurd, but then again, the bailey of the pro-trans argument is "they should be forced at literal gunpoint to accommodate for me" and not merely "they want to be allowed to do the same things as cis individuals are allowed to do".


As [for the purpose of this argument] a cis-person, I don't have the right to summon the State to beat someone into submission should they call me a woman.  That is, very literally, what trans-people insist on (or rather what their loudest advocates insist on; trans-people don't actually have a critical mass and most of the fight is an intra-woman conflict, but that's out of scope at the moment.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That would have been real conversation.




It's irritating how 'conservatives' haven't figured out how to call themselves 'reform' yet.  To a degree, the under-40s have figured that out anyway (and the label's just for the benefit of the Boomers, much like 'liberal's are the enemy of classical liberalism these days no matter what the old think), but I'd rather have someone intelligent talk frankly about it than just jacking off in the corner Politics 1.0 style.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Because this process takes like 10 years and we'd like to hurry up so they aren't denied the objectively best years of their life?  (Note that this also applies to every other college degree.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Men and women currently have legal equality in the United States.


They pretty clearly don't have legal equity, though.  I believe the feminists/progressives are correct when they say this matters; where they're wrong is that they have excess privilege and will on balance be more oppressed than men if it was to be equalized.  (Which is why they're not exactly in a hurry.)


Equality was supposed to be a stepping stone to equity, and the liberals were correct that it would [and did] help in that regard, but it's gone as far as it realistically can and other solutions are now needed.  Strict egalitarianism was perhaps OK in the early-mid 20th century, but in the 21st now leads to destructive nonsense, like forcing women to permit men to compete in women's sports so long as they claim to be female, institutional sexism (gender quotas, etc.) in companies, moral hazard enabled by human instinct to value women more than men, etc., which helps nobody, intentionally frustrates your high performers, and weakens the social contract for everyone else.


So no, I don't think strict legal equality is desirable any more.  I think women need to be punished for hysteria just as much as men do for violence as hysteria is their biological way of marshaling violence (we punish those who hire hitmen in equal measure as the hitmen themselves for this reason), and that human dignity must be balanced against pure safety concerns when drafting laws (for in its majestic equality, the law prevents both men and women from activities and socialization preferred by men).