ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
15hr ago
Sure, but who's going to hold them accountable if they don't do it?
(The current answer is "nobody, and if men themselves try it, they'll just get oppressed and blood-libelled even harder for it", and it shows.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
18hr ago
I agree with your assessment of feminists unionizing to increase its market value, but think that this makes them just as bad as the dudebros who want to minimize its market value.
Ok, now apply that to all work (assuming sex is just a special type). So, arguments rephrased, we'd see
Being forced to work with someone who doesn't want to work with you in exchange for resources dilutes, destroys, and delegitimizes the value of [whatever goal you had, prosocial or otherwise]. This is related to the job-hopping crisis as well (where employees don't stay around long enough to accumulate appropriate experience, and employers don't bother training or retaining employees).
and
Workforces are free, open, impersonal, interchangeable. Projects are not. You can't funge progress in one project for progress in another. Not if you want to ever do anything difficult or of actual consequence.
which seem pretty correct to me.
I look at all the people angry about gender issues, and see that almost all of their problems wouldn't have happened a hundred years ago.
100 years ago, feminism was at its political zenith, so I don't think this is true at all. 200 years ago, perhaps.
Relationships shouldn't be treated as markets of exchange.
Nobody knows how to properly calibrate to the opportunity cost of switching (and setting it to 'infinite', which is the traditional solution, has some pretty trivial abuse paths- that's how you get death-by-overwork on one end and work-to-rule on the other), and nobody wants [or knows how] to invest especially when losing your shirt is a possibility that you don't have to submit to any more.
I don't see how you can look at the modern dating market and go "this is basically fine, nothing needs to change".
Don't confuse my observation of 'is' for 'ought'. Actually, I think most of the problems arise from the participants in the modern dating market failing to assess their value accurately, but the alternative to that- which is that they know exactly what price they merit and why- might be even worse off for "well, guess I won't even bother trying to raise that value" reasons.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
19hr ago
is to give them a hard, confusing, self-contradictory problem and then see which ones figure out the answer.
Sure, but instinct doesn't self-moderate in the presence of better alternatives, which is why a good chunk of [modern] men can now go "you're not worth it, go fuck yourself" to women (and society as a whole, for that matter). It's not necessarily a positive thing, but it is a necessary part of the process.
Just as fathers failed their daughters in the '50s and '60s by giving them outdated self-sabotaging advice (the "never make anything of yourself, just marry well" one that feminists complain about), mothers fail their sons now in the same way (the "respect women and make yourself as unattractive as possible" stuff).
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
21hr ago
But all men, including her dad, need to feel shame for the choices of those 15 year olds.
It's called "internalized misandry".
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2d ago
You don't believe that sex is labor. Not really.
The baseline reality of a sexually dimorphic species is quite literally just this. I've talked about this before, and you know that.
We can pretty it up with a bunch of things- something about "inherent dignity" or whatever (which can be valid, if you can command enough violence to enforce it)- but at the end of the day this is the condition.
Because then a rapist isn't a violator of a woman's chastity, but merely a robber of a stranger sort.
Robbery is the main crime, but rape also generally involves a bunch of other more interesting types of robbery (assault and unlawful confinement being the usual two, but there are others). Those things also come with significant costs that push the cost of that action far beyond the 300-600 dollars a naive assessment would suggest.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2d ago
Apparently, we didn’t realize hijackings could be suicidal.
You don't need the TSA precisely because, since 2001, every passenger has had it drilled into them they're the last line of defense and that if you let a hijacking go, you're going to die. This isn't the '70s or '80s where hijackers were annoying but mostly harmless- it is that kind of population that needs the TSA, not the modern one where everyone knows they're an existential threat.
If you're going to die in an intentional plane crash at any time past that point, it's because the plane hijacked itself pilot did it on purpose, and the locked door kept the passengers out until it was too late.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2d ago
This is exploitative because it forces people to perform actions they shouldn't be forced to perform.
I_consent_I_consent_I_dont.jpg
Meanwhile, the exchange of labor for money is inherent to... reality.
Sex is labor, usually performed in exchange for vital resources (modern welfare states excepted). Even the feminists acknowledge this, though considering feminism is in a very literal sense a union of the dedicated sex-laborer gender, and a cartel interested in driving the price of that sex as high as possible (and your "shouldn't" happens to be one of their slogans), I'm not sure how much credit they deserve for pointing that out.
but this is fundamentally different from saying exchanging labor for money is inherently exploitative
No it isn't, per the above.
Unless the argument is that labor itself is inherently demeaning and degrading, in which case Marx just has an irreconcilable problem with reality itself
No further comment.
that by all rights ought
Who "ought" decide that? You can say "the community", but there's nothing that backs that up outside of its members' capacity for violence in the service of reaching a consensus. Which is kind of just how socialism works.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
3d ago
corruption refers to a specific set of practices, many if which are illegal and most of which violate ethics rules
No, corruption is the idea that your personal goals are so important that you're willing to break the law to accomplish them. Antifa, therefore, is simply corruption by another name.
and holding certain opinions isn't illegal
It isn't illegal to be a member of the Mafia either, but they're never punished for that; they're punished for the evil, corrupt actions that naturally arise from that idea taken to its logical conclusion.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
3d ago
'There can't be any "members" of Antifa. It's just an idea, not an organization, bro.'
"Corruption" is just an idea too; that doesn't stop us from punishing those who advance its cause.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
4d ago
Man I always complete forget that the Zumwalt exists
Yeah, it's a stealth ship, that's how it works.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5d ago
But that gets too close to the truth of the matter: illegals are an invading army, and they were actively aided in their invasion of the US by the people in power at the time, English Civil War-style. (Which is why the domestics responded, correctly, by voting for the guy who promised to send his army after them.)
That the foreign soldiers should be treated differently than the domestic soldiers (Blue's other pet demographics, as they carry out the violence they wish they were doing to those with something to lose) would just be too much, because it would open the door to using it on other useful-to-Blue demographics (or "racism" for short). It's also not something you can really turn against Reform as easily, because Establishment benefits disproportionately from the ability to make the process the punishment- that's not something you could do if you have the right to a speedy trial a more efficient tribunal system, and certainty of being punished for bad laws speed-camera-style generally results in an stronger impulse from the population to reform them.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
6d ago
and they should have a plan to protect children just in case
Why? Those children serve as the hair trigger for the tripwire force (they've learned well from Hamas), and you don't even have to arm them for them to be effective in that role. Aggressively putting them in danger like that is kind of the point.
At least if they do get killed you don't have to wait very long for their replacements- it takes 14-16 years for a militarily-effective male to grow, but little girls can play the part of "cry for the cameras while being on fire" in as few as 5 or 6. Lightning fast by comparison. (Dead babies aren't quite as photogenic.)
you might end up with a legitimate secessionist movement
It's kind of already here. It doesn't have as much support in the cities (NDP voters [progressives] are 95-5 against, UCP voters [traditionalist-liberals] are 60-40 for, UCP is majority party) but it's clear to every Westerner (and Easterner, for that matter) under 40 that they'll never be permitted to win an election in this country- outside of one 4-year period they never have.
It's treated as absurd, as if QC has the exclusive right to agitate so
QC is different because they don't actually need to hold the executive to get what they want.
AB, by contrast, has to hold the executive; if it doesn't the Easterners just team up to block everything. Older AB residents are probably made happier by the Carney regime's recent overtures about more development... but those aren't really his policies, and even the CPC voted for those bills. I don't think it's as reliable a signal of "well they're going to vote LPC at the first opportunity", this is the bare minimum that the LPC believes has to happen for the country not to splinter.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
every single conservative leader is prima facie suspicious
This is because, from the only politically relevant perspective in Canada (Easterners), they are foreigners.
I can't really overstate that enough. Western Canada is a foreign country to them, and that means their political parties are foreign too- CPC and NDP both. The NDP collapsed because it was indistinguishable from the LPC (and is why its only seats are out in the West).
You never vote for a foreigner in a crisis, Trump is the Worst Thing Ever to the Eastern Boomers, QED.
This isn't that complicated, unless you're of the opinion that Canada is a political monolith (which polls tend to do, for reasons that at least rhyme with manufacturing consensus).
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
Why should anyone bother voting Conservative if it just means tax cuts and infinity immigrants?
That's why they lost the last 2 elections. This is why PP continues to have that mandate, by the way- at least he's saying Reform things this time rather than "but we should bend over backwards for whatever Karen of Toronto wants". You can't win that way, you see.
The NDP was the other counterbalance for reform, but they're arch-Conservatives now, which is why they're so indistinguishable from the LPC that most of their MPs are LPC now.
we may see Canada simply become a one-party two-bit petrostate.
If the petrostate part of the petrostate isn't smart [or powerful] enough to prevent that, and content with losing elections for ever, then it will be so.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
it will create a decade-plus backlog of appeals in a system that is already not fit for purpose.
Nonsense, this is the system working as intended. Who's going to hold it to account? Clearly, voting doesn't matter- whatever party rep you selected is just going to go LPC anyway becuase fuck you, that's why.
What's even more insane is that legacy Canadian media appears to be supporting this push for his deportation to be waived.
Media system working exactly as it's intended to.
the Liberals have managed to somewhat skillfully defuse immigration as the bomb around their neck
Immigration was never a bomb around the LPC's neck, though: it helps exclusively their voters, and that's the only Canadian that matters.
See, LPC voters care about two things, and two things only: the price of their house, and flapping their jowls at the US (and any liberal reforms in that direction; the LPC is a Conservative party, not a classically liberal one). Carney is objectively the best candidate for those things, and that's clearly good enough for a dictatorship.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
but the sheer number of them in such a short span of time, let alone to form a majority government, is entirely novel.
Yes, the government just straight up refusing to respect the results of the election is extremely novel for Canada.
Question is, of course, if anyone's going to care about that; or if the people that do care the most (i.e. people who don't live in Ottawa) are simply going to decide to quit. Sure, oil prices being higher helps those people in particular, but who knows if that's going to last.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
8d ago
Which means the Internet is the final frontier (in both the 'infinite probability space' and 'the last one that exists' sense), and to a point is still beyond the reach of the Karen. (Which, of course, is why the states proposing this are who they are.)
The thing that people tend to miss is that it is vital to the health of any society that Karen must be oppressed, because she deserves to be. But then again, that's just the mission statement of/justification for [classic] liberalism.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
8d ago
My eight year old neice doesn't have a smartphone, but kids at her school do and have shown her videos of ISIS beheadings.
Ah, older siblings. Where would we be without them? (A better place, perhaps?) Perhaps more interesting is the apparent fact they're able to correctly spell 'beheading', given their typical performance on the more pedestrian spelling tests and the lack of auto-complete.
Kids have been grossing each other out and watching absurd nonsense since forever. Porn is kind of like that [for them] too, for that matter, though I get that women (and their simps) complain about normalizing the concept that women have sex, occasionally on camera- which is naturally/by instinct what they're trying to stamp out. Of course, these women will then turn around and assert that a 7 year old boy willing to play with the dollies is trans and needs immediate medical treatment.
I'm less concerned about teenagers and more concerned about very small children.
I believe you are incapable of telling the difference between the two. That property affects young adults (and by extension, older adults) more negatively than it does small children, for obvious reasons, but it's fun to do that to them so people see that as a value-add. It's neutral at worst; it's not like they vote.
The free for all status quo simply allows those norms to be set by tech companies, rather than by parents.
Or rather, currently the norms are set by reality, not parents. Naturally, parents are very angry and Stressed(tm) out about this.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
12d ago
yet decline to call this sexism
It's only sexism if it's against women.
It remains a gynosupremacist statement, however; X-supremacy was what "X-ism"s were invented to prosecute.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
14d ago
I think his arguments were retarded, but really his biggest flaw is that he was unwilling to talk about literally any other topic
And this is different than the GP's "natural order is man > woman, anything else is Satan"... how, exactly? (Though I get that JuliusBranson, whose alt that was, was/is just kind of like that- and to be fair mangoodwomanbad generally isn't used as a self top-level post, or when it is, it's not quite that naked.)
The trick about arguing against discrimination against children this way is that it's kind of like arguing against discrimination against those poor in worth more generally- and it might be justified simply on those grounds- it's simply what's in the water and thinking about it too much means you're only in it for the miscegenation, so to speak. (Actually, I guess tomboys also count as miscegenation under those rules.)
Sure, but feminism and communism (the two most common ideologies of this type) can take a very long time to break that society, especially if that society is lucky enough.
We do have one example of how fast things fall apart, of course; South Africa's trajectory is a pretty clear object lesson on that.
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).
More options
Context Copy link