ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
15hr ago
· Edited 14hr ago
So, about that.
One notes that, for the last 50 years, "Muhrasism" was the room temperature in which one raised one's children. Again, mostly championed by the people who no longer had to deal with the urban poor.
Now these people, born and raised in the [technically, pagan] religion of Muhrasism (which they brought with them, just like Italians brought the Mafia, and it functions the same way), are back in the city- because they can't afford to live elsewhere.
They're not wealthy enough to pay the penalty for blasphemy against this religion (one notes the current blasphemers are "responsible for a significant chunk of space architecture" and "wrote a stupendously successful series of children's novels"- anyone capable of being a real turning point gets shot to death by jihadists), so the religion persists.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
15hr ago
· Edited 15hr ago
I dunno.
I could believe that suburbanization depressed prices in inner cities, which proceeded to attract the kinds of people who can afford them, and that has a feedback loop where the presence of said people depresses the prices ("gentrification" works both ways).
The difference back in the '40s-'90s was that very cheap new technology (and a massive domestic manufacturing base) made building outwards attractive, and building outwards was still perfectly legal, so everyone except the very poor could afford to do it (and at that point, out of sight, out of mind). Evaporative cooling in the lower priced areas occurred. And then the demand for low-skill labor started drying up in the late '70s.
(One notes that once there's nothing for an unemployed man to do, he will turn to sex work- which for men is waging war- and if there is no organization willing or able to point him at a foreign enemy he will simply start a civil war at home, or "turn to crime" for short.[1, 2])
One might even point out that, if that is true, that suburbanization led to desegregation. City people are notoriously authoritarian more or less out of necessity- the number of people affected by poor behavior is drastically higher, compounded with there being far more poor per square mile.
So as normal people increasingly left for new land, they found that they didn't need to defend themselves from the [urban] poor any more (and further are now subject to other selection effects: that people who look like the urban poor, who make it out to the suburbs, are as far away from "urban poor" as you can get).
Naturally, with far less exposure to them, one would naturally be more sympathetic to the notion [that "looks like an urban poor" and "is an urban poor" are incompatible], and so as soon as they solidify as a voting bloc they will use that as a weapon and claim that people who are using the easiest, lowest-information proxy for who is urban poor are morally corrupt for doing so (or "racist" for short).
Which is easy to say, when the moral hazard is in your favor.
[1] Especially when a government agency is selling an incredibly cheap war-enhancing drug to those men rather than financing an expeditionary force to fight such a war themselves, perhaps contra Iran?
[2] One will also note that "fighting a civil war at home" is specifically what a very famous part of American law is meant for; the urban poor are exercising their rights appropriately. This fact makes a lot of people uncomfortable and led to a bunch of hysteria, mostly about "assault handguns". The right to do this is important specifically because it makes a threat clear: alienate a population because the Chinaman is a better worker than the domestic urban poor, and the urban poor have the right and responsibility to make you pay for it. Unfortunately for the urban poor, anyone who could organize a proper resistance... all left for the suburbs (or got killed themselves).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
17hr ago
Carney may, he talks that way at least. As if he's the head of some European democracy.
Obviously- he's more Brit than Canadian (one notes a foreign king on the throne- anything but the domestic option, clearly). And the people who voted for him all remember a time when Britain, and not America, was how Canada defined itself (politically and morally)- this is the Conservative view in the country (the party calls itself something else).
Everyone who was born after that (which goes double for the people outside the Canadian Imperial capital- Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal) voted for the Reform party (the party calls itself something else).
Canada seems to want to stand up to Trump.
Everyone who doesn't work for a living wants this.
Or the explanations have a curious contradiction between how vicious Trump is supposed to be (so you can't give an inch) and how constrained a war with said vicious person is going to be.
It's jingoism, plain and simple. The old always take the young for granted and provoke stupid wars on purpose- after all, they aren't going to be fighting, now are they? The young will fight and die to preserve the political prerogatives of the old (except this time the old has nothing to pay them with).
A long time ago that point was stressed, repeatedly, by those who actually fought in Great European Civil War WW1/2- by the same people who vote for Carney now. Public education was wasted on them, clearly.
the northern version of Yglesian thinking. Trudeau killed it.
Trudeau championed it, Carney would continue it if he could afford it. The country has shifted its moral capital into fighting the trade war and away from "accept infinity migrants".
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
because I'm sure many of the teenage runaways, especially girls, were sexually assaulted, molested, trafficked, recruited to become drug smugglers or prostitutes etc., crimes which were generally never reported
Er... you thought room and board were free? The actors were making rational tradeoffs here; that's kind of why they were never reported.
(Just like the groupies, for that matter, but in a slightly different way.)
Assuming female hypoagency here (and conflating teenagers with children, which you do further below) is a mistake; I believe the meme was "I was young and needed the money". That is the labor they offer to get things that they want. Marriage is kind of the same way, just longer-term.
Complaining about this is just an isolated demand for rigor around sex, which in an environment of equality is incorrect.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
Boomers are in fact the most guilty of anyone in voting themselves budget-busting entitlement expansions.
Exhibit A being COVID-19, of course, to the tune of several trillion.
"Taking away the [outgroup] gibs" and "voting for more [ingroup] gibs" are the same thing, by the way, because the way they're paid for is through inflation.
Whoever's not getting the gibs is therefore who's paying for it.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
the aftermath of WW2, where German jews were displaced across Europe
Well, no. The problem asylum laws try to solve was "they tried to escape before the camps began, and were turned away". (Of course, they're not necessarily the central example of an asylum-seeker at that point, now are they?)
Hence the posture of the laws being that permissive, but they were ultimately meant for Never Again.
What they ended up being actually used for was... well, not that.
Shithole sand wars happen constantly, all the time. It's the default state of the area.
And if the faction in the West who wants them imported actually cared, they'd send some military advisors and some weapons with which to defend themselves. Or simply volunteer themselves. Just like they did at every other point in the 20th century (Israel and Ireland being the two best examples), and are still doing in the 21st with Ukraine.
Of course, that faction also conveniently hides behind an identity of "we're not cultural imperialists, that's our outgroup's job" despite the fact they do literally nothing else at home. So they only care inasmuch they can make their domestic enemy pay for it.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
because even saying “ChatGPT, whip me up a sick new game” is already too much effort for most people
It's honestly shocking to the extent to which I have found this to be true. I don't know why that is yet: maybe some sort of [rational insofar the mind is evaluating the situation accurately] depression?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
It's literally just colonialism.
Just as orders from some distant capital give the white man power to displace the Indian, now that same distant capital give the Indian power to displace the white man.
We do this with the excuse, both times, that we're civilizing the wastes. The natives are Naziracists Savages; their ways of life must be destroyed to make way for ours.
So we'll stoke the blood feud, and pretend that the native is the Savage. We will send him to residential schools to educate him in our way. We will take his children away if he refuses to adopt our religion (Safety is our goddess- there's no Creator, no afterlife). And though there was a mechanism for us to get along, we will destroy it simply by making it illegal to enforce the law against its destruction.
We do this because we don't want to bother getting the fuck along. They are Savages, we (and they) believe we will win any war, and so they shall accept this eventual death or face immediate death.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Well, that and having the relevant authority figures intentionally fuel that resentment and anxiety (including through media and laws specifically crafted to enforce the same), exaggerating risks, downplaying benefits, degrading either sex's ability to practice [or want to practice] being attractive to the other.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Your basic Untitled fare (for both genders).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
No.
I think the average person is more likely to attempt to suppress it far beyond that age than is normal (though the average age of virginity loss is to my knowledge still under 18, which is good).
And I think that is undignified, harmful, and requires you to have an ultimately unhealthy relationship with your sexuality. Young adults are supposed to want sex, and they're supposed to want it enough to actually get it; if they're doing neither of those things they're malfunctioning.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
I’ve for a few years realize I hate labels like far-right or moderate.
Once you realize these labels are for the exclusive benefit of Boomers it all makes a lot more sense.
They're not for anyone else- they barely even vote anyway.
Well, not quite.
The subject of the agency comparison is important; you have to use the same one or it doesn't work. So, hyperagency in this scenario would be "even though the woman wasn't at fault she accepts the blame anyway".
However, you are correct in noting that the ingroup/outgroup dichotomy does indeed generalize as "hypoagency for me, hyperagency for thee". (Compare "privatize gains, socialize losses"; the degree of deadweight loss created matches how untrue the lie is.)
So, "hypoagency for me" means "even though she was objectively at fault she [should never be expected to] take the blame", and "hyperagency for thee" would mean "even though he wasn't at fault he [should be expected to] accepts the blame anyway".
In other words, hypoagency/hyperagency is [within the person] a bias towards being too self-centered or too self-destructive, respectively. (Both are harmful insofar as they disrupt your ability to get an accurate picture of your surroundings.)
By contrast, the ingroup/outgroup one is self-centered when you're in the ingroup, and self-destructive when you're in the outgroup.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
But that would require trusting institutions and power structures to be fair.
Which the side in power can't do, and the side not in power needs to cherry-pick hard enough against the institutions so they can get over the hump and take power.
Which results in them being bound in the same way. The fair people are always bouncing between the two sides/playing them against each other for this reason.
(In the same way, little kids who want maximum ability to do whatever happens to interest them [in relative innocence] will always pit Mom against Dad. Mom can be moderated with the dignity/Dad arguments, Dad can be moderated with the safety/Mom arguments. It's not that complicated, never has been- assuming equality, all humans are "assigned" to the Mom or Dad bias- it just never fit some of us all that well.)
and the police will arrest women for them anyway
Well, I have to deal with that possibility when I take certain actions to save my life. Why should women be exempt?
(You usually only get a couple of seconds to make the decision whether you'd chance being judged by 12 or carried by 6. When you take the perspective the State does, where all life belongs to the State, self-defense is the exact equivalent to an abortion.)
The prevailing theory amongst the concerned is that those carve-outs are fake
So exactly like they can be at times if in a Blue state and the human being deleted was of their favored demographic, then.
And no. From a symmetrical viewpoint, Red's favored demographic isn't "babies". They simply prioritize the value of life that's more of an inherent threat/liability to the opposite gender. For Blue, they trade off potential increased death for men as the cost of "[non-white] bodies"; for Red, they trade off potential increased death for women as the cost of "baby bodies".
(Thinking babies are somehow sacred here will prevent you from fully understanding this- men/Red reveal this preference, women/Blue don't. If you want to be fair, you must put that moral revulsion aside; if you want to understand women/Blue, you must re-assign sacredness to their demographics instead. You don't get to change this; it's just how it works.)
Progressives have a saying that "when you're privileged, equality feels like oppression". I can't say I disagree.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
Wasn't Clancy's?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
"It's okay to kill liabilities" might be rephrased as "it's okay to kill liabilities if it's the only way to get rid of them".
No, it can't; the other option is "have the baby, put it up for adoption right then".
The point is that being forced to do that is, on its face, a threat to female power. It doesn't matter what it is; it's getting sacrificed for more power for them (usually couched as "never vulnerable to the Patriarchy", but that's just a soundbite).
So it's opposed by the bloc of women who want power as an end unto itself. Those looking for it as means are more even-handed, but they're not talking about this, now are they?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
If you model them as moneymaxxing for themselves or their country, you will be surprised time and time again.
"Feeling morally righteous and impactful" is moneymaxxing provided you're considering the socio- part of socioeconomics.
People always feel maximally moral when there's the most moral hazard available for them to exercise. This is why a particular class of people feels that not permitting mass migration would be immoral- they have the most to gain, and they receive that knowledge through instinctual navigation of market dynamics.
And financial forces shape morality too; if the second Great Depression hit (let's assume it's AI, tomorrow) mass migration would no longer be quite so moral- the people who want it would no longer be able to afford it. If they pivoted, they would pivot to the morality of UBI instead.
I just don't buy that our society incentivizes women to murder their children for convenience's sake.
So why do we have abortion laws, then? The women tell me it's literally a female-privilege/power thing- that the baby creates a liability, and that it's OK to kill liabilities.
Are they incorrect? Obviously they must be.
If they are correct, then "I am allowed to abort my children whenever I want, including post-natally" is trivially a natural consequence of the same abortion argument.
Note that I do completely agree that this case isn't motivated by convenience (because she had other ways to do that). It's basically just a bog-standard family annihilator case, with the associated motivations- convenience may commonly be claimed (or shorthand) for the motive in those cases, but I doubt that's anywhere near the whole story.
To the point that I actually don't think there's anything mentally wrong with the people that do this (well, other than "being insufficiently able to resist a very specific trapped prior", which is what some types of mass shooters do as well, right down to the suicide [by self or cop]).
But that's not insanity. You had the choice to resist doing that and you didn't; that's why it needs to be prosecuted.
Yet the women defending her are doing so because they perceive, correctly, that their convenience/privilege would be called into question should she be found guilty. That's the difference.
They can't just say "bad woman was bad, #notAllWomen", for the same reason behind why every mass shooting turns into a gun control male privilege debate (and note that these are the women who absolutely will #allMen when that happens).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
who would sooner die than blemish their own ego
Hence the ultimate problem with the concept of the "middle class".
If they refuse the duty to lead, perhaps because they're too busy making money (or because they just aren't fit to lead in the "eww, that's icky" way), then the status and productivity that makes them middle class will eventually be redistributed away from them. Fools and their money, etc.
And that's the thing, it's emotions they have. If they had at any point decided to kill their own babies, they believe they should not be punished for it. Their emotions aren't just valid, they're reality.
Funny, I was kind of having this same argument with another guy yesterday.
Failure, intentional [as "I don't want to get dirty"] or unintentional, to understand why the bad human thinks he is justified won't bring you towards your goal at all. (It's also the problem when men complain about [progressive] morals without taking the time to first understand women, for that matter; that's precisely why all the reactionary criticisms fall flat.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
Free workers were in constant competition with vast hordes of immigrants who worked as slaves to enrich a small elite. Thankfully nothing like this is happening today.
And there definitely wasn't a significant amount of energy put into the reform faction, and they never tried to throw the reform faction's leader in jail as soon as his legal immunity expired, and that question definitely had nothing to do with any resulting civil war.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
but Hillary getting upset about Bernie’s racism struck me as a cynical appeal to black voters more than anything real
Which her successor would make much clearer later; I believe his words were something to the effect of "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black".
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
Justified vent against selfish women aside, I don't think "repeal the 19th" is likely to be a helpful think to do- merely retvrning to 1900's solutions is not going to be the answer because it's not 1900 any more, so the solutions of 1900 are simply not appropriate (and the changes that were made from 1900-1940 in particular are what we're forced to deal with right now- all the money that kept us from having to face them directly is gone).
In the early days of the United States, only those who owned a certain amount of property were allowed to vote
The obvious problem being that said landowners will just block all development, and in so doing block all reform. They already do this in coastal states and (ab)use the "muh environment" veto; landowners don't need any more political power. (Some ancient societies had this problem too.)
The problem you're trying to solve for is moral hazard.
I think a sufficiently-expansive definition of "taxpayer" might work, and gives the government a certain other kind of power to do big things in return for a populace that quite literally loses the right to complain. So, you could create a government initiative to bail out students under crushing loan debt at the cost of their vote for the next X years (since this would drop anyone with a net-negative job under this threshold). You'd need a lot more accounting for each citizen, though, but State capacity is large enough to do that now. You could offer public-funded healthcare with the same condition attached.
You'd also have to compensate for women with children somehow, since being a full-time SAHM naturally limits the amount of tax you can pay, and revoking the right from women who both obviously have a stake in the future/doing what they are supposed to be doing is not likely to be productive.
I also think that should include public sector workers; if your employer is the [X level of] government, you don't get a vote in [X level's] elections, simple as. They have already received their allotment of power through being employed by a highly stable government position, getting to set their own salaries and policies too is double-dipping. It might also include farmers and other workers in bailed-out industries for the same reason.
If you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you are charged in this way for your stay. (This doesn't change much in terms of felon voting rights, but it's an easy justification for why they should disappear, and also provides an automatic mechanism for restoration rather than begging for pardons.)
(You could solve the illegal immigrant problem in a similar way too: if use of taxpayer-funded services are being offered to non-citizens, then each member of a polity suffers a penalty to its political power. Polities [and voters] clearly need to be incentivized to follow the immigration laws.)
I mean, there's no retreat; that's what I meant in the first place, and why I opened with it.
that argument that socialism is based on envy
While that's to a point the kind of socialism we were talking about, I notice there's something a bit more subtle in there that 'mere' envy doesn't match.
(There is specifically a "this exact attitude" in here that doesn't quite cleanly fit your buckets.)
Feelings are not self-justifying.
Sure they are, from the human-only perspective.
But I'm not going to waste more time trying to explain that concept to you since, well, you clearly stopped reading about halfway through.
Well, let me try again.
Once upon a time there were suburbs. And the people there didn't see the point of racism, mainly because they had moved away (or could move away) from the thing racism was a proxy for: controlling the urban poor. So they got rid of it.
Their children proceeded to form their entire civic identity around being "the people that banned racism" (they did no such thing, of course- that was all their parents, and these people who think they did it were completely unaware of the calculus behind it. As such, those born in the '50s and '60s are both the most zealous about this and are currently at the apex of their political power).
Those people also banned the construction of new suburbs.
Now their children are in cities (mainly because new suburb construction was banned) and have rediscovered that the protections against the urban poor were necessary.
But they can't get those protections. This is mostly because the people who they need protection from happen to be black, and so desiring that protection is "racist", which violates a religious tenet. (Most of the "X-ist" claims are religious tenets in the same way and for the same reasons.)
And they're too poor to combat this religion. If they were rich enough not to get demoted to urban poor for speaking against that religion [or "blasphemy" for short], they could just leave the city, solving the problem. So the only people invested are inherently going to be ideologues, and if they're at all competent the religion stochastically generates a holy warrior to kill that person.
(Considering those warriors tend to get caught, and the penalty for murder is still death, there's no functional difference between murdering political opponents on religious grounds and your standard run-of-the-mill suicide bombing.)
More options
Context Copy link