@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

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

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 3 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Are American parents just becoming disturbingly vicious and attacking their kids more than in the past?




No, but




Are American adults just becoming disturbingly vicious and attacking kids more than in the past?




is true, trivially.  Where else do you think the CPS reports are coming from?  They don't just magically appear out of thin air, a concerned citizen hysterical, typically middle-aged, woman has to call them in.


Hysterical middle-aged women have more power now than they did in the '50s and '60s, so when they call and complain about unattended children the State listens unless it has been expressly prohibited from doing so, and this is more likely to be the case in states when this type of woman has less power, Utah being the best example.




1/3 of American children are threatened by State abduction by the time they are 18. That sounds like a ridiculous number.




Considering the rate women claim to be abused/assaulted by men, I actually don't think it's that out of left field for women to abuse/assault children at the same rate, and the premium on top of that is because (despite the feminist claims about the former) we actively encourage that abuse.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, this one's a lot more systemic.  If I recall correctly this guy was already convicted of a crime co-morbid with multiple mental disorders, but let off easy.  (Can't imagine why that would be.)  Failing to punish crime properly, which is a progressive goal, has actual consequences that look shockingly like dead 12 year olds.




and I am sure you have some story of some Trump supporter having a psychotic episode and shooting up a shopping mall getting spun as MAGA violence.




I mean, I have a story of some illegal gun owner who may or may not have been an RCMP informant shooting roughly 20 people and that getting spun as right-wing violence (and being banned and confiscated as a result), just like 2 million other people who have Canadian citizenship do.


Up until yesterday the dominant narrative in Canada was the notion that all mass shootings are straightwhitemen committing femicide against helpless women because Muh Patriarchy.  That narrative is dead now, and ironically referring to the killer as a woman hurts it a lot more than admitting the killer was trans.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure, "the victims deserved it" is always an option.


Unfortunately for the TRAs, this wasn't a Christian school.




I'm sure the TRAs themselves are pushing this one on the backchannel.




"The mass shooter was female" is the best concession they're going to get.  Because the truth- that this was violence the entire progressive political stack (by its own rules) is directly and solely responsible for- is an inconvenient one.


If anything the TRAs should be signal-boosting the couple of politicians who will inevitably shoot their mouth off too quickly in blaming trans people for this.  They're completely dependent on progressive success for survival.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Anyone can change their identity and pronouns at will, but by choosing to do something heinous, they have switched their identity to male.




"Choosing to do something heinous" and "changing their identity and pronouns at will" tend to go hand in hand, so this isn't acceptable to TRAs.  Their entire thing is that the community has no right to tell you who you are, no matter what.






but by choosing to do something heinous, they have switched their identity to male/"men bad, women good"




Older Boomer women currently wish this was the case so they could go on blaming men [and guns] for mass murder.  Having a pet of theirs rack up the highest kill count to date west of the Canadian Shield is incongruous with the "gendercide" narrative.


I think the pronouns will stick in this case; the demand for violence from straightwhitemen might exceed supply, but the reaction to that is an increase in the demand for violence perpetrated by non-straightwhitemen (because the demand for violence comes from the highly passive-aggressive "see, we were right about them, now it's time to make them pay" that characterizes most Western nations, in particular English-settled ones).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


none have let a shooting go to waste because it doesn't line up with the bill that's already in the chamber




Sure, but none of the perpetrators have been expressly, blatantly, inescapably representative of every Establishment failure.


This is part of why they want to call him a woman, but it forces the anti-gun side in particular to give up being able to use the superweapon of blaming men; conversely, allowing them to call him a man costs them credibility with the TRAs.




If the government can't protect against attacks like this, and the reason it can't protect against attacks like this is that it let an ugly/unpopular Progressive token minority off the hook while acting to punish everyone else (and in a way that directly led to their children being killed), at a time where the government can't even keep the fucking nation together?


Then yeah, I'd be trying to lay low too.  The most rabid anti-gunners in Canada might be tempted to go full Twitter meltdown, but if they do their time as a political force in Canada will be over.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There aren't enough guns left to ban for that (they already blew their loads on this 4 and 2 and 1 year ago), and the lack of coverage about what the guns the shooter used (along with how fatal the attack was given the near-immediate response time) suggests they weren't special in any way- likely a bog-standard hunting rifle or shotgun.


It's going to get ignored for that reason.  The gun-banning side will take an L, since most of the narrative is "u need to ban guns to protect wimminz", and this guy being [allowed to be] a woman damages that narrative- it's best for them it disappear.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, they're trans.


The media has 2 choices- double down on "we need to ban guns to protect women from male mass shooters" and throw trans women under the bus, or double down on TWAW and throw "it's all men's fault" out.


I think they're still figuring out which one it's going to be, but TWAW's in the lead right now.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


they listed off the genders of all of the victims (which I found a bit weird)




If you found that weird you're not being cynical enough.


The demand for straightwhiteman crimes against young women far exceeds supply.


The demand for woman or transwoman crimes against young women, not so much.  Of those, calling them a woman is perhaps the less damaging option.




Perhaps they were giving a Straussian hint.




The Canadian media already fell into that trap- "woman in a dress" = obviously trans.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


but clearly Canadian gun laws as they stand didn't stop this one




It's worse for the regime in this case because there's an active confiscation going on.  The government has been campaigning for the better part of a decade on it.  AUS murders did not happen under those conditions and the victims were perceived as having it coming- not quite the same thing.




Sometimes there are signs




If the most uncharitable rumors are true, institutionalization in some form have already occurred.




it's a shitty, inaccurate headline




It's made solely to justify reprisal attacks on the outgroup.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There is hardly anything about this in the American media today.




American media fails to publish story about news likely to be highly damaging to the preferred narrative of American media, news at 11.


Canadian media already fucked up and said too much about who the shooter was, so it's too late to deny it.  The fact they haven't reported anything else suggests the other facts of the case are likely not in the regime's favor.




I don’t feel the raw anger and hatred from when the Catholic school in Minnesota was hit.




Canadians are a lot more passive-aggressive than that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


and i'm trying to think of an explanation




Obviously, he was using a weapon that only did 33 damage.  Human beings have 100 HP; upon reaching 0 you become a ragdoll, but you'll be perfectly fine and suffer no ill effects even if you only have 1 HP.  (This is why using .50 BMG, or other guns that can do 100 or more damage, are considered war crimes- people just hate the instakill meta.)


In all seriousness, it's not the getting shot that kills you, it's the other biological consequences of what happens when you get a hole punched in a part of you that may result in death, where the cells that make you up can't get enough fuel or oxygen to sustain the combustion reaction necessary for life (as in, you can't breathe, or you have no more blood) and die.  When people appear to die instantly from this, it's mainly because the hole that was punched in them resulted in an immediate, catastrophic loss of blood flow (that system is also pressurized, so this tends to be really dramatic).


The meta for killing things is to create either larger holes, or more holes, so that this process happens faster.  As a general rule, concealable weapons (handguns, especially the smaller ones) are relatively bad at making the large holes, so they have to depend on many holes in the most vital part of the target; typically in the blood pump [heart], the air intake/exhaust manifolds [lungs], or by destroying the ECU's ability to run either of the former two [brain].  You can make bigger more destructive holes with a rifle, but it's useless if you can't even get the gun into the fight.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The government may want to consider this type of exposure in any final year sex ed/home economics programs in high school.




Yes, but if they did that then the rate of teen pregnancy would increase.  Since we axiomatically believe that's bad because reasons, this would be detrimental to that and the overall graduation rate, so the notion those metrics dropping is a Bad Thing would have to go away first.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But more because it marks you as someone who doesn't want to compete/isn't concerned about taking shortcuts; you're willingly accepting somewhat damaged goods rather than the more-desirable 15 year old peers you "should" be trying to date instead.


Sex you get for free is worthless as a status symbol, just marks you as a dumpster-diver (and marks [the sexual value of] the woman in the relationship as so undesirable she couldn't even give sex away, or merely perverted at best).  This is the spear counterpart to the "she isn't yet wise enough to be able to/to know to extract maximum resources from men" argument (usually stated as "not mature enough", eliding the truth that the only maturity that matters in women is physical), by the way.


This matters much less if the teacher's sufficiently hot or young, of course, but of course it would; that's not meaningfully distinct from a successful seduction on the man's part, as the status of having secured that sex is actually significant.






invited between her legs and manipulated.




Is sex inherently harmful, or is it not?  (This is rhetorical- everyone already knows their own private answer to this; that's why the compromise between 'yes' and 'no' yielded an age of consent, and to a point why that initial compromise progressed/regressed into the modern understanding of a gender of consent.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I believe ICE has more reason to fear from Cartels, gangs, and other drug and human trafficking organizations.




The largest human trafficking organization in the world has already threatened to prosecute each and every ICE agent for the crime of enforcing the law against human trafficking.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I wonder how much of this is just parents not being good at what they do.




A good chunk of it is; it's not like there's any objective way to measure performance beyond stuff, everyone has an opinion (and the more competent parents are, paradoxically, more likely to take advice they shouldn't be; the less competent ones won't), a first impression from "literally baby" tends to be detrimental to noticing the areas where that's no longer true.


But more than those things (and much as parents will parrot this when attempting to assert vetoes over stuff their future teenagers will do), parents are generally way too close to the problem.  Stuff that's obviously wrong to outside observers won't clock that way, and since the only person who'll ever be held to account for that is them 10-40 years down the line, with a healthy dose of "well, it worked, didn't it?", it's not something one is going to casually get shocked out of doing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


and telling AIs what to do has most of the same challenges plus a bigger communication barrier




Sure, but that's true no matter what "AIs" stand for; Artificial Intelligences, Actually Indians, Average Interns...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think it's less "undivided attention" and more "absence of the open hostility/irony-poisoning typical between grown men and grown women[1]", where undivided attention is a [beneficial?] side-effect of that.


On the female side, I can't think of any larger refutation of "sex for resources" than intentionally going after men who don't even have those resources, and so are selecting for earnestness/potential more than anything else.  It also throws out the protection that AoC is supposed to provide [to them as a class], since this is basically the only case where the risk is higher to the woman than it is to the man.  (Not that they won't be arrested for sending nudes of themselves, but still.)


It's easier on the men, perhaps, since they won't even get selected if they aren't like that and they're already being frustrated by their cohort of young women only attracted to older men anyway.  Perhaps it disadvantages young women once they hit 30 and this is basically allowing the good men to be taken out of the pool they'll be depending on later, but it's not acceptable for women to expect this and for the decent men to be forced to wait and have zero options until then.




It's a temptation many of them can't resist, as their lives are deeply frustrated in that area.




Yeah, can't imagine why that would be.




[1] The definition of "grown", of course, being "has become aware of, and internalized, that relationships are sex-for-resources because [reasons]".  This is perhaps the main change puberty makes to your brain.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


they are thinking guys who want to fuck girls that age when the men are the same age as the 30 year old woman are disgusting creepy predators.




And if it wasn't obviously in their interest to publicly believe this, I might believe this as well.  Half the problem with the "debate" is that this claim isn't being made in good faith; you acknowledge this yourself through your last sentence despite you already having established in previous comments that you know drawing that equivalence is wrong.


So, when everything anyone will tell you is going to be biased in their favor in some way, what else can you do but return to monke initial conditions and reason about what people will say about this topic now assuming those initial conditions remain valid (ignoring stuff like technologies [contraceptives, all known STDs of consequence cured except for one] with which human instinct is not natively compatible)?




The men on here who argue about "all women have of value are their tits and cunt, and that's all they have to sell"




And the women on here argue that "all men have of value is their ability to physically produce, and that's all they have with which to buy" (or "what price they can fetch on the employment marketplace").  Given gender equality, both should be valid.


The reason for the emphasis on this is that it's the only part of the dynamic we can actually control and measure, much like 6/6/6 is for women (but somehow that's acceptable, which again is why I believe women who do this while believing it's evil when men do it are mistaken at best and actively lying at worst).  And every relationship is affected by these dynamics to some degree; there's no getting away from it, we're all human, we like good things, and may God have mercy on our souls.


Is it the full picture?  Of course not; people marry their friends all the time to the point it's a meme, women actually seek out casual sex (contrary to an asymmetric biological imperative that they shouldn't), men actually seek out commitment, etc.- but to say that an age beginning with 1 or 2, or a total income that has 5 zeroes in it, isn't a measurable starting point at least some of the time (or at least an attractor, if not the primary one), and isn't the dominating portion of it from people who are working in a way compatible with their instincts?  I think that's likely to be destructive.






really scared that a 15 year old boy is going to out-compete you in the employment marketplace?




They'll outcompete me in the dating marketplace for cougars and tomboys (if male sexuality in a woman, then they're probably looking for someone young in that unrealized-potential-is-attractive way); why even live?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
True; that's why the AoC is currently infinite (and the women still honoring this compromise are generally seen as suckers).  I think I could be more precise in saying that they can't sell sex in the context of a relationship that isn't purely exploitative on the woman's part, though since that was the entire point of establishing the AoC in the first place...


All sex is rape [as women obviously can't be trusted not to call sex they regretted rape] + woman forced to marry her rapist [provided this didn't occur where anyone could have reasonably heard her cry rape] is a stable compromise, which is probably why traditionalist societies did that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


yeah, given my druthers, I'd much rather a hot little 15 year old than that 30 year old hag, I'm only 46, I'm in my prime!




Which is a situation that "30 year old hag" (in your words) would naturally like to avoid.  By cutting the top competitors out of the market, the rest of the competitors stabilize their positions.


Yes, the best men (from the most mercenary "sex for resources" perspective) are still going to select right at the limit.  But since that market is artificially limited, the total supply of women is constrained, thus the definition of any given quality of man "settling for" becomes a correspondingly older woman (as that's what they can afford; age is usually a proxy for this, which you acknowledge).  If no AoC, "settling" would be 20 (or a 8/10), but with the limit in place "settling" may be 25-30 (or a 5/10).


In this way, the AoC protects the sociofinancial interests of all women over it, at the expense of men (in the "not allowed to fully utilize resources for sex" sense, typically rationalized in some form of "men are objectively better than women and so have a duty to them") and women under it (typically rationalized as "too immature", but importantly the AoC doesn't actually prohibit these women from having sex, it just makes it so that the only men they can sell sex to can't afford to buy it).


Is this an overly simplistic model of how men and women form relationships?  Sure- most people aren't quite that mercenary- but there's always some element of this present in every relationship (and is the fear keeping the relevant actors up at night).






You are not convincing me of the rightness of your views here




On the contrary, I think you are already convinced.  It's not a crime to be on the high side of political power.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Indeed, how could the law ever criminalise emotional states?




And yet this actually is the law of the land; "woman regrets it afterwards" is the mechanism by which any sex may retroactively become rape.  If and when this fails in a court of law, laws get changed to make sure future instances of this succeed.




That's right out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.




Most (all?) modern gender politics are.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It makes sense once you figure out it's never been about protecting children.  (Death threat = topic is governed by conflict theory.)


It's about protecting old women from the competition [for men and their resources] young women inherently provide, in co-operation with a subset of old men [fathers] being able to credibly threaten to lock up whoever their daughters are dating.  Whether this is a good or bad thing is out of scope.


All of the other stuff it's claimed the blanket approach protects against is already covered by existing laws (rape/kidnapping, extortion, and anti-incest for the rest of it), so by POSIWID that's not what the AoC is for.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Terror" is just shorthand for "anti-Establishment activity", because 'the state of being terrorized' is trivially gamed.


Everything $political_opponent does is terrorism- always has been, and it always will be.




Were the Canadian truckers terrorists?




Under this definition, yes.  The reaction to it (freezing bank accounts) was also an act of terrorism for reasons I don't think I really have to explain.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How else can you deport a 5 year old kid.




Pretty easily, apparently.




We are the bad guy.




By which standard/from whose perspective?  If the people [who wanted to abuse the fact that cleaning up their mess can be made to look like murderism] actually cared about the well-being of 5 year olds (beyond their usefulness in this matter) actually cared, they would have done something else.  But they are not, so telling me I'm the bad guy for not caring is an isolated demand for rigor.  Same with the USAID stuff.


Everyone's always the bad guy, everything anyone ever does eventually results in some dead 5 year old.  Something can be terrible while still being the correct thing to do; hence the inherent tension in anyone who thinks with both heart and brain.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Genitals and reproductive systems are not a resource




[Citation needed.]  What's the world's oldest profession?




and making women's survival




The same forces that made women's survival contingent on marriage (a physical toil) are the same forces that made men's survival contingent on physical toil.  This is an isolated demand for rigor.


Of course, your theses force you into that demand, because those theses are functionally indistinguishable from "find in favor of Alice at all times".  As I mentioned in the other comment, this enables Alice to functionally rack up infinite debt, and take on infinite risk, that Bob is then expected to pay for- with no other justification for that burden than "but he's better".  How convenient that the lesser claim the greater is indebted to them.




has often given abusive men the ability to inflict terrible suffering on them.




Yeah, I hate working for shitty bosses too.  But, as they say, it's a living.