ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
a Hi-Point or a Tec-9
My point is that the two are not quite the same class of weapon- I think the criminal stock of the latter ramping up may have added a confounding increase at the time it was prevalent, so a decrease after that (when the common weapons for criminals downgraded to Hi-Points instead- if you consider that a downgrade I guess, heh) might not be as completely due to modern medicine.
Nah, the spiciest thing from me you're likely to get is the claim that 1 Corinthians 8 is... probably not only referring to idol food.
But that's slow-pitch as far as interpretations go, I'm pretty sure everyone already knows that anyway (even if only to abuse it because you want to completely disregard what the previous chapter says... and then create a bunch of fallout for being completely un-self-aware about what doing it does and/or creating a crisis of faith for yourself due to your inability to back up your actions), and it's... well, not unusual, but somewhat remarkable that it's a conclusion that falls out of the significantly more general "should social systems that are designed for the average person still let you flip the safety off, and if you do that, when should you do that, how should you talk/how public should you be about the choices you're making, and why?" discussions that are half of what anyone around here talks about these days anyway.
Maybe I'll have to come up with something more esoteric when I misremember something else about scripture and gender later; too bad that whenever I'm thinking about this it's not for very nice reasons.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
Huh, must have conflated the two in memory. (It still seems to me to be the main failure mode of how both genders handle being nasty in relationships, though.)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
Do they not recall being a teenager? Were they actually just weird, broken-brained teenagers that didn't act the way the rest of us did?
Evidently yes, but they might also be lying or otherwise acting in bad faith.
You can typically and trivially differentiate the people who don't or won't remember from the people who do/will because the people who won't remember typically use some form of the phrase "raging melanin hormones" as an excuse.
I already noted that schools do, and obviously should, forbid teachers from proselytizing on controversial issues.
No, they only forbid the topics more associated with Red tribe. The controversial Blue issues are a different story entirely.
If the system was working fairly, the Progress flag and the Christian cross would be equally acceptable on public display (that is the flip side but still the traditional definition of "protected characteristic"- that it is unacceptable for public employees, and the government in general, to promote one over the other). That we see a proliferation of one but not the other is an indication that the system is not working fairly.
The progressive movement adopting the term is merely the inevitable progression to it too losing its distinction.
Since when have Progressives ever been about "losing its distinction" across sex groups? Really, the fact they even feel the need to launder the term actually says quite a bit; they didn't need to do that for any other sexual fargroup, but they aren't just going full speed ahead with the language they already have. I think that says a great deal about their confidence/seriousness about the matter.
If the Progressives succeed in making this term lose its distinction it'll only be an incidental qualifier for their standing policies of "if you pass a paper bag test you are permitted to rape children" and "[fargroup] sex is good -> children can be [fargroup]-> [fargroup] sex involving children is good", thus the term "MAP" is designed to solidify gains in this area by adding yet another thing over which to cry discrimination should one want to criticize those policies.
asserting that such confusion does not exist with the term pedophile, that such nuance is unnecessary
"Abuse of unearned and generally-inescapable social authority to (implicitly, explicitly, or by force) demand normally-unwanted sexual activity from people that don't otherwise want to give it" is common to both terms- the first by popular definition, the second from the fact it's explicitly designed to promote the ability of favored groups to do this (or "comes from academia" for short).
Neither are particularly prosocial positions.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
and that is the end of it
If by "it" you mean "mostly peaceful transition of power from the bureaucrats to the kulaks", I agree- it stops being "mostly peaceful".
Per modern attitudes about violence, the side that shoots first is illegitimate. That's something the Left has taken advantage of, but it by no means has a monopoly over it; should the Right start winning peacefully and the Left reply with violence their moral legitimacy (which is the only power they actually have) evaporates.
An assassination is not in the Left's interests; it'd justify turning a soft coup like that into a much harder one.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
There's nothing in either the tradcon nor the progressive nor the liberal worldview that has any inherent problem with child sex as a concept.
On one end, you have... well, everything before the early 20th century, where the age of consent was somewhere in the single digits (if it even existed at all). This was necessary, because if a family fell on hard times and had some girls, that is what they would be encouraged to do: get married to someone who could actually afford to feed them (no welfare state and the church-run orphanage is a week's ride). Then you have the religious angle, where Christianity has its barely-teenaged Mary expecting a child (something normal enough in those days, though certainly an edge case in more than one way), Mohammed's wife of some single digit age, and the Mormons who, if you go deep enough into Utah or Montana, get busted for doing this every so often. Even as late as the '80s, "marrying one's rapist" was acceptable enough.
Thus, empirically, this concept is compatible with the tradcons.
On the other end, you have the progressives, where the only sex they care about preventing is that which occurs between men and women. Note that all the high-profile examples of "sexualized" children (Desmond, Jazz Jennings) are biologically male, the lack of literature portraying heterosexual (it is rare they involve women in any way, really) child/adult pairings, protecting (and in some early cases, actively facilitating) rapists so long as they're not straight, and so on.
Thus, empirically, this concept is compatible with the progressives.
And then you have the liberals, who are the entire reason we're even having this conversation in the first place and are the first to brag about having had sex-while-child (there was one in this thread already, most of the loose '70s were spent promoting this, and provided you're of a sexuality compatible with the progressive memeplex you're still generally allowed to say "had sex as teenager, 10/10" and have the news media nod along).
So, yeah. Economics and social developments downstream of that enable this taboo (itself a logical extension of the "kids aren't allowed to do literally anything and must be segregated and kept indoors 24/7, because otherwise they'd get seduced by the pedos and end up buried in the woods" trend of the '80s), but beyond that there's as much factual backing for it as there was for taboos like miscegenation and gay sex.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
When top level comments that were nothing but moralizing started showing up, I knew it was too late.
And while I'm sure the lurkers appreciate takes that aren't merely adding to the "bog-standard 90s South Christian morality fights a woke argument made by someone who doesn't quite understand the where or why woke even got that argument in the first place" (if one takes updoots as evidence of engagement, which is the only feedback I ever seem to get when I do this), even that might as well be ChatGPT-rephrased or just a bog-standard repost after a while since my arguments aren't getting sharper.
Of course, my revealed preference is clearly that I'd rather masturbate do short-form point-scoring on the Internet than spend more time doing something about it, so...
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
Being "Woke" is seeing the world as that series of power imbalances, and "Identity Politics" is being aware of one's own membership in one or more disempowered groups.
It's also why "Woke" are terrified of what they call the alt-right: because the alt-right work exactly the same way, but have an alternative (and possibly more correct) view of who is more disempowered. Which, ironically, makes the Woke a conservative [privilege-safeguarding] movement and the alt-right a progressive [privilege-shuffling] one.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
Hm, does this also apply when both parties are dead drunk, or did they then rape each other?
Considering that it's possible to get charged for rape while still being below the age of consent, the latter, but therein lies the problem.
If a child cannot understand consent [be it factual or just legal fiction], then we inherently owe them immunity for problems that stem from that assumed lack of understanding. But we don't do that (so we get stuff like 10 year olds being on the hook for child support, 17 year olds being thrown in jail for child pornography of themselves, and the ever-popular "charged as an adult" that never extends in the other direction), QED these laws aren't about justice.
Or to put it another way, while we like to pretend there's a good deal of "noblesse oblige" in our age of consent policies, in practice there's next to zero "noblesse" and pointing that out leads to nothing but white-hot rage. Probably because that pattern matches to "authority is being arbitrary for self-serving, non-objective reasons", which crashes right into "that which can be destroyed by the truth, should be", and should you at least suspect that truth to be "[good] sex is not actually a big deal"...
Thus, 'consent' as blackwhite, and why it needs to be defended in a way that goes far beyond a simple disgust reaction. Interestingly, this defense doesn't map evenly across the standard political triangle: tradcons [traditionally] don't care that much about child sex as long as it remained between husband and wife/wives, progressives [traditionally] don't care that much about child sex as long as it isn't between husband and wife (later, man and woman more generally), and (classical) liberals are defined by not caring at all anyway- thus it has to be coming from somewhere else.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
I do not think a 14 year-old is mature enough and understands the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with an adult, simply because of their inexperience.
And I don't think black people are mature enough and understand the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with a white person (or other black people), especially because they commit a lot more sexual crime than the average white person (and crime in general, suggesting a lack of impulse control, understanding of social consequences, and general maturity), and have lower IQs than the average teenager. Allowing them to experience such a powerful stimulus like sex, or have someone else use them to access such, is therefore bad for them.
If we're going to start drawing lines on "social consequences" and "maturity" you ultimately run into the problem where there are objectively better lines to draw on than mere age- so what's different here other than "society now believes it's more proper to discriminate based on age rather than race when it comes to what we think they're capable of [consenting to]"?
(Of course, I'm sure our modern phrenology asserting the subhumanity of the under-25 set is totally correct this time.)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
"the approach" rarely if ever works and generally only causes harm
Punishments can work to change the behavior of children as they're generally unable to meaningfully resist (both physically and mentally); that's part of why we've used this approach all the way back into antiquity.
Once they're adults, it's a different story.
Parents believe in (and society tolerates) TT instititutions because (they are conditioned, encouraged, and occasionally forced at gunpoint by society to believe that) the way you change a 7-year-old's behavior and the way you change a 17-year-old's behavior are identical. After all, "they're still 'children'".
if you assert that physically and psychologically torturing children for the crime of not being what you want them to be is good
I assert you only read the first sentence.
The scientific evidence, from what I’ve read, seems to say that both sexuality and gender identity are influenced by the exposure to prenatal androgens and other hormonal factors.
Indeed. The anthropological evidence appears to tell a different story, though.
Gay men and trans women
There are 3 "genders": women, tops (as in 'dominant partner': men attempting to perform their standard sociobiological role 'properly'), and bottoms (as in 'submissive partner': all boys, and men not attempting to perform their standard sociobiological role 'properly'). One can transition between the latter two (and some men may find a niche that allows them to be successful despite not operating as a man should- but it's still an edge case for which the conditions that enable its prosperity -> visibility don't arise outside of highly dense urban areas), but never between the latter two and the first, because that is not how human bodies work.
This is why men who fuck boys in societies where that's a thing don't identify as "gay" (and why medical systems say "men who have sex with men" and not "gay"). The gender role of men is, after Maslow's Hierarchy has been mastered, to pursue whatever/whoever catches their fancy and so long as they're doing that we (provided your personal risk tolerance for disease is high enough and your culture lacks certain memes; Abramic religion being the most famous) usually don't care all that much about what that is. And while it's still somewhat of a duty to acquire a wife and maybe some kids of one's own too, dom men fucking sub men (outside of the confines of the financial relationship of marriage, or if the man is powerful enough that he doesn't have to worry about that) is not a property crime the same way fucking a virgin woman is, so it's more a curiosity than anything else.
Of course, this equilibrium can be disrupted by things like human ingenuity inherently creating conditions for an ever-shrinking top/male gender role while advancing the one for women (and the few bottom/males, but that's more a coincidence). But I can't see how putting the interests of a gender whose incentive structure is completely different on par with the gender that's still wired to work for a living would in any way change how society understands gender dynamics. If women are sufficiently incentivized to see themselves in the top/bottom structure as men do, there will be a lot more women in the bottom category, and they might completely destroy this compact in favor of... something else.
They also would, understandably, treat boys and bottom/men as women rather than their own distinct thing, but in fairness their parents didn't fully understand it either due to a meme or because they lived through the transition and didn't know what to make of it, so...
[Preface: I'm defining "corruption" to mostly mean "there are kinds of subterfuge that human beings engage in to get ahead in zero-growth socioeconomic environments that generate a dead-weight loss for those not participating in said subterfuge. Normative statement is that this is bad, the people who do this and encourage more of it are bad, even if the terms are "lead or silver", and there's probably a good argument to be made that it applies.]
We tried "nothing morally relevant is happening" in the '60s and '70s, back before women regained the upper hand in the gender wars thanks to the end of the economic golden age in the West that elevated men-as-class to what very well might be a global maximum of their political power.
It has been found counter-intuitive; and left untried.
As I understand it our implementation of it was working just fine.
Of course, it is counter-intuitive to women that men shouldn't have to fully commit to them for evolutionary biology reasons (even though the economic boom made it possible for women to support themselves independently, pregnancy is still a problem, and concern about pregnancy needs multiple generations with the safety tech to evolve out of it), so the literal first chance they got, they took an axe to this system and completely destroyed it. The existing backdrop of Western Christian sexual ethics made that shift easier, as did the re-emergence of a literal death sentence STD that modern science still hasn't fully cracked (the previous one, syphilis, met its end through simple penicillin 40 years prior).
The trick is that going completely and utterly to the male side of the equation (which is what the sexual revolution ultimately was, and why it happened when male sociopolitical power was at its peak) with technology that actually made that viewpoint feasible (to say nothing of the advancements that have made sex even safer than it was 60 years ago) actually is the correct call if your goal is to minimize the amount of total social corruption(1).
This isn't to say that there still aren't problems with this approach, of course- since this still converges on the Pareto distribution of sex that young men complain about today (socially-enforced monogamy helps with this, but you don't get that without objective consequences for sex, so destroying them through technology means that's out the window), it does nothing by itself to tackle the fornication-pro-quo problem (the motte of #metoo) and related corruption, unsophisticated ideological consistency combined with certain initial social conditions means the end point actually is pedophilia(2), and a couple others I'm probably forgetting.
And there was real progress at fixing this from both men and (the non-corrupt) women right as Western society was descending into its current state of corruption- "man pays for everything" divorce laws [in terms of the end effect] are specifically meant to stop men from trading up to newer, younger women once they had dependents (the higher time preference that certain statistical US populations tend to have mean this isn't as effective a deterrent for them), "workplace harassment" laws are specifically meant to curb the "no, ass-grabbing as you walk the cubicles isn't OK" thing that inherently-diminished female power to control who touches them when inherently leads to, and so on(3).
The problem, of course, is that the conditions that enabled libertine sexual ethics which required those compromises no longer exist, but it is in the interest of the corrupt that the thumbs (with painted nails or not) remain on the scales just the same.
(1) Freedom, especially sexual freedom, is inherently incompatible with the sociobiological incentives of the statistical women-as-class even if they're expected to behave identically to men to earn a living, which is why when the economic pie shrinks (inherently favoring them) a small number of men are inherently able to leverage the instinctive need for social sanction of a large number of women against the rest of the men. Economic progress is the only bloodless way out- corruption cannot drive out corruption.
(2) Traditionalist-conservatives tend to have this blind spot where they're just parroting Boomer observations without thinking critically about whether the initial conditions are still true. The parents were correct- Tradcon anger over Liberal/Progressive pedophilia is correct if you're stuck in, or reacting to, 1970s sexual ethics- but their modern Rightist [millenial] children are almost completely off base when they claim the Left is still driven by this in 2020 given the Progressives hate straight sex and the men who want it far more than the Right [in living memory] ever did.
(3) Consent laws may or may not be an exception to this progress; I argue it's difficult to separate what ended up being imposed/"compromised on" as distinct from the more general complete and utter wrecking of under-18 rights that occurred in the '80s. Of course, given a choice between dealing with the occasional pregnant 9 year old and the "any woman has unilateral ex post facto legal authority to deem any past sex rape, but 10 year old men are still liable for child support after being [statutorily] raped" our current attempt to avoid pregnant 9 year olds has directly resulted in...
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
6mo ago
and in exchange you get a few unqualified workers and a lot of dependents.
You forgot the most important thing, which is that depressing wages and increasing real estate costs are things that affect the middle class of the nation disproportionately, and erasing them is just what the powerful naturally do.
The best time to form a bulwark against it was when the middle class was at the height of its political power but the fact they couldn't or wouldn't is kind of what makes the middle class the middle class.
Punishing the corrupt is indeed one of the most important ways to restore any system of government that wasn't itself built on corruption
The problem with corruption is that it's society-wide and an emergent phenomenon from economic circumstances (poorer countries are always more corrupt than rich ones are- just comes with the territory). This is why it's happening now- compared to 60 years ago there was no massive uplift out of poverty for most of the West through industrialization, no transformative technologies like radio, TV, thinking machines, telephones, affordable semi-private transportation, and certainly not all of those things at once.
This is why the US (and its provinces to varying degrees) citizenry was at a high watermark of anti-corruption at that time, and why conservatives even have a US that barely had any corruption to remember in the first place. Of course, despite their best attempts, all their anti-corruption laws ended up getting corrupted over time; movements and groups that were once positive-sum expansions of economics and civil rights have all devolved into zero-sum supremacy movements.
As far as eliminating corruption goes, well, that's a hard problem and not one any society has ever managed to solve. It's harder without circumstances that empower the anti-corrupt (we're currently scraping the bottom of the barrel for new technology) and that technology has allowed us to prevent most of the Four Horsemen from paying us a visit (as mostly-indiscriminate death from war/disease/famine tends to, after the fact, increase the individual's power to resist corruption due to increased resource availability, leading to the society becoming less affected by corrupt tendencies in itself- sometimes this needle doesn't move much, like in China during the mass exterminations campaigns of the '50s and '60s, but it does still move).
Calling it by its proper name is generally the best way to start.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7mo ago
Fries, burger, and a soda barley reaches 1,500.
If you just get a normal Big Mac combo it's a lot closer to 1000. Something, something, shrinkflation, but military rations have roughly the same caloric content as such a meal for a reason.
(Aside: is the GP's comment actually a typical McDonalds order? I thought everyone just ordered the standard combos, which are half that amount of food; that's like 20 bucks worth of food.)
That's not even enough to satiate a normal weight adult.
If you can deal with the slight time disjunction between finishing your meal and feeling full, it is. Which is not something people really talk about all that much, but once you realize it's happening to you it's relatively easy to deal with... and on second thought, this inherent bug in human hardware (the lag time between "is full" and "feels full") with respect to weight control is probably what semaglutide fixes knowing nothing else about it.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7mo ago
can explain to me the nuance between a 78% and an 84
Easy: it's math, science, or (to a lesser extent) language/history class, and you got questions wrong on the test.
While I'm fine with the courses that don't matter in the grand scheme of things depend a lot more on subjective judgments having this system, it's not appropriate for ones whose questions have verifiable you-knew-it-or-didn't answers.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
11mo ago
But we attempt to prevent abuse by some combination of conditions that the threat be, for example, immanent, articulable, and clear to a reasonable person.
The last 3 years of sociofinancial policy disaster pursuant to Covid is a recent lapse proving otherwise.
Catastrophism (an attack on what it means to be "reasonable") works; that's why the last 40 years of social policy have been primarily driven by it- "if you let your kids outside they'll get kidnapped", "deadnaming is literally killing trans people", etc.
"Preservation of life" has transitioned from being a social value to an overriding social value, and appealing to it has improperly elevated those claims to veto power.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
11mo ago
they sit in really odd ways despite never having stretched once in their lives
To add to this, women tend to be more flexible than men.
Given that, it's probably natural that men with that trait would find themselves preferring a posture that women use (since it could naturally be assumed that kind of posture accounts for both that flexibility and the inherent weakness it trades off with).
Maybe flexibility (sits like a girl) drives socialization (mocked for sitting like a girl) drives sexuality (with overclocked sense of pattern-matching, decides he'll just be a girl) more than we want to admit it does, but this is probably also only true for these men.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
11mo ago
but anyone who wants one can certainly have a black scary semiauto .223 of some stripe.
Sure... if they're willing to wait an entire year for the license that takes a weekend, 400 bucks, and (for Restricted) knowing 2 people who'll vouch for you to obtain.
And by and large, this system works. It will still get you killed if you need a gun right now (the archetypical example of this is a stalker who isn't obeying their restraining order; angry exes kill families quite a lot and cops can't be everywhere), but even that isn't a design problem and has more to do with its implementation.
This is the "compromise" position, and if approached in good faith it works exceptionally well specifically because it keeps guns out of the hands of the poor, the stupid, and the friendless- all traits associated with criminality (European citizens are fine with this approach; the US' system of wokeness considering everyone trustworthy until proven otherwise is specifically a reaction to this!). True, existing socially-vetted owners can still become insane later, but the compromise is specifically "we prove ourselves to you, and in return you treat the people who do get through with a 'forgone conclusion, they would have just used a truck or fire instead' attitude (and as such don't launch a bunch of legislation to punish everyone else)", and by and large that works. Most European countries have more liberal gun laws than blue US states (and British Commonwealth states) do as a result- and the most liberal ones were occupied by the Soviets or on their border.
This position can't be reached in the US (and to a significant degree, the government couldn't enforce it even if they wanted to- everyone owns property and there's just too much ground to cover to stop illicit manufacturing), so you end up with a bunch of patches on symptoms like "high capacity mags" and "assault weapons" even though a single-shot shotgun and a .22 is all you need to perpetrate a mass shooting (which is how it happens in the UK). They then proceed to export this solution around the world; which is why the populations of countries closest to the American orbit (Aus, UK, NZ, CA) had licensing schemes and population tolerance thereof that were subsequently completely destroyed (the compromise that was licensing can no longer exist because the population is now too Americanized to tolerate it). For example, NZ was the freest former English colony in terms of gun law, but the population's ability to compromise had been hollowed out by exposure to American culture war until an Australian national came along and shattered it. Canada is more complicated, because it's close enough to the US that the concept of high-trust high-freedom leaks through more, but also lacks the political safeguards to keep that part of the nation safe from its largest cities that the US does... so the rest of the country (culturally closer to the red part of the US) suffers.
Or the gay man who lives with his male partner, but doesn't believe being gay should be valorized and celebrated as much as it is in society, in favor of more "traditional" family structures.
Yes, that's called "internalized homophobia", AKA "you're being gay wrong/working against (what the powers that be consider) your own interest".
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
Anyway, you're really ok with people just purchasing children?
A counterpoint: Westerners traffic purchase children from far poorer countries all the time, as in Western countries the demand for kids to adopt far exceeds the supply (whereas the opposite is true in the host country).
This is done openly and their activities are usually portrayed positively, even though children are generally considered possessions (their involuntary labor is your right as a parent or guardian) in the West for the first 18 years of their life.
What's the difference between this kind of remote adoption, enslaving workers from foreign countries (for labor or prostitution, which is what people usually mean by "trafficking"), and domestic surrogacy? Because I don't think there's a difference at all, and the argument against those things can be made, but is not defensible on strictly utilitarian grounds (because if it was, human history wouldn't contain the amount of slavery that it currently does).
You'll have to excuse me for not participating in that first thread directly (which is why I found it weird you're throwing seemingly-unrelated grenades here); I've only had read-only time these days, and these comments take a lot to write.
Yeah, that's what women tell me when I whip out the Fleshlight and start using it while thinking about them; I'm appropriating what beauty they have while rejecting the notion I owe them respect for their wishes and desires. I'm not convinced that's all that different- but maybe that's just because I can't just produce a kid by sticking a donated, fertilized egg up my ass and waiting nine months.
Sure, growing a kid inside yourself absolutely is an intensely sexual thing (even ignoring that it's just an outright fetish for some people), but I'm not as convinced it's the main attraction for lesbians looking for anonymous donations especially because it kind of sucks after a certain point. Maybe there just aren't enough lesbians on the face of the earth to have even one (IVF) Lesbian Octomom?
I dunno, I've done this a few times (not with the opposite sex though, sadly) with people I've absolutely not been sexually attracted to. Maybe it's just "not being sufficiently repulsed", "I actually don't have a strong enough attachment to my body to be actively grossed out by this if a friend asks me to do this", "you mentioned you were attracted to me and didn't seem to be doing so well lately, so sure, I'll share a bed for the night", or a combination of the above. Or maybe that's just what I tell myself so I can continue to feel pure enough to share a bed with my dakimakura.
More options
Context Copy link