ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
No bio...
User ID: 822
Why is this more offensive than ranking people according to academic or athletic ability?
Because all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
their right to freedom of speech
Australia recognizes no such right. Also, the people who made the list are generally recognized as subhumans [due to their age], so nobody's expecting them to have rights in the first place- the hysterics are because lists like that are hard evidence the brainwashing campaigns were ineffective.
and that it has no such antibodies to feminism [other than that mandatory military service thing], allowing it to run wild into radical man-hating.
Yes, that's called "being a fully mechanized nation". Most Western powers ran into this somewhere around the 1900s, and women were first granted rights above and beyond men (as in, "rights without corresponding responsibilities") in those nations around that time- you see that with the right to vote most prominently [without the corresponding duty to be drafted into a war they voted themselves into, something we see in Ukraine today], but prohibition and minimum-age requirements for brides are their doing as well.
I think the pedofascist was/is trivially correct when he made the point that these policies, from the start, are properly viewed as radical man-hating; tearing down the places they'll go after work and putting ever-increasing caps on the quality of women they can afford with no suitable substitute are not exactly pro-man things (worth noting 1984 begins with a description of "the only woman a middle-class income affords the average man is an ugly, infertile, prostitute", and then Winston finds a secretly-transgender [from a biological standpoint] woman who he has wild sex with before the Gender Police torture them to ego death; I believe Orwell predicted modern gender politics to a tee). In that light, first-wave feminists must have been motivated by the same hatred/anger that motivates third-wave feminists (and the white-knights for each wave similarly motivated), and it's always the legitimately transgender individuals that are used as tokens by said women only to later suffer from it (in this case, "the 1% of women who actually are competitive with the men want the right to pursue those opportunities"- something that would fit under the trans umbrella as 1900-1950s society would have understood it; today, the genders are reversed, where men are demanding the opportunities and privileges of women).
[Further effort post: the concept of transgenderism is coherent from a strictly biological standpoint, and our instinctive grouping of all non-straight-as-in-established-man-on-youngest-possible-woman sexuality into "biology should not predict this behavior therefore the people that do these things are malfunctioning" is also coherent, but the people who are transgender under this definition are not the people most people would claim it is today!]
But if the complete obviation of the biological male gender role was such an impending disaster, what let us avoid those consequences for so long? Well, the post-war WW2 boom pushed the economic balance in the West far enough towards men that it was the women who couldn't meaningfully co-ordinate to soak up so much wealth, but that was over by 1980 and the problem our great-grandparents failed to solve has returned to haunt us once again.
Korea, then, is experiencing this for the first time, in full force, being that they have only just made it to full mechanization (they weren't in a position to benefit from post-WW2 booms especially thanks to that civil war)... and being a US-occupied nation means they have to deal with the US' cultural outlook/propaganda, which is currently tilted in the gynosupremacist direction. It's probably worth considering how the Japanese managed to avoid this problem, but I think that was because they mechanized in that boom time and managed to lock in a "the genders aren't actually at war with each other" mindset (and their rule-following did the rest) [but they still haven't dodged the problem, because all the good gender relations propaganda in the world can't actually solve a problem of 996/economics].
The Koreans, by contrast, didn't make it in time- but they also happen to be blazing a trail (being a smaller nation) whose trajectory men (and women) in the wider West would be wise to observe, regardless of whether it fixes the problem or conclusively demonstrates it's not fixable.
And I've pointed out before that people don't have kids if they expect it to be a miserable experience all around which for Koreans is a very reasonable and grounded expectation.
I think it is true for Americans as well; states that have successfully kept angry/neurotic women from destroying the rights of parents to allow their children to enjoy life as much appear to have higher TFRs, even though their average income would take even more of a hit by having kids. Sadly I can't find a by-state breakdown of TFR for 1920 to prove that, so my evidence for that ends at the car seat thing.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
28d ago
I hear the chicks really dig Garrus. And I mean really dig Garrus.
Not like it's hard to see why. In all seriousness, you very much do get the "he's dangerous, take-charge, but kind of awkward, hurt a bit, and I can fix him" thing going on, which among the kinds of women masculine enough to bother with Mass Effect (and body pillows) is how their attraction works (though, of course, that kind of woman is rare to begin with).
I dare everyone to try to find actually-sensitive storytelling about male-female relationships, from a male perspective, that isn't 1. pornography 2. completely hamfisted or 3. downplayed.
I just watch anime for this; Tonikawa: Over the Moon and I can't understand what my husband is saying are good for that. Maybe "actually they love each other and nothing that cancerous happens" counts as pornography, though.
what makes you think their other fears are going to be rationally evaluated against climate change in order to solve climate change?
Or perhaps more generally, what makes you think they're even capable of rationally evaluating fears in the first place?
it is my opinion they are absolutely sincere in being worried about the climate
Well, that's the good-faith answer. Yet, it concerns me that the things they appear to be genuinely afraid of also happen to be things that it is in their personal or class interest to be genuinely afraid of, and afraid in such a way that their opponents' good-faith efforts are never good enough for them.
If climate change sheds its master morality baggage and actually threatens to improve life for a change, maybe we'd start accomplishing those goals. Tesla did it, look how successful they are. (Of course, the most statistically worried about climate change also excuse themselves from buying a Tesla because they don't like what Elon says on the Internet- a good faith view of that is hyperconservative fear paralysis... which is why it's odd we consider progressives to be on the left when they're fundamentally an ultraconservative rightist movement specifically because fear dominates their reasoning.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
29d ago
If feminine standards are telling them to be an unmarried cat owner looking for Mr. Right at age 35 then maybe we should examine why
I mean, you buried it in your post: equal rights came without equal responsibilities.
Now that men and women are equal, should it not be equally valid to say "another woman weeded out of the gene pool"? If we're judging each gender by their own standards, women had it far easier than men and they're still failing, so why shouldn't men rejoice the same way women do when this happens to a man? They have equal rights, they can take equal lefts.
Not that I think that's a helpful way to look at things, but the only people who can meaningfully change this for women are other women. Do I think that'll happen? Well, maybe; men have largely adapted from losing 200,000 years of biological supremacy overnight by comparison and I see no reason women should not be similarly adaptable after losing their edge to video games and porn.
They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.
The right to vote yourself into a war means the responsibility to pay and support the soldiers fighting it.
Ukrainian women did the former, but not the latter (they skipped town).
Human beings pay their debts. Criminals skip town. Ukrainian women running from the war have thus committed a crime and should be deprived of their liberty as a consequence until they have paid their debt to Ukrainian society. The penalty for murder is generally a complete forfeit of that for the rest of one's life.
That is what we would do to men, anyway.
In an environment of equality this is what we would do to women.
Obviously, we are not in an environment of equality.
This problem does solve itself over time (eugenics through enemy action?), but that doesn't mean it's not going to suck for those who have to deal with it.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
5d ago
"don't tell a trans person you don't think they're the gender they claim to be"
No, this is more "you can think you're [opposite gender] in your own head/in private, but there's no valid reason to do that in public outside of wanting to make it someone else's problem".
Going out and screaming "it's ma'am" in people's faces and insisting that "because I think I'm a woman, that means I get to be classed as one in their sporting events" are, in my opinion, central examples of "making your thoughts other peoples' problems", and is as intentionally destructive/disruptive as publicly announcing you're using hot-or-not on people when they interact with you. (Same thing with casual racism/sexism/ageism, come to think of it.)
We make a compromise - don't make your thoughts other people's problems.
Of course, the pronoun/trans thing is a deliberate and willful violation of that compromise.
(That the faction most supportive of breaking that compromise in that way is apoplectic when anyone else does it is... illustrative.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
26d ago
If climate change is a real problem, then the deal may be tackling it at a cost.
Hence "just build nuclear plants; if you thought it was such a problem you would already have accepted the added risk".
So either climate change isn't actually the existential risk they claim because they're willing to let other hysteria take precedence, or they are correct about it being the most important existential risk... which means the environment is precious enough that we're willing to let a reactor mess up a city or two. Drop in the bucket compared to "the world will be destroyed".
Teslas are nice..but they are still (in my view) inferior to a similary luxurious petrol car.
I wholeheartedly agree, but the reason given for not buying one is not "Electric car inherently inferior", it's "Elon man bad". People who take steps in solving the problem should be honored among those with the grievance; that is historically how the people with the grievance pay for the solutions. That they refuse to pay now, and will do whatever they can not to pay (the person who has done more for Blue environmental goals in decades than anyone else... is also their biggest political target), is notable.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
26d ago
Perhaps I will rethink my position on the possible existence of microaggressions.
Honestly, I think microaggressions are best modeled as "real, but 100% projection/revealing too much about the speaker/thief thinking everyone steals".
I propose "micro-defection" for this, or enshittification-by-social-capture. The "my patients/students/customers are [not my favorite race or gender], so I won't try as hard serving them; what are they going to do, fire me?" effect. The woke are more correct than the mainstream in asserting that the sum of micro-aggressions is outright aggression- it's just that the only people who really care to micro-aggress are the woke (which we see in stuff like Covid vaccine distributions, grading disparities by gender, etc.).
"As a nonbinary player I always wished they'd remove genderlocked customization"
Failure to acquire properly-fitted women's clothing generally blows ex-men's cover even before you see their face (ex-women don't have this problem since women's clothing is a strict superset of men's clothing). It is strange that there doesn't seem to be anyone trying to fix that problem (or if they are, they're on the down-low/everyone who wears it passes so well they're invisible?).
Though, I do have to say that the disruption is even-handed enough (and not just "ill-fitting female clothes on the male model") that I don't think it qualifies as "micro", since even the models that transpeople would prefer are ruined by this change (being they would already have picked "attractive model of the opposite gender").
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1d ago
I don't know why paid parasocial entertainment isn't really a thing in the western world
It's called "Hololive" (though really, this is streaming culture in general). It's big business, apparently.
"bro the communists are being arrested you have to help them bro please I know they'd kill you and your family but what about libertarian values bro?"
I extend my libertarian values to communists and other people who want to murder me and castrate/imprison my descendants so long as libertarians are in power (and so there's no actual threat of the inherently-corrupt ever being in charge; the entire point of allowing corrupt talk [identity-supremacy being the best example] in the first place is that there's generally at least a kernel of truth in what they say, and we can absorb it without stepping into the trap- in the "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, it's what comes out" sense).
Indeed, this is the folly of the liberal; to assume that (sociological-economic-technological) conditions that permit non-corruption will exist forever and not just be enabled by a specific combination of those three from 1945 to 1973ish. A smart observer (Orwell) in a country that had yet to be positively affected by those conditions (England, 1948) elsewhere in the world would come up with an accurate description of how the future would work, and this would have been possible pre-computer.
I could have treated my enemies with that respect in 1950. I could have treated my enemies with that respect in 1970. I could maybe have treated my enemies with that respect in 1990.
I cannot do that today, so now I have to accept market shortfall on the net good that "developing lab-grown meat" would bring me because my [domestic] enemy will just use it as yet another excuse to hurt me and tax my virtues at a marginal rate of 100%. EVs are another example, so are smart guns (in the New Jersey sense). Neither rum-runners nor Edgar Friendly can survive a computer-assisted State.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7d ago
But the ECHR does caveat hate speech, dangerous speech and so on
Yes, that's what "no right to free speech" means.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7d ago
Believing in the rule of the law does not imply believing that every law should be rigorously enforced all the time.
But it does imply that if every laws was rigorously enforced all the time, they should be written in such a way that isn't blatantly oppressive if taken to that logical-by-words-on-paper conclusion.
Otherwise you get anarchotyranny rule by law where we just ban everything and selectively enforce against political enemies, which is what we have right now.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7d ago
English law doesn't even recognize that concept; the US's notion of protecting it was a reaction to it being non-existent.
Later nations gesture vaguely at the concept, but if it's in their law, it's always explicitly prefaced with "unless we really don't want to".
The sex clubs have certain protections against the segment of the left most eager to ban them that the dojo does not share- specifically, that the left can't both continue to use the concept of sex-positivity as a skin suit and be seen shutting down places that "empowers women" [by that definition] at the same time.
More options
Context Copy link