ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
6mo 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
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
6mo 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
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7mo 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
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
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
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
8mo 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
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
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.
Take their names away. You could try enforcing uniqueness across the public-facing Internet (it won't stop organization in private channels, but because visible attention-whoring is the driver of this damage, this will make it inconvenient).
For owners and higher-ups, use a unique username that's divorced from your other identities.
Off-topic chat is banned from the project's mailing list.
This is 4chan 101 stuff. The problem with it is that it requires foresight and isn't obvious to people who don't understand why those measures are necessary, which people who tend to post about more interesting things clearly underestimate.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1d ago
I’m quite fond of my Lee-Enfield and stocked up on ammo for it.
It is the best fighting rifle under the technological constraints of the era (ignoring the P14/P17, but those are just iterative improvements on Rifle No. 1; Rifle No. 4 had to compete with "just make semi-autos lol" and isn't in my mind as special).
They already had the high-speed operator thing figured out, and you can tell; cock on close, 10 rounds in the mag, and the safety that you can "slingshot" off of Safe when the rifle is cocked (which is an interesting touch I've never seen anyone mention). It's truly unfortunate that a fighting bolt-action rifle was never iterated on meaningfully beyond this- I would have expected one design just to try and keep that niche alive but nope, nothing but slow-fire high-accuracy (which was the only niche that remained for the action type).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
12d ago
you could probably do well creating something to re-orient gen z people into healthier directions.
You need to teach them to want.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
12d ago
I just call it “corruption”; because that’s what it is.
The woke are not meaningfully distinct from an Eastern European cop demanding a bribe; great for the cops, bad for everyone else. That they claim it all goes to the church is not material.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
27d ago
it makes the hands massive
But the real question: does that happen in reverse?
It would be darkly humorous for a yaoi fan to create a male model with large hands (I don't know why they do this) only for the final product to more closely resemble the unflattering physical stereotype of yaoi fans.
safetyism does lead to (or contributes to) life being better than it has ever been?
All the things that make life better than it ever has been were created in a culture of calculated risk.
If there is no-one to compete against then your people don't need to be taking calculated risks
If they're not taking calculated risks, they're not developing/producing, and being undeveloped/unproductive is Bad, Actually. There's a balance between safety and dignity, and cutting dignity out of the picture means you stop advancing. "But we don't need to advance, just masturbate in your own existing greatness until you die" is not how human beings are wired, and doing that kneecaps your ability to handle internal crises properly.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
29d ago
Clearly we need meta-safetyists to invent safetyist brakes.
This is generally called "the enemy tribe". The fact that, all else being equal, they'll outcompete you if they take more calculated risks is why safety cannot be first.
External enemies are the ultimate check against internal risk aversity, and when they stop existing that begins to spiral out of control. I don't see any external enemies around right now and life is generally better than it's ever been, so people just pay the toll and suffer the loss of dignity/productivity quietly since the bill will never come due... right?
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
I have a meta theory that many problems of human activity involve too much focus on what people ARE rather than what they DO.
That's because it's the easy way out. You need to do intellectual or emotional labor to deal with people who DO [are aligned with your goals] but ARE NOT [aligned with the rules], and one way to deal with that is to turn your back and say you're not going to do it (doing this also gives you short-term power and sometimes people just get tired and want the easy way out).
Societies start to stop being able to do when the populace gets lazy like this. And while there is a place for identity, it must ultimately be subservient to activity, and when certain kinds of Christians/the Bible start talking about "women/the identity gender should not be in charge/operate unrestrained by men/the activity gender" I think this is what those parts are getting at.
Which leads to some interesting implications when you're talking about sexuality [and topically for this week, homosexuality], since "but what if my girl/boy grows up to be a woman/man incorrectly?" seems to me to be the driving impulse for the stereotypical swift parental overreactions to a woman who's more activity biased or a man who's more identity focused (regardless of how self-aware said child eventually becomes). And then, when that happens, is the implication more that two activity-genders or two identity-genders getting together is sinful (or is it just limited to "penis in the butt is bad", which... if the above is your understanding of gender/men/women that's going to seem immature at best and pointlessly angry at worst)?
"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is once instance of moving in the right direction
But that, again, requires an unwillingness to be intellectually/emotionally lazy (which applies to both parties in that interaction; the sinner? has to also not be taking the lazy "they hate us 'cause they ain't us, so fuck you, I think I'll be as obnoxious as possible because I like being transgressive more than I like accommodating others" [which... right or wrong, it's that last part that condemns you more than anything else]).
The similarities between affirmation/esteem culture and guilt culture have probably been underinvestigated.
Esteem/affirmation culture, in my view, lends itself far more to mere masturbation-by-proxy than a guilt or shame culture does.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
It's a shame there wasn't a Knowledge option
Maybe, but the only thing Knowledge rewards you with is Lamborghinis and I'm dreaming a little bigger than that.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
but someone said the whole "demisexual" thing is just "being normal" and I still haven't heard a compelling counter.
No, that's called "heterosexuality". Biologically speaking, letting your dick do the driving (or taking advantage of the fact that most men do this) is optimal from a reproductive standpoint for what should be obvious reasons, so it makes sense that's the default. You're not supposed to think, you're just supposed to do (insert "only enough blood to run one head at the same time" meme here).
Isn't sexuality supposed to determine who you find sexually attractive?
Yes; heterosexuality (and homosexuality) [in men] is keying off of normal secondary sexual characteristics. Demisexuality isn't a real sexuality though (I think it describes something else; maybe 'male sexuality' and 'female sexuality' are built out of components, it's possible to only get some of the wrong ones, and they cause different problems [from a biological standpoint] when run on the wrong hardware), so it doesn't fit the 'who are you horny for' that hetero/homo/bi/ace can be used to answer.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
Hentai games do this most often for obvious reasons, but the fact that it does that (and all the other things that happen as you start to lose) suggests [to the player] that the difficulty has a slightly more casual relationship with the player even if the rest of the game is quite difficult, so the game designer gets a bit more leeway if the balance isn't otherwise struck just right.
Come to think of it, lots of different games do bad ends this way, and a slightly wider variety of them change substantially based on certain choices you make- for instance, playing the earlier Fallout games with 1 INT makes a lot of the dialogue in the game vastly different. Sure, you don't have to play it that way, and playing it that way makes it more difficult in certain ways (but less in others, at least you can max out STR), but the novelty is going to be worth at least another playthrough.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
I was trying to read up on mobile chipsets for a while
Honestly, they're all good enough, you'll just be tempted to replace the slower ones more often.
And I still think you're doing it right; Android phones only make sense at the "cheaper than the current-gen SE" price point (and they do make a lot of sense there even if your total spend is going to be roughly equivalent)- simply because the more expensive Android phones are just iPhone 11s with a different OS and a better screen (or a gimmick- I'd actually say the future of Android is foldable especially for people whose phones are their main computing device because Apple is institutionally incapable of making proper multitasking and copy/paste is one of the most important things a computer can do).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
Well, yeah, that’s the entire reason AO3 even exists.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
2mo ago
So basically, just Mean Girls then.
CGDCT is usually men's idea of a utopia, with everyone happy, getting along well, and doing fun things
Yeah, but the problem in reality is that this state of affairs if not defended inevitably becomes Mean Girls.
In the same way, any such organization not explicitly and constitutionally oriented around doing fun things will sooner or later end up with everyone miserable and fighting each other; this is Conquest's Second Law.
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.
More options
Context Copy link