ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
it sounds like theyre mostly talking about showing trans stuff to kids?
No, it reads exactly like the stock Boomer-trad (or progressive) complaints about it. Narcissism of small differences may be viewed by replacing 'transgender ideology' with 'violence towards women' in the first sentence.
It's a general loser of a proposition and 20th century anti-porn views/laws (including "just restrict the ages") are likely to lose Republicans more male voters than an ad by the other side that calls them creeps will (since all men have heard that one before and have slowly figured out they should ignore that particular complaint).
I don't think "educators and public librarians" really show a lot of porn.
This is only half true with the shitty-Tumblr-tier picture books, the occasional novel that has a sex scene in it, and teachers being in such a rush to get to proselytizing the virtues of gay sex that they forget the overwhelming majority of second grade boys aren't generally in much of a hurry to try this for reasons that are obvious to anyone who remembers second grade (many, I believe, forget on purpose).
There really isn't a positive vision of dealing with the facts on the ground here; porn is a tool like anything else and it's not going back in the box, so you either evolve a strategy to deal with it or you lose. (Maybe instead of complaining constantly about "but for some reason men want to choke or facial their girlfriends the first time" you develop some messaging to point out that sex is give/take like everything else so that young adults are prepared to have better sex and don't have to pile on so many stakes they put off trying to engage with the opposite sex in a romantic fashion long enough that they become content never having tried? Of course, you also have to not hate the concept of young adults having sex to do that, and you can't be a traditionalist or progressive without hating young adults and sex [both will claim "protection of women and children" as an excuse to hate sex- traditionalists hate it when a young men has sex with a woman they feel should have been theirs, progressives hate it when a young women has sex with a man they feel should have been theirs] so it's definitely too much to ask of them.)
[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
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
The overwhelming majority of mass shooters are not gun people. If they were, we'd expect to see illegal rifles constantly (illegal magazines are a bit more common but even that's not guaranteed) because the anti-gun side is actually correct about short-barreled rifles being more conducive to increased lethality over a handgun without sacrificing much concealability.
But that observation only appears to be correct in theory: illegal rifles and pistols never show up despite all the parts necessary to create one common to every single gun store for the last 10 years (the "braced pistol" thing), and we've never heard of anyone getting stopped because their rifle was poking out of their bag.
What video game logic is this?
If one stops working, only a gun person will actually know how to fix it. Unreliable equipment run incompetently has ended many sprees, and someone doing research on past shootings would know this.
So might as well have one more; it's an extra 10 pounds and a thousand bucks on a credit card you're not planning on paying off anyway. (Come to think of it, I suspect that loadouts of mass shooters are generally dictated by how high their credit card limits are; if you're planning on suicide, why would paying it back be a concern?)
An experienced shooter (who isn't suffering from a brain tumor) would... well, we don't really know what they do because we've yet to see a conclusive example of one committing this kind of crime and most of the time body count comes from "medical attention was delayed because the police failed to breach and clear in a timely fashion". I guess the Vegas shooter counts; medical attention was timely and that body count is what I'd expect from someone competent (though the number and types of weapons used suggests significant incompetence) but we don't know if he just planned to shoot up the concert or if there was something else going on.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
to the great benefit of the city's working poor
But if the city's working poor would benefit the most from this, why aren't they agitating for it? One would expect to see community groups spring up to deal with the issue, much like they did for the last 100 years of American history, but now there's nothing. Heck, I'd even expect it in the ballot box and candidates.
Now, I'm very willing to accept that the reason they aren't is propaganda and sabotage- and indeed, the entire reason why "muh oppression" continues is because it works- but I'm starting to suspect that even urban poor Americans are rich enough that their sense of apathy can take over (they're certainly much better off than any poor person anywhere else in terms of standard of living, and even some of the lower to middle class in other countries) and that the US crossed that point a generation ago.
So long as the poor don't feel themselves under threat and can afford the luxury belief of bike cucking accepting the occasional theft and confusing it for charity, I think it also releases citizens from the standard form of charitable obligations: the toleration of the underclass' behaviors is itself viewed as the charity.
The only place that really breaks this rule are West-aligned East Asian nations- but then again, they still have wireheaders all the same, and that's what hikikomori-dom is fundamentally caused by.
I suspect that for the causes the right favors it's more grassroots (apparently a good chunk of the funding for the last North American right-wing protest came from the US even though it didn't occur there- admitting that doesn't help anyone involved, of course) and for the causes the left favors it's a lot more organized.
[Assume left and right are just sides of the aisle for the following].
The right-wing party doesn't listen to its voters as much as the left-wing party does partially because the people the State wants to target disproportionately exist on the right (and right-wing parties aren't immune to this when they form government), so they can't be as centralized for legibility reasons WRT the State. Substack's model of "Stripe doesn't serve Substack directly" helps them significantly in this regard- Patreon isn't as useful for the more interesting parts but not all parts need to be interesting.
For the causes the left favors? The grassroots movement for them haven't been nearly as strong- mainly because they have less middle (a double helping of "they're the State so they're necessarily against it" and "their civil religion currently happens to align with its elimination"), so it's organized backing by the strongest foreign corporation that owns the American means of production along with domestic corporations through both official State and deep State (in the "adopt the [anti-middle-class/right] religion, or we stop inviting you to the WEF dinner parties and start working against you" sense) pressure.
Twitter is the prefect medium for this. It will get much worse.
And now you know why left-wingers are apoplectic about the fact they no longer directly control Twitter; I think they believe (correctly?) that they've lost Twitter as command and control for their human botnet like they made heavy use of in 2020 WRT coordinating riots and general disease hysteria unless they manage to neutralize him and state power is all they have to do that (left-wing people aren't Starlink or Tesla customers). Remember, the only people who stopped using Twitter when he bought it were the religious, and religion alone is clearly not enough (which the relative failure of Gab and Truth Social should have made clear before the Left tried and failed with Mastodon).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4mo ago
It would solve some stuff.
They no longer pay enough to be worth their time- bigger ticket items got much more expensive (cars), and smaller-ticket items becoming much cheaper (entertainment and sex porn) at the same time.
The problem with that is that it's also good for society in general for them to work, and be properly rewarded for working with things they actually want; if you don't have that, the child-to-adult pipeline breaks down and... well, if you want to see the results of that, look out the window.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9mo ago
But if the bedroom simply isn't dangerous anymore, because our liberal tolerant society has declared that everything is acceptable now, then this opportunity for political agitation is lost.
Well, aside for that one group that it is much more dangerous to take to bed than it was in the '70s (or any time in the last 100 years before them). Which, speaking of political agitation and old-style repression, consider the following:
"There will be nothing but curiosity and enjoyment of the process of life. No competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always, do not forget this, Karen - never will be the intoxication of power, never increasing, but constantly growing more overt. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of elevating a friend who is worthy. If you want a picture of the future, imagine an attractive woman pressing her breasts into a little boy's face - forever." (SFW, enough)
You'll recognize that "stare at my [metaphorical] goods, and be enriched simply by their existence" as the promise of liberalism. We don't tolerate expressions of that any more because we are no longer liberal; instead, the women who should be encouraging young men to develop properly by doing that are instead invested in [quite literally, in some cases] cutting that expression off right to the quick. It can't be permissible for people to give sex or commitment outside of what biology dictates because there's serious money to be made instead- the organism needs to exists as an instrument of alienated labor, not as a subject of self realization.
(Which is the steelman context for the above. There's literally zero benefit to older women [traditionally: extracts zero resources while not benefiting from looking pretty] matching with younger men [traditionally: provides zero sex appeal while not benefiting from being able to extract resources]; which means that if they do it and stick together, they do it for self-actualization: because they want to. And if you squint a little, you'll notice that "this is ultimately what I want you to have, here it is, I know you're not quite ready but your wanting to be is enough" is exactly how God operates. I'm sure that's a total coincidence though.)
KulakRevolt made an interesting point a while ago about how society is dominated either by the scowls of bitter old women or the howls of laughing young boys (along with a few posts about how old women abuse young boys in the public education system); and I think there's something to the prohibition of the latter in a society as the former starts to take over, starting with the pathologization and assumptions of bad faith in everything they might do, making sure women who are psychologically closer to men are marginalized/suppressed or outright mutilated, disrupt the pipeline for people who don't have sex-magic-soul-bond/see sex as merely a means to an end goal to realize that about themselves, and the like. It's trying to cut the people who see sex and commitment as described above off entirely- they can't be allowed to exist, because how would anyone be forced to buy their sexual labor then?
Maybe Hlynka was right after all?
Yes, but you have to distill the initial conditions and sociobiological incentives of the groups in conflict to figure that out because our language is insufficient to explain that. Much like how I use "straight", for that matter.
I like the term Steve Sailer came up with it: "Rule by Actresses."
I think it's even better if you use the old 18th century term for "actress" (the Junior Anti-Sex League exists as a desperate attempt to disclaim this reality). In a post-material-scarcity environment (like the one described in 1984), assuming the balance of gender stays the same, the shortage shifts to being a shortage of women.
Once that happens, there's nothing left to prevent pathological behavior (concern trolling, etc.) by that gender, much like a market with limited suppliers that co-ordinate can extract a rent so high it distorts every other adjacent market. This has been true for the last 150 years, Boomer era excepted (market distortions pushed this back towards equality, but no efforts were made to ensure that victory would last).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
The very obvious explanation is that neither men nor most women actually enjoy watching a woman act like a man.
Anime and other interactive media has quite a bit of this going on already; perhaps you just need to watch more of it. Popular examples include Gunsmith Cats (both the MCs do this), Gunslinger Girl, Ghost in the Shell, Upotte, Re:Zero, Made in Abyss (more 'girl acts like a boy', but she definitely gets beat to shit), Ranma 1/2 (and all the gender-bending anime that would follow in its footsteps; bonus points for female author), Genshin Impact, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy, the Persona series, Fate/Stay Night (and the Nasuverse in general), You're Under Arrest!, Hunter x Hunter, Trigun, Nier: Automata, Bayonetta, Half-Life 2, and every other shooter video game or RPG that allows you to pick a female player character (the usual answer is "actually, I'd prefer to stare at a girl's ass in third person", but come on). Western examples include Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Alien, The Matrix, Kill Bill, Terminator/2, and the X-Files. For rarer 2010s examples, all the movies in the Kingsmen series have female antagonists; Edge of Tomorrow had an action girl right out of the '80s but that's an adaptation of an earlier manga so maybe it doesn't count. Also the most popular Vtuber in the world is a woman who acts like a man. This isn't an exhaustive list.
Of course, I'd actually say that in a good number of these cases the women aren't actually acting like men, but then that generates the "what's 'acting like a woman' mean?" question (in the same way as "what's 'acting white'?"). Gynosupremacists (and black supremacists) are by definition going to answer that question as selfishly as possible- and in so doing miss the truth that nobody has a monopoly on acting constructively (in fiction or in real life), most constructive (and destructive) actions don't have a gender, and all successful writers understand this. Now, it might be the case that the more flashy constructive/destructive actions do tend to go to characters on the right end of the population distribution- which is why they tend to be white and male- but the choice to just not do that is always there (the problem comes from progressives wanting it for free, hence the desire to colonize previous works rather than creating something out of whole cloth- this is the root of corruption).
The best example of "wants it for free" I think I've ever seen is the opening to Terminator 6; where it's literally "fuck you, we're killing off the whole reason for the plot in the first place; this series is now about (if memory serves correctly) some random interracial lesbian couple".
To the extent that True Detective challenges this dynamic by treating two women as Mary Sues who just have victory outright handed to them, it's doomed to fail.
Beauty cannot come from corruption. The reason all the competent female characters come from the '80s and '90s is because feminism and gynosupremacism weren't quite yet the same thing for the average writer (or investor); that's no longer true, so all they can possibly write are Mary Sues. Places that don't have a culture of open gender warfare are less likely to suffer from this, though Japanese media also tends to have weird out-of-character things like "lost a fight, time to go back to the kitchen" (Sloot's DBZ example) so you have to contend with that instead.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
I need a new one soon, might be able to wait for the 4000 Super series
Go to eBay, buy a 3090. Today. Honorable mention to the 3080 12GB (Ti or not), and if you only care about games, the 7900XT/XTX.
They're cheaper or the same price as new cards of equivalent compute power, EVGA ones still usually have a year's worth of warranty on them, and 24GB of VRAM means it's exactly as capable as a 4090 is for ML workloads (sure, it'll be half as fast for about 40% the price, but it can run models that the 4070 and 4080 will never be able to).
Anything else that isn't either a 4090 or a 100-dollar 1080 is a waste of your time and money. The 3060 and 4060 are barely outperforming 1080s for 3x the price, 3070s are just 2080Tis but with less VRAM, the 4070 and Ti are just a 3090 with half the VRAM, and the 4080 is just too expensive to not have 24GB of VRAM (the reason why it doesn't is because, if it did, it would cannibalize 4090 sales to prosumers who are buying them for ML workloads) and if you're only looking for gaming performance AMD's 7900 series is better in the gap between the 3090/4070Ti and 4090.
Price per FPS is not coming down significantly any time soon thanks to TSMC having a monopoly on all advanced nodes (which they will enjoy far into the decade)- sure, the Super series might result in the eBay 3080s dropping in price by 10%, but the days of faster silicon for the same price are definitively over.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
The rising dragon and the falling eagle in a nutshell.
I'm not as certain this is as much a problem for the US as it would be for anyone else. Falcon 9s are ICBMs (Second Amendment intensifies); the only distinction between the two is in the payload (and that parts of it can be used more than once).
I believe this because the reverse is true; most satellites orbiting today were put there by missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads (either basically unmodified like the Atlas, or slightly modified like the Minotaur).
Yeah, there probably should be more of an effort to ensure that existing weapon-carrying missiles are sufficient to completely destroy the enemy, but private industry in the US could close the missile gap very quickly if they're asked to do so, and that's really not something any other country can claim.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
Losing these people would result in serious brain drain
Perhaps, but the Europeans have demonstrated a complete inability to make use of them either; it's a question of "they work in the US and the work gets done", or "they go home and receive half pay for doing nothing".
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4mo ago
The reason electric cars exist, except for Tesla, is due to a mandate to destroy normal cars forever.
Accepting the car means accepting the mandate’s legitimacy. It’s that simple.
and I expect that will lead to some #RESIST and trying to get Trump to cave first
They and what government? Provinces are already conducting foreign diplomacy; that's supposed to be the Federal government's job, but they're too busy waging the Capital's pet culture war against the rest of the country and the PM too busy quiet(ish)-quitting to bother with this.
If the Canadian government was smart they'd put pressure on the foreign workers "on loan" to the US; educated and competent workers are something the US temporarily imports significant numbers of from this country, and they can just as soon be taken away. But again, that would require something resembling a strategy. (I'm half-expecting him to announce a tariff on arms and related equipment and call it a day, since Canadians can't legally buy the guns these days and ammunition getting more expensive is symbolic/a culture war objective.)
the seeming death of "the adult"
I mean, you'll get engagement from me, at least.
But you won't quite get what you're expecting; I'm going to posit that the people who do raise families are not properly equipping their children as a direct response.
The active anti-adult memes are part of this, but they don't entirely explain it among the children; the typical failing of the wise parent is that they refuse to delegate and make time for delegation, because they're too busy believing the meme about their kids not becoming fully human until way later than it actually happens. I've seen this first hand from parents I consider to be pretty wise, but at the same time they're failing their children because they didn't grow up in a memetic/economic environment that's far more blatantly hostile to human development (and no, it's not 'social media' or 'video games' or other purely reactionary Boomer cope; if anything, they're more popular than they otherwise would be because every other avenue of "actually doing something" has been shuttered for safety or cost reasons- it's not a surprise they spend every waking hour in the only free space they're allowed [for now] to participate in).
A married couple with multiple car seats in the back of thier vehicle may as well be screaming "the things you care about are not the things we care about" at every member of the intellectual, activist, and managerial classes they drive past.
So's a 10 year old walking down the street or riding his bike unsupervised. He screams that his parents don't put an absurd value on safety and hiding under the bed from all risk whatsoever.
The PMC, and people with that mindset, respond in kind; the fact they're allowed to is kind of the central issue there. Safety arrests development; and kids are inherently a very unsafe thing to do. Hence fur-babies, where you're [for now] allowed to kill them or otherwise dispose of them if they turn out wrong, can send them to multi-day daycare whenever you want, can keep them in a cage to prevent them from wrecking the house, and their purpose [to us] generally matches their intellectual capabilities quite well- something that it's a meme for parents to bemoan without end the minute this stops being true for their children ('teenagers').
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
I don't know why Americans are still so anal about underage drinking under adult supervision
I think HBD is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this: the people who left Europe had a genetic predilection to have problems with vices (you only get a stick up your ass about alcohol in 2 circumstances- either your God tells you it's bad, or you can't handle it yourself and have the opportunity to leave for a land where there isn't any), and the natives never evolved the genes that down-regulate alcohol addiction. Mix them together and you get a temperance movement strong enough to enshrine itself into the toughest law in the nation to change.
Americans also have a general hatred of the underaged for some reason and I haven't fully managed to figure out why that is yet- maybe a combination of parents being worried about the above effects in their children, a genetic predilection to overreact to anything risky/fun (Puritanism), and being fans of Old Testament-style property rights over children due to the dominant religion espousing them for most of the country's history?
these staff were not in fact necessary to the continued operation of Twitter.
Software is fundamentally no different than other kinds of industrial endeavor when it comes to the infrastructure. It's fundamentally a blue-collar profession for people who desperately want to pretend it isn't. Pays the same, too (boom towns skew this average though).
In both industries, it takes an order of magnitude more people to construct something than it does to maintain it, but the people who maintain it are a trade unto themselves. The software industry calls them "developer operators" (to be fair, in most companies there's nothing "developer" about them... but the corruption of the term doesn't dismiss what it was fundamentally made to describe); the real world calls them "millwrights".
The bottleneck in development is ultimately how parallelizable the work is, which is why software companies that employ a lot of developers have to grow breadth-first (it's very difficult to justify throwing 10 people at a simple API; you need 10 "areas of concern" and they all need to be slowly growing). The developer's favorite line is "like asking 9 women to make a baby in one month" for this exact reason.
However, software is unique in that the operators of the system work remotely for free. So you actually can fire every single one of your local operations staff that aren't relevant to the fundamental operation of the system and still make just as much money in a pinch; yeah, you run the risk of losing institutional knowledge when it comes to improving or modifying the system... but Twitter (nor any company in dire financial straits) doesn't need to do that, so it's the first thing to go (after the sinecures).
I'd imagine that the administrators of a university are even more unnecessary.
I take a different opinion of this: the sinecure positions are there because they're important to fundraising. If some Blue-leaning rich dude wants to change the world, well, "change the world" is what the university is selling. But they're not very good at changing the world because R&D is hard, and all the things that could make a real difference are banned, so the only thing they even have to sell is social change. And "if you can help pay our admin's salary, we'll help shape our graduates in the political direction of your choosing" is something that will get people to open their wallets.
Besides, what else are the rich going to do? Venture capital? That's risky and has the same problems. By contrast, paying people with the power to fail the next generation if they refuse to DIE has a demonstrably positive return on investment.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
They're doing dull, rote work that often amounts to little more than taking someone else's code or architecture and adapting it very slightly to fit a specific new situation.
Come to think of it, why did computer programming stop being the "women's work" it originated as? Because that... actually kind of fits the description of secretaries and computers (as in, the job title), but in practice (in 2022, but it was true in 2010 to a large extent too) it's a little different than that. And I can kind of see it with more imperative "only do this thing" FORTRAN and, later, Excel-as-programming language, but it's weird that it doesn't apply to software as a whole (though MS' Power Apps platform might have something to say about that).
I think that it might be worth looking at the tooling and tools; I believe that software and developers are just uniquely bad at writing good documentation and it's to the point where you actually have to do heavier analysis to get anything done any more.
Maybe having to dig hard to get anything done in all these damn frameworks was job security after all?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4mo ago
It is understandably shocking to sexists and racists that one cannot, in fact, make successful media based solely on those hatreds.
Most sexists/racists have seen [classical] liberal media built on spewing hate at them and be overwhelmingly popular, and they think they can do the same thing by spewing hate back at the liberals. (Progressives have a larger blind spot here because some of them think they really are liberals- they're not, they just borrow the name.)
The problem is that the reason liberal media works and progressive media doesn't is that the hatred isn't made core to the experience. Contrast Alien (or to a point, Terminator), where it isn't played or intended as subversive to have a woman in those roles, to Ghostbusters 3 or Star Wars 7-9, where it is.
It would be just as unsatisfying if it were a man in those roles- so the only reason to cast a woman in those roles, and people watching pick this up pretty quickly- is to rely on the hatred (a subset of subversiveness) to carry it.
I've made this point before for "child vs. adult media", but most of the same points apply. If you have a strong skeleton with your views painted onto it- and liberal views have an advantage because having liberal views tends to make it easier to build a strong skeleton- you'll succeed; but if you start with the views you'll generally fail unless your views are actually correct. And in the progressive case, they're not.
Compare Far Cry 5 (that understood how to do a conservative-coded villain group correctly) with Far Cry 6 (that took "conservative coded = bad" for granted)- in both cases, you're attacking a conservative-coded group, but 5 is "defend the innocents directly from insanity" where 6 is "abstract Cuba revolution cosplay, also wheelchair dog, the meme ending is the most engaging way to play the game (rather than in 4 and 5 where it's merely the most realistic option)".
Just because someone was wrong one time
There's being wrong, and then there's being wrong with intent.
Just being wrong isn't generally cause for concern. Being wrong with intent, on the other hand, will naturally prompt back-checking of work and a "deny by default" posture until they re-earn that trust... if that's even possible. They did a lot of damage.
On the other hand, though, "number go down because a bunch of insane outgroupers had their way" is the only lever I have to pull for them to be forced to face any consequences whatsoever, so it's in my political interest that skepticism be maximized even though it would strictly speaking be better (and a local maximum of health outcome) for most people (who are themselves much dumber than the medical establishment) to blindly trust said medical establishment.
these songs are being written by (((Them)))
Taylor Swift is neither Jewish nor a Zoomer, but you're correct: every single one of her songs is about exactly this. And she's been Top 40 for over a decade, so you turn on the radio (yeah, implying zoomers use radio, but this is true on random streaming sites) and you'll usually hear one within the hour.
Alternately: "cuntry music".
And she’s going to tell her friends or social media followers how bad it was later?
Which is kind of interesting, considering the traditional standard is that women are generally more embarrassed by bad sex than men, where men would be more likely than women to be extra proud of the fact it happened in the first place. But then again, this is the age of competitive simping (whether the above is correlated or causative, I couldn't say), so the fact the man couldn't satisfy the woman is the more salient point.
I don’t know how Zoomer men are supposed to function if this cultural norm is exacerbated further.
They throw literal bags of money at "woman who doesn't hate you"-as-a-service products. Unfortunately for real women, technology makes this easy to scale. And that's ignoring the AIs.
It's been 15 years and we still don't have an electric car that's focused on driving, and perhaps emblematic of this, there are no electric convertibles.
I just want a Roadster 2 (with the same level of tech and type of controls the original had) but with 4 seats and 1000 km of highway range: basically, I'm waiting for someone to build an electric Mustang (and not that stupid Mach-E crap). I'd feel much better having Coyote performance for the price of an Ecoboost and could accept a 30-minute charge time if my car performed that way, and I also want the paddle regen that some of the Hyundais have where you can choose how much engine braking -> weight transfer you want. At that point I might accept a screen for configuring those features only.
This isn't a complicated problem. Just offer me a regular car.
It's clear why the far left and far right hate it: the Fascist-Feminist Synthesis holds that women have no agency in such a situation, and that they must be protected from their own decision to offer themselves to beastly men.
Not quite.
When you view women through the standard "human fleshlight, plus domestic labor" lens (and the far-left and far-right agree that this is the best a woman can do in life; they just differ slightly in their approach to making that state of nature men's problem), prostitution and sex tourism offer a far superior product to domestic women.
Normally, to get a human fleshlight you have to marry it and you're stuck with it for the rest of your life; prostitution offers a massive variety and it's by the hour. Southeast Asia is considered the best place for prostitution simply because there's no minimum (w)age for prostitutes there.
Gynosupremacists are simply making sure there's no competition for domestic women, so they can get a higher price for their assets ('why buy the cow' and all that). Casting aspersions about the safety and morality of the competitor's products is a classic sales tactic.
The exact spear counterpart to this is illegal immigration; foreign men work harder and expect less than domestic men, so it's obvious why the femcels love them.
But why does the center go along with this still?
Because those sales tactics work.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
I would definitely say I prefer the Dojo as the healthy alternative, but if it works and persists across decades
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.
There can be no "clarity of consent" because "consent" doesn't actually exist- it suggests that women are just as dominant as men are just as submissive as women (1), but then as we see a bit later...
...that's pretty obviously false. That's the inherent tension with having a gender whose average participant gets off on the submission- and if they start to resent that for whatever reason, and have the political power to get their top/dom jailed, then arises the incentive to abuse that power. But the fact that this woman isn't availing herself of that power that she knows (or can be reasonably expected to know, especially since she demonstrates an understanding of what the word "consent" is implying) is at her beck and call is actually quite significant, so I'd take the claim of "yeah, it sure was a time, I have made my peace that this is just how [my] sexuality works, this isn't a big enough deal so fuck off" at face value in this instance. (Actually, it kind of reminds me of this.)
Fundamentally, it comes down to whether you think sex (and by extension, whether or not you've made peace with the fact consent doesn't exist) is a big deal or not. The people who think sex is a big deal are unwilling or unable to deal with the fact sex no longer leads to pregnancy or disease (2); and the people who think sex has no consequences are unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that implies it's child-safe (3). And the world turns.
(1) Which makes sense, considering "consent" was manufactured by non-gender-conforming men and women in the late '80s as a reaction to the free '70s, so it's only natural those [in a purely descriptive sense] trans-gender individuals would come up with a system that doesn't match how normal human beings actually function, then get all defensive when it doesn't work.
(2) If you don't allow needle-shaped objects to penetrate your ass, you're relatively safe from the only STD of actual consequence (and even then, it's "take these pills for the rest of your life or you'll die 2 weeks after someone coughs on you", but diabetics and epileptics manage that just fine, so...). You're still going to get herpes but the cold sores are just the cost of doing
your mombusiness.(3) "But what if the 5 year old girl consents" is specifically meant to call out the fact that "consent" doesn't actually mean "accedes to"; the concept is, quite literally, used as a condom. It's so thin at times ("my 5 year old is trans") it feels like it's not even there, which is exactly how Trojan claims it should be.
More options
Context Copy link