ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
I'm actually surprised by how strong themotte's negativity toward the prostitution is here.
I think the people who would post a semi-thoughtful response are too busy enjoying the delicious irony that is men who [claim to] sleep around a lot complaining about their "visceral revulsion" to whores (alongside the traditionalists talking about "violation of duty to her future husband" as if that was a real thing in any post-dowry society). I think I'd rather have someone who both drinks and already knows alcoholism isn't going to be for them than someone so scared of any risk whatsoever that they don't trust themselves to reject it, something something Parable of the Talents.
Anyway, that's the end of the reasonable part of this post.
Or, more honest than she had to be.
imagine marrying someone who doesn't want to be overly honest with you even when it's real bad (and its mirror image, "imagine marrying someone who's psychologically incapable of not going full Madonna-Whore on you").
Is that really so different from if she had casual sex, which not infrequently entails the man paying for drinks/dinner/a hotel anyway?
technically speaking, marriage is just really expensive prostitution that costs half your income and comes with an exclusive supply agreement
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
1yr ago
I don’t think it’s necessarily a larger portion than on the e-left.
The current right tends to attract insane/stupid men, the current left tends to attract insane/stupid women.
[The opinions of] these women are seen as less threatening and get the benefit of the doubt for sociobiological reasons (even by portions of the right in a way the left does not- that's the main difference between traditionalists and right-sympathetic liberals), and as such they're invisible enough that they have to do other things to stand out, like dying their hair.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
Women send love letters to literal child murderer men all the time (this applies to most serial killers that make the news, for that matter); that whole "life without parole" thing kind of gets in the way of the conjugal visits, though.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
I have zero clue how ten year old girls really talked.
The answer is "just [as bad as] the boys". Well, not so much on the dick jokes for what should be obvious reasons.
There is even a difference between 8 and 10.
Third grade, however, is not 10.
While that is the time in my life I developed the notion that "adults are forgetting on purpose", the evidence for that view was piling up prior to that.
but also practical ones
Do tell; I'm very curious as to how "knows the words and the specifics" is supposed to translate into "loose virtue/an easy mark".
It's very powerful, I don't want a state of affairs where this behavior is taboo for the labor class but encouraged for people who are hostile to the labor class.
Yes, I absolutely think this power ends up ruining any nation over time. The selfishness of the Labor class might be bad news, but at least that selfishness is productive; the selfishness of the Capital class is zero-sum and is only ever destructive.
Traditionally, it's only kept in check by sufficiently powerful cultural competitors (who need the average man to defend them lest they be led away in chains), but those competitors no longer exist. And there's scarce few ways to break out of it compared to 100 years ago given significant economic opportunities have allowed to be enclosed by capital.
Racial animus in the US is downstream of class animus (capital vs. labor). This is why the capital class needs racial animus running interference.
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.
The goal is to teach that gay and trans people aren't perverted freaks and you should accept them.
And if their parents don't agree, and do anything but toe the Progressive line about it, we're going to send gunmen to kidnap their kids so they can be parented properly.
That is the argument to which you were originally responding, and if it's "right wing" to think this is an uncharitable characterization... well, no, it's just a fact.
The goal is not to alter the gender identities, sexuality, or anything else about children's identity.
But it's important that the people with the most power to alter that need to not know about how we teach, so they have less chance of countering if they don't like it. Of course, if they counter, see above.
So yeah- whether or not this is grooming is irrelevant because these actions are far more serious. It's cultural genocide, with the same arguments, the same justification, and the same mechanism of action that it was in the '60s against literal tribes (coincidentally, red in color). I'm sure this will only be applied in the most egregious of circumstances and not just in response to other Red Tribe behaviors that offend Blues but can't yet be similarly litigated, though- besides, they already have other laws to use in this way. I'm sure that, say, exercise of 2A rights as written has no bearing on deciding if a couple gets to adopt or not.
The continously applied, wholly uncharitible assumption, that trans people are a collective of AGP freaks trying to fuck minors
Is it unfair? Probably, yes, but the boundary-blindness of ex-men in particular really doesn't help the appraisal given that breaking one boundary implies breaking others; one would assume that Bs and capris would be sufficient to assuage the psychological requirement to feel like a woman, not side-cut skirts and fake tits large enough to require reduction surgery were they real. The fact that this is usually dismissed as "merely bad fashion sense, Stop Oppressing Women(tm)" does not help- I just can't form a mental model where "I need to take it to parody levels" isn't AGP- so, please, indulge me.
As far as fucking minors goes... I've yet to come across any evidence supports they're more predatorially-successful than average, so I'm not really worried about that (if they were, and it was substantial, we'd have a 12/52-style meme for it). Sure, it would be nice to make sure that a particular predator doesn't get away with it merely because they're society's chosen morality pet (in much the same way that flat abortion bans mean 10 year olds are forced to carry to term, which already happened), but this doesn't seem to be happening in outsized proportion for LGB so I'm not convinced it's happening with T either.
and that's the only reason why anybody would ever want to teach about gender identity in school
Do they teach about racial identity in school? If not, why not? It's clearly much more relevant as to how the world treats you, so teachers should obviously treat black students differently just because they are black. Imagine if you're a teacher talking to Jamal's parents and you're very concerned if they'll have a problem with him "acting white", so you ask ham-fisted questions about how they'd feel if they knew he was turning assignments in on time and scoring well on tests since, because he's black, his parents obviously expect Cs.
So I have a similarly hard time with teaching gender identity in school, aside from enforcing that students treat each other with the same lack of one the State does- a "your [protected characteristic] doesn't make you any less or more of a person" is sufficient to ensure classmates don't treat [minority] like freaks, and has been for the last 40 years. And I expect what in that light is "some people like pants, some people like skirts" to be treated the same way; and I want someone who constantly inserts their pet religion into everything to be treated just like someone who inserts their pet sexuality into everything regardless of whether or not it's shared by any student- not employed by the State.
Most of the anatomy stuff is probably OK; puberty comes earlier than ever before these days thanks to better nutrition, and stressful home situations reportedly make it occur even faster (probably an evolutionary response), so lessons before that are probably fine.
But whether or not it's grooming is ultimately secondary- because given this law passes, whatever is happening (or changes afterwards) will become physically dangerous to oneself and one's family to campaign against. They want this enforced at gunpoint, and to the extent that people voting for politicians that introduce these laws do not change their vote in response, I'm having a hard time assuming they're not at least sympathetic to the idea.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
Obligatory "iPhone SE", but that might be too expensive for what you're looking to do, the screen might be too low-res, I wouldn't buy one until the 4th gen comes out, and you're giving up NewPipe + proper Firefox with uBlock + being able to run whatever you want by going with iOS.
You do get a lot for the money, though; it's the third-fastest phone available (leaps and bounds better than everything else; the 2nd gen is merely on par with those phones- Qualcomm's main business is very expensive modems with CPUs that are already 4 years out of date attached to them) and is as simple as you want it to be, being that it's an iPhone 13 packed into an iPhone 8, with everything that implies (including parts availability).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo 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.
You, like them, have nothing to offer people like me, other than to leave us alone.
Then perhaps people like you should side with the sorts of people that will leave you alone (and have a lengthy track record of doing so), rather than the ones that will not, so that when socioeconomic conditions stop being able to sustain liberalism and that freedom dries up it's your brand of [master] morality and not theirs with a better chance of coming out on top.
People generally sympathize with women for solid, well-founded reasons
Reasons which are no longer relevant or correct, but their biological and cultural inertia remains. Traditionalism has, traditionally, never needed to come up with an answer for why women with the same (or more) sociopolitical power as men should obey rules meant to deal with the problems women create when they're the less powerful gender; that's the entire reason why it's been losing ground for the 300ish years since the Industrial Revolution. Traditionalist moral philosophy just isn't set up to handle post-scarcity environments for what should be obvious reasons, and corruption in post-scarcity environments is inherently progressive-biased anyway (as the former masters of North America, being a network of matriarchies that failed to advance technologically in any way over the 10,000 years they had the continent to themselves under functionally post-scarcity conditions, demonstrate).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
round userpics, which waste space.
I'm going to defend this a little bit, too. If a profile picture is designed to show one's face, having it be a circle makes sense since that's how faces are generally shaped. With a square box, you're also showing your shoulders in the picture and it's a little more awkward to get the picture framed just right.
Of course, that's assuming you'd prefer to share your face and use your real name, something generally more conducive to the goals of female users than their male counterparts. It is absolutely more inconvenient to have to fit a more generic square picture into a round hole.
[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
8mo ago
It is very possible for our unappealing hero to make a Faustian bargain: find a way to signal - loudly - that you know your place and are not interested in sex or relationships, but instead in something that is prosocial and noble
Becoming a eunuch or being homosexual are two other increasingly popular options that are also totally-coincidentally considered prosocial and noble by tribes that make more Faustian bargains.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
and half genuinely 'feel' it less due to a combination of social pressure and genuine belief that it's bad
An expression of crimestop followed up by "because they're objectively beneath me" satisfies a male citizen's obligations to the Junior Anti-Sex League.
but they do treat kids a bit like little adults
No, that's just how they treat the girls. (And they're correct, biologically speaking, to consider 13 "adult" for all practical purposes like every one of their ancestors save the last 3-4 generations did.)
The boys, of course, have to settle for the Untitled treatment unless they're willing to pretend they're women (as in, repudiating their sexual challenge to them- gayness is sufficient, so is becoming a eunuch). They can go back to their video games; keeping them sedated in the basement is a mercy for the harm they'd otherwise inflict on the women and the environment. After all, they're incapable of distinguishing sexual cosplay- the need to know that I could have any one of them that I wanted- from genuine interest (as in, fuck no, lmao).
When an ideology reifies "woman good, man bad", how could any of this be otherwise? Even the "rebellious teen" phase consists specifically of girls becoming what their mothers hate more than anything else in the world.
Of course, traditionalists are exactly the same, with the same reasons, just with the genders swapped (contrast sexual maturity with disposability, resisting any attempt by women to be anything more than a sex object, and inherent inability to accept a lesser men making a pass).
Note that it's not quite as black and white as that might make it sound- there are varying degrees of this in all societies and subsocieties- but starting from this standpoint and what economics of the time permit is, I find, shockingly accurate about what any given social environment will look like.
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
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.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
when times are good companies are more than willing to keep a bunch of low impact employees on the payroll
Also, it helps crowd out competition. Why fire a bunch of people when the interest rate is zero?
Sure, you'll save money in the short term, but those workers don't just disappear from the labor market; enterprising competitors will snap them up and end up requiring you to offer them a billion dollar acquihire scheme to shut them down before their product starts taking your marketshare.
Better to just keep them at Bigco. Sure, they won't really develop anything for you, but why drive the state of the art forward when you can just ignore all your customers, keep your competitors down, and rake in the cash from your ad business?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
What does TheMotte think about hiring a home cleaning service?
It's not a signifier of high-income for no reason- people actually do like not having to worry about it. Just like cooking, when it's something that requires a lot of time to prep and contaminates the entire kitchen it's often more efficient (and tastier!) to choose an industrial kitchen- but a bit more niche and personal.
I just clean whenever I'm entertaining or when it gets to the point that it annoys me (usually a symptom of an underlying mechanical problem, like the sink or tub failing to drain). If it's not annoying me and I'm not worried about anyone seeing it, then there's no problem and am confused as to why it would be.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
They don't just know that they're supposed to do it
Or in other words, they're counting coup- Kiwifarms vs. Keffals and co. is how I'd expect that to look.
creating entire internet subcultures devoted to spreading their ideas
If it looks like a liberal and quacks like a liberal it's... probably a liberal. They're disproportionately dissident anyway when in a political situation that doesn't favor them- it's probably an evolutionary strategy to be sufficiently indispensable that the progressive-traditionalists can't fire them. These people just tend to create things because it's, for lack of a better word, in them to create; hacker culture used to be like this and, when you look at what the forefront is (used to be tech in general, but it's more limited to ML now), still very much is.
Once you figure out that traditionalists and progressives are just fighting over the temporary allegiances of these people- remember that, while the left can't meme, neither can the right (without the liberals)- political dynamics make more sense. It's just a pendulum; when dominated by traditionalists, play progressive, when dominated by progressives, play traditionalist.
What I was getting at is how would the reality of curtailing the freedom of about 1/2 the population significantly and the radical changes to even allow that to occur affect the rest of our society? What other massive impositions might be made on the population?
Given historical evidence (remember, we only stopped doing this 100 years ago) the answer appears to be "things change vanishingly little if at all". There's very little difference between pre- and post-suffrage in terms of how Western societies operated and women (at the population level) still held significant amounts of power, political and otherwise, over the men casting the votes. Prohibition is the perhaps the best example of this.
By what scaffold do what's left of our freedoms hang in this scenario?
Given the Enlightenment predates even universal male suffrage I think the foundations are pretty solid, though maybe not as much these days given the capital class needs far fewer laborers for the same proportion of economic output so they can't be held to account for their oppression as easily as they used to be.
If you won't be sent to die protecting a society's interests, being given the same right to choose what those interests are as the ones who will be sent is textbook moral hazard.
No, not really. iPhones tend to enjoy 6-7 years of major updates; the next runner up is 3-4 for Google (and to an extent, Samsung), and shorter than that for everyone else (almost like they're optimizing for the case where you to buy a new phone when your term is up). And since the phones themselves are significantly more powerful, they remain more useful over that time.
Also, for 200 bucks, I can get a second-gen SE, which will be supported for longer than the Pixel 6A, and it's still faster (being an iPhone 11 inside). Apart from Apple mobile CPU design is still lacking; too bad there was only one PA Semi to buy out.
Sure, you have support after the fact provided you have an unlocked bootloader, where you just don't with iOS devices, but that's still more work and far from guaranteed anyone will bother (though I suppose if you buy a Pixel it's less of a concern than it is if you buy something from, well, Samsung, since community support is better on devices that aren't actively hostile to developers getting other things to work on them). Maybe they've improved over the years, though.
More options
Context Copy link