ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
It’s bizarre that 55% oppose non-essential air travel since this class is the most likely to go on overseas holidays, I don’t understand how this works.
You misunderstand; they're against air travel for you, not for them, and open borders against you, not against them (which is part of why the only free trade agreement for migration of skilled labor are non-immigrant visa provisions with 3 countries: Canada, Mexico, and Australia). In the same way, an opposition to private gun rights is not an opposition to the concept of armed private security (including police) outside one's residence.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
the rainbow flag isn't particularly American
The one with the black and brown is extremely American, given that grievance politics about the people who happen to be that color is a unique export from them.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
Why would anyone show this to their own children?
Because it reinforces more or less every destructive cultural lie told over the past 100 years. The audience for this is parents (typically mothers) who are very concerned about what media their children consume, yet are too stupid or otherwise high on Morality to figure out that this is what they need to be defending their sons from.
I have never seen a piece of media that is so clearly a psy-op.
It occurs to me that the anti-Adolescence is a media that:
- (1) Encourages young men to do things that, statistically, lead to attracting women
- (a) imagining themself as the boy, physically exploring a woman
- (b) making the boy feel valued for that and not taken advantage of
- (c) making [women] think they're missing out by not doing that
- (2) make women interested in boys who look or behave like the boy protagonist, by associating the boy with promise and inevitable future value
- (3) has [1A] being conducted by a woman of high attractiveness
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
The parent's less likely to notice the one gay book in the normal stack, and even if the parent does notice, it's likelier to be dismissed as a harmless aberration.
They're also more likely to be actually a decent book (since they had to at least try and be convincing). Now, it's just taken for granted that the gayness makes the book good (since the group progressives form their identity around hating takes for granted that the gayness makes the book bad, and they think that reversed stupidity is intelligence), so you just get a bunch of Chick tracts.
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
9mo ago
just buying the things is the better deal
You're paying for the ability to ditch the bike literally anywhere, and someone stealing it or wrecking it is not your problem.
In places where property crime is actively encouraged that is an underrated part of the package- and people don't bother stealing them anyway, because even if they weren't all GPS-tracked, they're very obviously stolen to pawn shops whereas private e-bikes are not (and if you want to be more cynical, the police will go where the local rental company tells them the stolen scooters are, where private citizens don't generally enjoy that even if you can prove it with an AirTag or similar).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9mo ago
As to not duplicate from the other comment:
- Compact utility vehicles, the turbocharged 2-litre 4 cylinder engine, and plug-in hybrids having more performance than non-V8 muscle cars of 15 years ago
- All new cars are ludicrously luxurious by the standards of 15 years ago (performance models now have 600-1000 HP)
- Small trucks made a [limited] comeback
- All new construction is ludicrously luxurious by the standards of 15 years ago
- Grocery pre-compilation for later pickup is cheaper than the cart rentals; delivery not much more expensive than that
- Food delivery at very reasonable rates; ride-sharing limits what taxis can charge
- Board games have gone through a renaissance; RP (D&D, etc.) is much more popular and approachable
- Credit card skimming was 100% solved via NFC (UX of terminals notwithstanding)
- Android phones more likely to be supported for the physical lifetime of the device
- Holosun and Primary Arms drove the price of a good rifle or pistol optic down dramatically
- Optic sights on handguns now widespread, and the variety and capabilities of compact and subcompact pistols in particular has increased dramatically
- The collapse in price of good AR-15s, Kel-Tec in general, Palmetto State Armory in general, (US only but has knock-on effects worldwide) NFA being completely trivialized means innovation can continue (shoulder braces mean short rifles mean cartridges designed around short barrels, forced reset triggers mean full-auto is functionally no longer banned, e-Form 1 filing for silencers mean you get them in 2 weeks, not 2 months or 2 years)
- 3D printing, and the accessibility thereof
- Anti-piracy law is well and truly a dead letter (people were still worried about BitTorrent lawsuits 10 years ago, VPNs weren't yet a thing, Internet Archive didn't exist [for now])
- Indie games (Minecraft most importantly), mature online distribution for games and music (Steam, Bandcamp, Spotify to a point) and books, backwards compatibility for consoles, subscription services for games
- Distributed funding platforms (specifically Kickstarter and Patreon)
- Effectively unlimited cellular data plans, and cell plans having fallen in price by 50% (especially considering inflation)
- Dramatically cheaper plane travel (except for the last year or so)
- People work from home more often
- Computers are faster and consume 10x less power (netbooks finally reached maturity as tablets and hyper-thin laptops)
- SSDs made computers dramatically faster (this was later taken away by MS bloat, but was true for the majority of the last 15 years)
- Functional programming principles make UI development far easier
And that's all I have for now.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
But I see no reason why conservative gun owners must force the population of Hawaii to accept a law which both doesn’t affect the gun policy of conservative states and is transparently deeply unpopular there.
This argument conclusively fell through about 1860. One population in a group of states decided that the other population in a different group of states was not allowed to have the laws their electorates broadly supported, so they formed a massive mob and... well, you know the rest.
The compromise (if you can call it that), hashed out as soon the average judge sitting on the Supreme Court had no living memory of that event (they would have been unlikely to have even been born to parents who had participated in it, and even if they did those parents would all have been dead by then), was formalizing this new way. (They would then proceed to give the Federal government everything it wanted- from "anti-war speech is like shouting fire in a crowded theater" to "growing your own crops is interstate commerce"- in the years to come.)
However, because this compromise is couched in the language of "enforcing the constitution", conservatives had a valid point in that incorporation should naturally include the whole thing (not just the parts progressive states like), and 2A happened to get incorporated just as the initial massive Federal government power grabs were passing out of living memory. That probably isn't a coincidence.
All that said, the steelman for incorporation is that it broadly limits how hard a society in a particular State is allowed to entrench its regional brand of corruption/bullshit if the balance of power tilts hard enough one way or the other (so one-party states like California, while powerful, aren't allowed to completely destroy the culture of everyone else unfortunate enough to live there by outright banning and confiscating them). In turn, it also serves as a way to keep State borders stable (i.e. not bisecting California into San Angeles and Greater Nevada) and it's done a good job of that so far.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
And let's make it harder for men to waste their prime fertile years going to college. Get them working good honest blue-collar jobs out of high school, married to their childhood sweetheart, and having babies by the time they're twenty. Economic incentives for men to marry early, father lots of kids, and postpone further education/career-building will surely change the fertility slump!
This is called "conditions that existed in the late 1950s US".
TFR was 3.0.
Teenage pregnancies were at an all-time high.
Graduating high school qualified you for the vast majority of jobs; heck, even passing grade 10 was enough.
People intermingled enough in sufficiently popular third spaces that there probably was someone there for you.
Effective contraceptives existed (the Pill was a late-50s invention).
The truth doesn't actually care whether or not you believe it.
You are as much part of the problem as the women.
Capital gender now has to compete with the wirehead, and labor gender has more freedom (from capital gender- female but empowered by a smaller male fraction) when wearing it. Monthly wage pays rent (or a mortgage), buys food and utilities, and keeps the wirehead running. The fact that the labor gender are sufficiently satisfied by this arrangement to just do it until they're dead may be an inherent problem with the labor gender... but it's a problem only the capital gender can ultimately solve. And being capital, they won't.
(For the record, I think a low TFR is neither unexpected nor undesirable- technology combined with our current social edifice means that very few people are required to run it, and the resultant economic forces are doing the rest. The wireheading and the general hostility of the parties doesn't help, but as TFR in the 20s and 30s was running down close to 2 neither is required for this to happen- not that the first thing women did after getting the franchise in the US was "destroy the most popular male third space", but I'm sure that was a one-off and not indicative of how political interactions between men and women in similar economic circumstances were going to go 100 years down the line.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
how a 13 year old boy is being treated like an adult
...that's because 13 year old boys are adults, and human beings understand that more or less instinctually. Yes, usually we'll give some or other reason to pretend otherwise, but how we say we treat them vs. how we actually treat them is always different (and usually completely self-serving, in the older party's case) so we know that's a lie.
We expect 13 year old boys to take on adult responsibilities for social order yet grant them none of the rights that come along with that, which is how we justify absolutely bizarre things like "boys who are statutory raped are still liable for child support". Executing that age group for capital crimes is the historical norm- and let's not get started on the Volkssturm or Hamas' choice of soldiers.
It's mostly the women who encourage that, by the way- just another asset to be used up in warfare. Human doings at their finest.
Things were better for 13 year old men 150 years ago as the balance of right and responsibility was a bit more even; it's only within the last hundred years where they lost their rights. Of course, the same is true for men in general, it's just naturally far more pronounced in a population that can't fight back as effectively.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
A post-national state does not have a people, it has a territory.
A post-national state is usually known as an "empire".
And Canada has always been, to a point, an empire; if you don't live in the Triangle between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, your vote and your interests don't matter in the slightest when it comes to federal politics. This is slightly less true for the provinces east of that area, and provinces do have some overlap (and it's worth noting that, because the Triangle is not its own province, it can be overruled in Provincial politics especially when that Triangle has made those provinces their enemy... which, naturally, they have).
Thus that Triangle, for all intents and purposes, is Canada, and the rest is just territory that it has empire/dominion over (the "provinces" are more sub-administrative units in the ancient Roman sense; they are not "states"). Quebec's culture is more reactive/resistant to this state of affairs; the West, not as much, but the West has more in common (culturally, legally, linguistically) with the Triangle than Quebec does.
The "post-national" rhetoric is a Moldbug-ian call for Triangle residents to be more explicit in their supremacy (and an acknowledgement that the "post-national" government will put Triangle interests first) and stop thinking Canada is/should be like the US, with its checks and balances between states- which happen to prevent SoCal and the NY-DC corridor from exercising Imperial control over the rest of the nation to which they feel entitled (because the "I win" button in democracy is simply "have more voters than the other guy"; that's why the US [nominally] has laws to limit how much power that can ultimately yield, why most of the "it should be purely population that decides everything" rhetoric comes out of those places, and why each side has the immigration policies that they do- and this is generally seen as legitimate in the mind of the average resident, even those opposed to the Triangle, the most major effect being that this is why Quebec-minus-Montreal isn't its own nation right now).
It's worth noting that #notAllTriangleResidents, of course- even in the Triangle, Canada is still generally seen through the US lens of a collection of polities working together to accomplish some common goal, with a common-ish culture, with some differences (otherwise there would be no need to have Triangle residents see their empire for what it truly is). This is an even more popular view in the West, which is why when the West (and to a point, its elites) comes to protest the Triangle and its people -> policies they wave Canadian flags, not separatist ones.
I think that for [the idea, and "nation", of] Canada to be stable going forward the rest of the nation needs some much-needed checks and balances against the Triangle; that is what the Senate is nominally for (and, very revealingly, it was initially set up so that Ontario + Quebec alone could veto any legislation, though that's not what it does in practice). Of course, usually when this happens, a pan-dominion government can be elected in the Triangle and imposes on the Triangle elite anyway (which, naturally, deflates separatist movements); that happened post-Trudeau once, and perhaps it'll happen again.
If it becomes illegal to be a bad mom or dad
No, I'd say that being a bad mom or dad is actually required by the law. And... uh, it's required already in a good few places with CPS visits for the crime of letting your kids play outside and felony charges for having them walk half a mile, refusing to call them a girl even though they insist they are, etc. Basic 1984 stuff, internalized oppression begins at home after all.
As far as the gun thing goes... private firearms ownership by the 10-18 crowd was higher (and trivial to accomplish, just send the cash in the mail) 60 years ago yet the murder rate (and the rate at which they ran amok) was far lower, and I think the way society treats that crowd now (as opposed to what you were allowed to do in those years) has a lot to do with them deciding to act like this. They used to just bring their guns to school to go hunting afterwards in areas that weren't even that rural, but then again, you treat them more like adults when their biology demands it and you'll see better behavior.
Parents [and by extension, their kids] have been continually losing this battle for the last 40 years (with no indication yet they'll stop losing); it's not a surprise that prospective parents just adopt pets rather than have to fight the State and the demos tooth and nail for the right to parent correctly. Probably worse for the birth rates than the car seat thing, though data on how much isn't exactly easy to come by.
It would have been better had we simply banned daycare when society had the justification to do so in the '80s. But they didn't, so here we are.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2yr ago
Banning people who work at nuclear power plants and the military from using TikTok at work would be enough to satisfy national security concerns.
Why the fuck are people allowed to use any apps on their work-issued phones, or bring personal devices into sensitive locations? That's what you do when you have real national security concerns, so any concern about this is misplaced. War-gaming military units (and probably some real ones, too) get killed by even indirectly-location-aware dating apps all the time (and that's data China can easily access from American apps).
I find it hard to understand how the idea of a blanket national ban on TikTok even became popular enough to go to Congress
Major tech companies buy up every startup that could compete with them to shut them down, utterly fail to come up with a competitive product, mad that China beat them and now possesses the network effect power they tried so hard to build up over the last 20ish years.
News at 11.
that would properly be seen as silly soft authoritarianism
The US already abuses its financial infrastructure to target things its government doesn't like (Operation Choke Point) in both foreign and domestic markets. Sure, they don't directly jam Radio Moscow; but they're more than happy to make sure anyone who makes a radio capable of receiving the band on which they transmit can't get paid. I think that's the same thing in intent and consequence- it's only surprising now because this time it's more overt.
Not because social media is not doing any damage to children
Social media is not doing any damage to children by itself. What it does do is amplify problems inherent to/emergent from how we treat them- so if high school is some highly-age-segregated hellscape where petty bullshit is the only thing that matters in life, social media means that its power structure comes home with you and follows you wherever you go. (This isn't unique to high schoolers; it's also why most people are aware of progressive thought despite not personally knowing anyone who is.)
It's not surprising most people just want to treat the symptom, or confuse the symptom for the root cause. (No shit they're mentally ill; we're actively causing it.) Hard to get someone to understand something when their socioeconomic standing is a reward for not understanding it.
Why is 'groomer' a bad word to them?
Because it's opposition to the concept that they have the legitimate right to change how your kid thinks about gender relations, just like how they freak out when you cut off the transition pipeline for children of non-progressive parents simply because it limits their political power (whether that will work as well as non-progressives think it will is, of course, an open question).
Then why should progressives not shame a father for opposing their child dating an older adult who opened their mind about the beauty of inter-generational sexual relationships etc?
Well, progressives already intentionally conflate men having sex with 5 year old girls with men having sex with 25 year old women, so provided that child is female they already act functionally identically to conservatives in this regard. If the child is male, that's a different story entirely; any negative effects are going to fall on the gender they already actively discriminate against so revealed preferences are that they're perfectly fine with advocating for this (the highest-profile cases of "children celebrated for doing sexually-provocative things" are male).
And... that's kind of the thing, isn't it? People tend to trot out "but that German academic experiment in the '60s proves progressives are pro-pedophilia" but that's a dishonest view of that; what that actually was, if you read the reports, were a bunch of evil women handing over boys (that nobody would miss) with the explicit intention they be raped by other men so they "didn't grow up to be Nazis". Same gender dynamics at play today, same justifications (with the occasional case of this expanding into underclass girls when the rapists pass a paper-bag test i.e. Rotherham).
The liberal counter to this is something seemingly-obvious but nobody ever brings it up for some reason: sexual attraction's a two-way street. "When demands for sex are unilaterally imposed in some way that takes moderate to severe effort to escape, that hurts kids?" That hurts everyone subjected to it, regardless of age or gender for reasons I really shouldn't have to explain. It's worse in this age category, since the number of group-unaffiliated people a kid will ever know is actually really limited, so the overwhelming majority of cases have the degrading "you should sleep with me because if you don't this will make things awkward with your folks/they aren't going to stop me from trying so I'll just constantly badger you about it until you give in" character that women rightfully complain about when it happens to them at work or other social gatherings.
The scenario where little Dan Savage successfully propositions his crossing guard crush, where tweenage self_made_human gets his milf, or any other scenario meaningfully-prefaceable by the words "Dear Penthouse," is arguably not on balance harmful specifically because disengaging from that if things go sideways is costless (which is the underlying assertion classical liberals are making when they claim casual sex is not actually bad, the room temperature for '70s sexual mores, why that view depends on birth control and no incurable STDs, why the double-standard exists between early male and female sexual activity, and why critics of this generally have nothing better than "but casual sex exposes society to dangerous [se]X-rays" as a rebuttal).
This is, as one other poster puts it, "tennis at a kid level", sex as a toy. Most people who manage it at that age, provided they're not lying on the Internet, seem to explain it similarly. No major cost-benefit analyses required, just yes or no. Sex-positive people, most of whom are men, tend to operate this way by default; their goal is to drive the price of sex so low as to inherently make all sex the kind of sex kids already manage with each other. Newlywed couples that are going to be long-term successful generally have this outlook on sex for at least the first couple of years, too.
What I am concerned about is that same kid whose parents intentionally deliver them into the hands of people who will sexually harass them (which was the justification for the original '80s panic about daycare workers, and part of why some people avoid public schools today), tell them they have a duty to give into the [revealed] sexual demands of their caregivers/family friends/family members (including and up to outright rape- usually associated with "Mom's boyfriends" and older stepbrothers), or whose parent tells them it's "stunning and brave" to be doing sexual things with people they'd rather not be in the first place, because that gets right back to the progressive genesis of "you should accept being fucked by people you don't want to be fucked by because man bad muh Nazis".
This is "tennis at an adult level", SaaS sex as a service. This is primarily cost-benefit (if the sex is pleasant is less relevant), be that for money, social status, social justice, retaining a significant other, friend, or other relationship, not being beaten, sleeping out in the rain tonight, or killed; or all of the above at the same time. Sex-negative people, most of whom are women, tend to operate this way by default; because they believe all sex is adult sex, their goal is to drive the price of sex so high that selling it once to a single man will set them up for life (this also squares with their assertions that women sleeping around doesn't devalue the sex they eventually plan to sell in this way, but most women aren't taking this to its logical conclusion).
(Which also properly explains how the feminist claim of "all sex is rape" is motte-and-bailey: the motte is that all sex is inherently of this type, and the bailey is that it's abusive that tops men don't just give bottoms women whatever resources they want for free. The claim of "sex work is real work" is the mirror image of this.)
But the modes of thought about this are important if any non-progressive actually wants to coherently unpack why what progressives are doing- which is the crime of imposing adult outlooks and an undue importance on sex onto people that genuinely shouldn't have to deal with that- is abuse. For the liberals, yes, you do have to accept the entire argument about sexual liberation; the traditionalists should probably keep in mind that this is why Biblical gender dynamics are the way that they are in the first place and re-emphasize that the entire point of getting married in the first place is that that is the best chance of having a relationship for which these dynamics no longer apply (even though they still do, it's a slower burn, at least).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
Get them out doing useful things, competing in sports or other activities.
But that is not Safe.
Give them male only spaces. They’ll be fine.
But that is not Equal.
And if you pay attention to what kinds of messages young men gravitate to, it’s messages exactly like that— calls to purpose, to doing hard things and building something worthwhile.
But that will mean men will think themselves entitled to the fruits of that labor rather than paying women their fair share.
That is not Consent.
If you worship these things as Goddesses, and many do- you don't generally get elected without professing your belief in these things- you cannot fix this problem. Only by rejecting these Goddesses can you solve the problem.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
but then whither Canadian identity?
What Canadian identity? This is a post-national country.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
Yes, yes, and yes. Though I hesitate to call them "the new right" because they don't have anything to conserve yet, no entrenched interests to inflate; they're still on the upswing so that hasn't come out yet.
Traditional conservatives have a problem where 2000+ years of sociobiological truth was upended basically overnight 100 years ago- that men and women are a lot closer in socioeconomic standing than the Bible had anything to say about. So you have a pivot away from a civil religion that had no answer for that to one that could- and predictably, the one that won out almost immediately was "women good man bad".
Christianity has had no productive answer to that ever since. It's not something they're equipped to handle proceeding forward as they have been, and since these are traditionalists we're talking about they're going to be even slower on the uptake.
and will collapse back into progressivism
The liberal position is fundamentally unstable because the type of people it privileges cannot be entrenched in the same way a religious or identarian movement can. "Correct" is not an identity, though genetics have a non-trivial role to play in who is more often to be correct, and who is less- hence the movement's emphasis on making sure people who have genes that predict correctness are pushed so that they are correct more often and more productively.
And yes, this means that if there are differences here between subpopulations, they're going to get magnified. This will offend progressives, who are statistically more likely to be on the losing end of this (as part of why they're progressives). But if you can at least create and keep that cultural standard you'll at least be back at the point where you have enough seed corn that eating it becomes a possibility again.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5mo ago
storefront
The '92 LA race riots being a particularly salient example of this.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5mo ago
Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.
The BLM rioters were already de facto pardoned by Blue.
By their own definition, this is not an abuse of the process. Blue can always change their definition so it isn’t corrupt as fuck in the future.
But then again, I’m ok with the metaphorical battered housewife hitting back, even if that predictably results in an escalation where the batterer murders her. This is the ‘die on your feet/live on your knees’ question (or more generally, safety vs. dignity) all over again.
Since Red is the dignity party at the moment (they can’t out-safety the safety party) this reaction is natural.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7mo ago
it seems like the better X refugee camp from what's available, at least as far as vibrant public square goes.
That's because Substack is an actual improvement, whereas Bluesky is just a straight up re-implementation. And straight re-implementations are big fat losers in the marketplace of platforms; ask any gun Breadtuber, Matrix fan, Mastodon user, or 4chan splinter group about that.
Something big has to happen for other platforms to rise- Pawoo and Gab are the largest Mastodon (Twitter reimplementation) instances simply because they host stuff you couldn't post on Twitter. And the thing about "decentralization" is that it's just another word for "make sure Apple/Google can't ban the clients off of the phones, since that's where 99% of our userbase is browsing from at any given time".
The only exception to that rule is Reddit, where Digg had it all then blew it up with a redesign and other bullshit- but that was also 15 years ago and before the rise of the smartphone and corresponding App Store-beholden lock-in.
it's stupid to think women are somehow to blame
I'm assuming you're a man.
Female hypoagency is baked hard into your evolutionary biology. This is your instinct of "do whatever gets you laid" doing the talking, and in an era where men and women are, in fact, equal on most fields (that were for the past 100,000+ years dominated by men) it's simply maladaptive. And a woman who can't or won't perform the productive parts of that role is no woman, and it's a mistake of men to consider them as worthy of any special social status whatsoever. The biological principle of "women [and children] first" falls apart when those women in aggregate can refuse to bear children (or fail to put the interests of the nation's children above their own self-interests and aesthetic preferences).
In an age of automation (and slavery) driven equality, women and men ought to be equal parts human doing and human being- the fact that women are both and men are neither is a clear indication that our current methods and measures of "equality" need some re-evaluation.
But if one of the issues is giving too much power to people who can't properly wield it--and it has a gender bias--what on earth do we do?
If you assume that the average man and the average women are just as inherently anti-social/destructive as the other (a fundamental assumption for my worldview), you need to tailor-make the way you deal with those things to suit their biological specializations. If a woman's speech is just as destructive as a man's violence, the speech needs to be regulated in the same measure as the violence, or you're just giving too much power to women and their particular version of anti-sociality eventually starts to dominate.
The current folly of liberalism was believing that legal equality would lead to objective equality, where what actually happened is that by removing the societal safeguards from the gender that has had 100,000+ years to specialize in manipulating men to do things on their behalf, they [predictably] unleashed that machinery upon society. People get confused about "well, then why didn't gynosupremacy have massive negative effects earlier?" but fail to recognize that this is a 1920s problem that we got to punt on for 50 years because the post-WW2 economic boom gave so many advantages to male social power that women would actually end up on the losing end for a while, but naturally they wouldn't last.
I really don't want to become a Trad Chad who wants to put the ladies back into some parochial 17th century box.
We already recognize strict legal equality in the face of women as a stepping-stone to strict objective equality, and women in aggregate recognize the concept of intersectionality and equity. They're correct in that these are things that should happen; where they're incorrect is that if it was applied fairly it would be almost exclusively at the cost of their current social license to be destructive. And, as these same women are quick to point out, loss of that privilege will feel like oppression (but, of course, isn't).
The problem I have is that, if this is done improperly, you catch the "transgender" women and men in the blast radius (i.e. the women and men who don't need rules restraining a latent gynosupremacist/androsupremacist attitude they didn't have in the first place). They tend to be the most productive/least disruptive people society has and the cost of this change might not be worth what it costs them.
I have some ideas for the way this might work, but the trick is implementing them in a way contradictory to instinct, are not feasible while men are still in socioeconomic oversupply, and are just as easy to conveniently leave pointed at men (just like how we use paper-bag tests to determine which criminals to prosecute now). (Of course, these measures wouldn't be needed if women were all of a sudden in socioeconomic oversupply -> in less of a position to demand men conform to them; this is why, ironically, that gynosupremacists being able to exclusively choose to bear saintly girls and not toxic boys would eventually end up diluting their current power over time.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9mo ago
What’s something that’s grey on the outside and blue on the inside?
I think that's just called depression.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1yr ago
English law doesn't even recognize that concept; the US's notion of protecting it was a reaction to it being non-existent.
Later nations gesture vaguely at the concept, but if it's in their law, it's always explicitly prefaced with "unless we really don't want to".
Are The Kids Alright?
Yes.
As always, the problem is idiot parents (who are either too close to the problem or don't quite Get It) and adult in general with either a motivated or unmotivated case of Last Thursdayism where they are either forgetting on purpose, or unwilling to acknowledge, that they ever were a kid in the first place (they sprang out of the womb fully-formed at [age of majority + 7]).
You can see this effect on absolute full blast in the other thread this week if you know where to look. In fact, it's in the sibling comment to this one and most of the replies will be missing the point entirely: kids are on their phones 24/7 because, to a large extent, there is literally nothing else for them to do, and the people who will continue to comment on that thread are all young enough to know that. Thus the amnesia is either literal or motivated, which was the conclusion I distinctly remember coming to when I was a kid myself: social conditions haven't changed.
Anywhere from hyper-preferences for everything to be done via text/e-mail, to literally falling silent in in-person meetings because of inability to cope with (what I think is) base-line social anxiety (what I mean here is the general sense of awkwardness we all feel the first time we meet someone new).
The pathway to this is sublimely simple:
-
Pathologize/criminalize/trivialize any trait, like doing things for yourself, facing any sort of risk, etc.
-
Kids get the message, don't take any risks, don't do anything for themselves
-
Kids fail to develop that skill in the critical window
-
Adults now complaining kids can't do thing you intentionally prohibited them from doing
-
Clearly, it's not safe for them to do anything else -> look how incapable they are -> we need to protect them for their own good
-
Go to 1
And yes, in case you were wondering, this is how racism leads to a downwards spiral of capability in the affected group. The effects are functionally identical- the group acts exactly like you've incentivized them and taught them to.
But hey, we can justify it to ourselves by saying "well, they'll grow out of it and magically become adults once it is Safe (25)". I'm sure that is a great plan and won't backfire horribly- of course, moral hazard being what it is around every generation that succeeds yours, you'll never truly be held accountable for the pieces you cut off your kids so they'd be Safe. And besides, they'll find yet another way to fuck up the next generation anyway, so who can truly say?
Back when men were 70% of college students, the men who actually made it there were also the kinds of men who were actually high achievers and would benefit from that.
College was far from mandatory for any job- you could quit at Grade 10 (or earlier, in some cases) and still expect to make a reasonably decent living. Men (and women) for whom additional schooling would not help could just... leave, and be a full-fledged adult at 16 (which gives them far greater time to achieve their goals and become more mature). Now we have grade inflation and people now need a college degree to receive government-mandated UBI (i.e. workers employed in the education-managerial complex) because high school graduation rates became a target and thus ceased to be a good measure of graduate competence.
More options
Context Copy link