ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7d ago
The idea that you should find a partner by fucking around through your teens and twenties until you find a girl you want to keep is incredibly recent, though. Basically Europe/Anglo only, between 1960s and now.
Yes, the ability to have sex and be more or less guaranteed for that not to result in pregnancy is an incredibly recent development; and the kinds of people who take advantage of that technology (and encourage taking advantage of the same) tend to be somewhat less encumbered than what the past several million years of evolution suggest they should be, to the point that someone closer to that prediction would/should believe that a serious malfunction.
You can have either position but not really both, especially when you cripple your childrens’ game and then throw them into the tinder meat market at 20
There are two types of conservatives: those who have realized this and ally with the less-encumbered as described above, and those who turn inwards and die (their daughters become progressives immediately after leaving the house and remain that way for the rest of their lives, and their sons don't figure out becoming progressive is a bad move until it's too late for them to ever leave the basement).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7d ago
but no one who was upset about the kids having sex or doing drugs is happy about it.
Oh, don't get them wrong, they were happy about it back when their kid was 12-20. Every conservative parent's dream, really- no sex, no drugs, and otherwise content to be seen-but-not-heard. Just follow the process and your life will surely start eventually.
But now you fast-forward 20 years and they're still in the basement. Encouraging their children to reject the more pleasurable (and riskier) parts of life may have had some unforeseen consequences, but if your judgement as a parent is that the best way to make sure your child isn't living in sin is to encourage them to refuse to live then, uh... mission accomplished, I guess?
It seems to me that quite a few people take the Bible literally, and even more take it seriously, at least in terms of what they believe.
I still know some people like this, and was this way for most of my life (I am not this way any more but still remember what it was like).
To that end, it's at least an argument for a church set up in such a way that it actually can have good answers to the Genesis question simply to scratch that gnostic itch (that is, I feel, the reason why some Christians really do want/have a psychological need for the creation story to be overly? literal). Then again, a structure that can answer that question can also get it wrong.
Giving it up also pattern-matches to the standard slippery slope that, everyone, and Christians since they've been on the losing end of the fight for freedom of religion for the last 50 years are more sensitive to it, intuitively understands- and while the removal of Jesus (and some strains of Christianity do indeed have a metaphorical Jesus, though that is a contradiction in terms) is explicitly addressed in one of the New Testament books the notion of "giving up on position X" is one that's going to pattern match as a descent into "giving up on historical Jesus" (literally the foundation of the religion, pointless without Him). Most of the Pentateuch is on relatively shaky historical ground, and a good chunk of the most dramatic, and miracles that remain in the collective consciousness, come from there- giving them up into metaphor doesn't really help their explanatory power. (I'm honestly not sure how the Jews handle it.)
Oh well, at least we can all just compare ourselves to AI models converging or diverging from Christ as everyone becomes more familiar with those topics, so now we'll get to have the fight over Calvinism if and when that idea starts occurring to the mainstream.
because shooting people with criminal nature and intent regardless of their social status, connections, or cleverness in concealing their actual crimes would wipe out huge swathes of the people we consider movers and shakers in modern society.
There may be an oversupply of these people (either in economic fact/if post-scarcity economic conditions exist, or in social consensus; European and Asian societies take this option, though none quite as seriously as the Cambodians, North Koreans, or to a point the Chinese).
One could argue (or perhaps simply notice) that, in Western societies, these people are generally called "men" (and you will notice that the real-world politics used to justify this are exactly the same).
When the penalty for murder is death, you're already at the bottom (top?) of the escalation spiral, so the penalty for doing more murder is not different -> no longer a deterrent.
What else are they going to do to you, especially considering that Abramic societies generally tend to avoid things like intergenerational punishments (and for good reason)?
After all, you can't turbo-kill the criminal and send them to turbo-hell, so if you're going to have the penalty be execution (including life imprisonment, or a significant fraction of life imprisonment, especially in a system that isn't an exile simulator) you can no longer scale up from there, thus meaning that, for the criminal, there might as well not be a law against it... at a time when the means and opportunity are right there.
So I'm not surprised that "I didn't like this school so I'll take it out on the faculty" naturally evolves into dead kids in the hallways too- just a target of opportunity at that point. Naturally, nobody tends to draw that distinction because they're more focused on "I told you so"-ing and trying to win political arguments (and this post is not technically an exception), but so it goes.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
because it can pull commuters away from driving
I could own a car and go wherever I want, whenever I want. It'll take me 10 minutes to get there and another 10 to get back. I can buy heavy things or more than I can carry on my own. A lot of times public transit doesn't get me to where I want to go (especially if it's another city, and in that case I'd need to get a hotel and hope their own system takes me to where I need to go) and sometimes what I'm transporting is not allowed on public transit. I can open the windows, turn on the A/C, I control the music, and I'll always have a place to sit.
Or I could take public transit, where it'll take me an hour one way (transit + walking + transfers), I'm limited to my physical strength (so no Costco runs), I'm more or less limited to where public transit goes, not even guaranteed a place on the vehicle during rush hour, I can't take certain things with me, and I can't stay out later than the last bus or I'll be stuck walking for multiple hours. Or I could take a taxi, but the cost of doing that particularly often is comparable to car ownership in the first place.
The reason people like cars is that personal vehicles of this nature are Good, Actually. We can argue about the size (though because a great variety of Westerners are landlords compared to those in hyper-dense areas or Europe, we tend to prefer trucks large enough to lend to the land's maintenance) but there's a reason even in extremely poor areas the dominant mode of transportation is not public... it's a 50cc gasoline-powered scooter.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
and how the imagined criminal just resigned himself to rampage once he was targeted as depraved-- because he knew his planned life was over anyway
I don't think this is that unusual. The penalty for murder is already death.
Mass shootings that aren't explicitly political or religious in motivation tend often to turn into this (three of the four most famous American examples are "I managed to get myself locked into an elementary school classroom while on the run from the cops, my life is over anyway, might as well shoot a few for fun" [Uvalde], "I'm a jilted lover so I'm going to shoot her, she works at a school, no harm in racking up a few more on the way out" [Sandy Hook], and "the cops aren't coming in, I'm bored, might as well shoot some more" [Pulse nightclub]).
Or they're just your bog-standard nutcases, and in those ones you get "I'm just going to wildly spray bullets everywhere without bothering to actually aim, if they die they die as Xenu (or whatever) wills it".
Body counts among mass shooters tend to be low relative to what their firepower would otherwise suggest (even among knife-wielders) and I believe this is most of the reason why. Japanese mass killers in particular tend to be more successful lighting people and buildings on fire, as the incident at Kyoto Animation demonstrates.
In other words, a sudden snap from the normal mooring to cultural mores, to say nothing of the rule of law.
The expression "running amok" is Malayan. Seems like this is cross-cultural.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space.
Wrong. On its face, in fact- if you're going to tell me "but racism and racial discrimination for its own sake" aren't the same (which is what you appear to be doing) then perhaps we need to do the same for "rights". Which you also do, of course, but moving on.
Being against [trans rights] my orthodoxy is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason.
How convenient.
People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Which is why the trans rights faction is hell-bent on doing exactly that (misgender = prison + your kids get taken away to a Residential School).
Fear of men isn't actually the driving force here (though it would be convenient); "trans rights" are fundamentally an intra-orthodoxy fight. One group of women want to gain an advantage over the rest by asserting that they are in control of defining exceptions to "man bad woman good", and then doing those things (like putting men in women's prisons and washrooms) and the rest are more serious about "man bad woman good" as their moral core (those we call TERFs).
And we could talk about the actual issue with transpeople- which is simply that they refuse to accommodate for anyone else in any way resembling self-reflection and are also insisting on making everyone else repeat a lie at gunpoint (if they stopped doing those things there'd be a lot less of an issue, but pretending society is turbo-hostile is a cornerstone of progressive thought and power: I will note you never answered the charge of "Discard the liars and nutcases, then ordinary people will be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt" likely because you appear to believe that those outside the orthodoxy are more dangerous; something I'd dispute heavily given the track record of orthodox social policies)- but again, it's not really about that, it's fundamentally about who the sovereign is and the exceptions they'd like to define.
You seem to be under the belief that you're just arguing with someone who agrees with the orthodoxy on every point but this- but you're not, you're dealing with people who believe both the orthodoxy and the dominant group therein are evil because they insist on putting guns to people's heads in the first place. Hence your emphasis on "misandry" being the root cause going unanswered, where the correct emphasis rests on the fact women shouldn't have the power to dictate these things in an equal society (something you're not on the side of, outside of your private definition of equality that just so happens to just be indistinguishable from "man bad and owe good women merely for existing").
He was. The problem is that while a good chunk of his insights on his pet topic are correct (I think my "r u alt account?" counter sits at either 1 or 2 for him for that reason), he was a single-issue poster on said topic to a degree that would embarrass even SecureSignals and seemed to cross more into trying to [forcefully] recruit for that cause so he flamed out pretty quickly. (Of course, you either flame out quickly or turn into Sloot, which has its own problems.)
The unfortunate thing about the troll/single-issue/unorthodox posters is that while they do ultimately need to be removed, without them my worldview and politics wouldn't be the way they are; I think I've gained value from every single one of them, though perhaps not in the ways they would have intended, and certainly not in ways that are complimentary to their worldviews through the sort of normative/moral lens they themselves are using (where you have to legitimately be an amoral bastard to consider them properly).
Perhaps future forum technology will account for the knowledge base of the community that way? We hint at it here in the way we use the forum with the quality contributions and some posters' tendency to back-reference themselves, but it's not particularly discoverable and so we "lose" those contributions.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
Oh, no, they have “stop flushing the fucking paper towels” in the factories, too. At least it’s a sign they know how to flush it, I guess.
However if you prefer, let us taboo the term "racism" and instead discuss "racial identitarianism".
The same should also be done for "sexism" -> "sex/gender identitarianism", which not only covers feminism/gynosupremacy, but LGBT/homosupremacy too.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11d ago
Honestly, in terms of the symbols of those Olympic games, I preferred the Goatse submission [SFW]. The "Lisa Simpson blowjob" one just didn't hit the same way.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11d ago
Maybe I am inclined to believe that those who seek truth for the sake of truth do tend to come out with a "liberal" bias.
This is a tautology, but the reason they come out with a liberal bias is because these people are in fact worthy of the individual rights liberalism suggests exist inherent to every man simply because they naturally do this.
Not all who claim to be liberals are actually liberal, though- hell, that's why progressives call themselves "liberal" in the first place! The problem for true liberals post-1980 or so is that, because socioeconomic opportunity started to dry up around that time (as compared to the '50s-'70s), society started selling those rights with the belief they'd be rewarded with other things that, while they feel good to have, are less aligned with the truth. Short-term moral gains at the expense of long-term advancement: affirmative action, gynosupremacism/feminism, [inorganic at the time] gay marriage, further destruction of negative rights (parental rights, self-defense rights, "freeze peach", free association), etc.
So progressives dressed their corruption in the skinsuit of what liberalism was and carried on with the slogans. And this worked, for a time; the transition kept otherwise low-information liberals believing that they had inherited the movement, and so did the details of being for things like feminism and non-straight sexualities.
Around 2013 there was a Great Awokening... but it wasn't the progressives that woke up, it was the liberals realizing they needed to take back their own label. They found natural allies in the enemies of the progressives (which is why the average liberal is seen as "right-wing"- classical liberalism is a conservative view now) because they know, and knew, that liberals oppress them less than progressives will.
I feel more strongly that the painting of universities as institutions of
liberalprogressive indoctrination deny entire cohorts of students their own agency in developing political beliefs
I think that for any student in a liberal arts degree (including those who are only capable of that, and assuming this education is an accurate assessor of intelligence- the people for who that is not true tend not to emerge as progressives) progressivism is a natural adaptation because these people are in massive oversupply, and their policies are a natural reflection of this fact. That's why they need the absurd amounts of illegal immigration- after all, the easiest way to correct a problem of "too many chiefs, not enough indians" is simply to import a shit-ton of indians (literally, in many cases). As we might expect, academia was simply ahead of the curve here, because they were championing this stuff 20-30 years before this would become apparent to the average citizen.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
12d ago
Asking people to bend over backwards doesn't make sense to me.
The problem here is that this only goes one way. Respect’s a two way street, and if the response of, say, feminists once they’re on the high side of separate but equal start reinforcing that and solidifying that into privilege, the correct response is the iron fist present in that velvet glove, not further prostration.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
13d ago
Giving special quotas and handouts to females would be more blatantly discriminatory
Then the purpose of this system of divorcing "female" and "woman"- what it does- is to launder this exact thing through "if you're willing to deny the truth in a way that suits our orthodoxy you too can have some of the gibs".
Note that the group most opposed to this, that being a particular subset of 'females', are generally opposed to the fact this allows males to assume privileges currently granted to females, but not generally opposed to those [blatantly discriminatory] privileges existing in the first place.
Women who are opposed to those privileges existing are generally understood as gender traitors, much like how a white person in 1950 opposed to institutional privilege would be considered a race traitor. Those who believe in gyno-supremacy usually consider these types a lost cause outside of the occasional think-piece about cheating being good for you.
And saying that "males are trash" would be a lot more obviously hateful than "men are trash"
Gynosupremacists (when they retreat to their motte they call themselves 'feminist') use these words interchangeably for a reason; when they say the latter, they mean the former, as a worldview founded on sexism predicts.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
13d ago
4chan isn't fast moving any more either unless you're signed in (which defeats the entire purpose of being 'anonymous') and the site ultimately died in 2013 when moot picked the wrong side (Gamergate) for whatever reason.
The splinter sites are closer to Reddit where you can just splinter your own board if you don't like whatever moderation, which is a solution, but not necessarily a good one. 4chan's board structure was generally OK though it could have used some better indexing for general threads, which 4chan never evolved a solution to because it's ultimately permanently stuck in 2005 (and the splinter sites aren't better) and the network effect kept it alive.
4chan has survived exoduses before under similar conditions but, again, that was 12 years ago and things are different now.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
14d ago
The default position of humanity is sexist and racist (the only question is whose sexism is privileged, and to what degree).
We had a time when that was less true, back when we were rich and our philosopher-kings were half-decent people, but that's no longer true.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
17d ago
Blaming Biden for Ukraine being invaded is almost as bad as blaming Trump for COVID happening under his watch.
Funny, because I do blame both of them for those things.
For Biden: what the fuck else do you think Hunter was doing there? The Ds have been angling for that war for years and have been playing stupid games in Ukraine even back when he was VP.
For Trump: massive partisan riots broke out and weren't controlled. Law and order gave way to burn, loot, murder in literally every major city and he did what, hold a Bible upside down? And the money printing began under him- the Ds continued it, sure, but that was a bad move from the get-go.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
17d ago
According to Trump (or Tony Schwartz) one of the key skills of a sucessful negotiator is the ability to remain focused on what is rather than what ought to be, or what people say.
Sure, but now we have what appears [to me] to be tactically-inconsistent backpedaling. Enhanced high-tech manufacturing capabilities were supposed to [by who?] be the goal but now only token tariffs remain in the most important areas- and yes, the US has weaknesses in this area that are so significant that major Chinese manufacturing firms being told to suspend shipments of that equipment to the US is probably a bigger deal than most give it credit for. The Americans might indeed not be in any position to unilaterally establish independent industry at this time.
And while people do indeed have incredibly short memories- people barely remember 2020-2022 these days and that economic cataclysm dwarfs any economic disturbance tariffs have caused (oh, market fell 10%? I don't hear reparations for the 30% inflation over the last 4 years in addition to all the authoritarian shit so I don't fucking care!)- my main problem is that the negotiations are highly public, but the timeframe is not.
Let's take the whole 51st State thing as an example. I feel that to start trying to accomplish that goal... well, the economic tactics are sound ones, but there's only a concept of a plan here, nothing more substantive [as perceived by the general public].
When working on any project, the answer to most questions [from a stability/investment mindset] cannot actually be the Underpants Gnomes strategy; we pour foundations so that we can accomplish the next step of the process, but to pour those foundations the finished product needs to be coherent. Is it self-sufficiency, like petroleum? Is it simply reduced dependence with an eye towards self-sufficiency? The last major economic reformer in US history, FDR, had the fireside chat specifically for this reason- massive and immediate reforms benefit from someone explaining why. That should be Vance, since he's capable of doing this whereas Trump is... very not, but I'm not hearing anything.
And doubly so if we're going to see dealmaking consistently in public- whereas right now, we just have the disruption. And yes, this sort of thing absolutely is bad for American provinces like Canada and the EU; to the point that I see the offer of statehood as an early buy-out package for performers capable of being disruptive to larger goals before the layoffs begin... which, you'll recall, was exactly what was occurring around that time.
I've been seeing comments here about how trump is "erratic", "stupid", "illiterate", and a "retard", about how he's going to tank the economy and usher in a new age of Democratic party rule, about how his supporters are all deep-throating cock-slobberes who deserve to lose everything.
The only real criticism is "erratic", the other ones are all just incoherent screaming (same with "corrupt"; I have yet to hear how substantiated/used outside of a thought-terminating argument).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d ago
Trying to redefine "purpose" to be about outcomes instead of intent is a silly linguistic game that I have no patience for.
It's meaningful with the implication that you're saying this to hold those within those systems to account.
When those in charge of systems are hostile, or the system is set up to allow value drift (let's take BLM as a system- the official statement was black lives matter, where what it actually did was burn loot murder), those who created the system rightfully should be held to account for either allowing the goals of the system to be hijacked [mistake theory] or was intended that way from the start and the declared intentions were lies [conflict theory].
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d ago
Well, then their receiving countries can reorient themselves to take advantage of their returning human capital.
If they don’t, perhaps because those politics (that their researchers are more aligned with) inherently won’t let them, who am I to tell them that the perpetuation of those politics is a net-negative for humanity because it means objective progress is sacrificed? Clearly they believe those politics more important, and far be it from me to interrupt their mistakes, or even categorize them as such.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d 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
18d ago
Ok, so forced arbitration then military action.
I think the current English order is evil enough to order them shot as a motivator if no alternative can be found; whether the soldiers actually pull the triggers when so ordered is another matter.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d ago
Does anyone have some color on why Japans population decline slowed and Koreas did not?
Japan is a larger nation, with more economic opportunity, and it industrialized at a time when industrialization wasn't quite so automated- the percentage of the population that process enriched was larger.
South Korea is small, has one major city, and it industrialized at a time when automation was already a relatively solved problem- the percentage of the population that process enriched was smaller.
Both nations, as well as all Western ones (importantly, the US is the least affected), are overpopulated to varying degrees relative to their level of economic opportunity- that's why TFR is below 2 there. It's not "the young aren't doing their duty", it's that the positions that the young would grow into no longer exist and their very existence has been, for a variety of reasons, simply priced out of the market (you can also see this effect in gender relations, where women instinctively expect men to make more than them- which means that the carrying capacity of society is not equal, and furthermore that men are in surplus).
When populations shrink, capital pays more for labor- that's why, historically, massive economic booms occur after significant die-offs. What you're seeing is a slower, gentler version of that process.
The North Koreans are not capable of winning a war on South Korea and still remaining North Korea through domestic production alone- if they had enough domestic production to sustain a war they would have industrialized to the point the socioeconomic forces that hold the country together would be destroyed- too many people getting rich for the Kim regime to be able to delete.
China could do it, of course- just dump more materiel onto the NK army than they're able to carry- but then, apart from no longer being a base from which the United States could attack the Chinese mainland, what grand benefit would they get from reducing the country to rubble? Certainly not a trading partner, that's for sure, since NK has no industry and their people are poorer than China's own in the first place. It's not like Ukraine where the Russians can somewhat credibly claim they're making the territory safe for ethnic Russians; Koreans aren't Han Chinese and the two hate each other on that basis alone.
These two things are at odds. If you believe teenagers should be thoroughly desexualized (and if you even use the term "underage" that way, you likely do), you're going to think the "right age" is 25-30 for both parties. By that point you have enough sour grapes from the men and enough "thottery" from the women that your "active co-ordination" isn't going to be better than the Tinder status quo. One of the things you want from a marriage is the concept and expectation that you'll grow together, and that's much more likely at 20 than 30.
Indeed, money makes all the difference. The Japanese might have the right idea with the company dating services, and since you only see your spouse for a couple of hours one day a week the dynamics of a marriage aren't exactly going to be that deep.
It's the same thing you just described, but up one level: if you don't understand how men and women actually work (perhaps because you think man bad woman good, which is the traditionalist-progressive compact, or because you're just not self-aware enough or too tired/don't have time to deal with it, which is the issue with the liberals), then you're not going to be able to fix issues built upon faulty understanding, you're just going to make them worse.
More options
Context Copy link