ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
19d ago
I admit I can't explain why "feminist" in the public imagination is sex-positive.
Boomers' cultural worldview of feminism is stuck in the '70s, which is the last time that was true.
The side of feminism comprising the modern #fightfor25/Junior Anti-Sex League wouldn't get back to the same rent-seeking position on sex it had in the early 20th century until after AIDS.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
19d ago
to avoid calling it a paraphilia.
Yeah, but that's both because nobody knows what a paraphilia is[1], and because it sounds like that other '-philia' that means you're into kids.
(Actually, the same's true of using the expanded form of 'AGP', for the same reason, and those who use it know that.)
[1] I mean, I like that caliber and being prepared and all, but I've yet to develop a sexual attraction to bullets and MREs.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
19d ago
It seems to me that feminists and red-pillers agree on most ground facts
More generally, it seems to me that progressives and traditionalists agree on most ground facts, and the fighting is mostly just the narcissism of small differences/whose brand gets to be on top.
(Some red-pillers are not traditionalists, of course, but they're not a major influence compared to those that are.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
19d ago
That doesn't follow whatsoever. It presupposes that we're always capable of evaluating deep consequences, which is plainly not the case. It also presupposes a ton of wisdom on the part of the person being persuaded.
Yes, progressives say "it's not my job to educate you" as well. (Traditionalists are just the progressives of 50 years ago, after all.)
If the only difference between you and them is that they have the social power to enforce it and you don't [because your thing is Totally 100% True Trust Me Gaise] then you're worthless and offensive as a movement, and people are right to reject you.
People generally don't like being tricked or called stupid; when you do that I'd argue it costs you a bit of your saltiness.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
19d ago
setting up a system where men are most successful in their early 20s seems unlikely (and even if it could happen, would put a crimp in family formation)
US TFR (and teenage pregnancy, as a related metric) hit its highest post-industrial point under that exact system; it's just that to institute such a system you just need to explode half of Europe.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
20d ago
Not unless they dress for a black-tie event in a badly fitted tuxedo, or are wearing a male sleeveless shirt and shorts with no bra (or binder) and a packer.
I don't think normal tomboys are autoandrophiles any more than men working an email job are autogynephiles.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
20d ago
Where's that CS Lewis guy when you need him?
never been a shortage of Christian intellectual tradition
You're making my point for me: there has been a serious lack of meaningful addition to Christian intellectual tradition over the last 60 years, and that tradition ran into a sort of... replication crisis of its social science (from the standpoint of those on the ground at that time).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
20d ago
What did you think 'sinful' meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays?
Yes, and trivially. The problem with 'sinful' is the same problem 'misogynistic' or 'hateful' has in that it's thought-terminating and usually invoked as "fuck you, stop doing what I don't like".
I am happy that the traditionalists have figured out they actually have to make the argument without the short-circuit. Which should be easy, because they're unimpeachably correct, which is why they were right to pick up the thought-terminating argument from aesthetics in the first place and it didn't take them 60 years to come up with a workable counterargument.
Or, in other words, the aisles are swapping underneath the parties, and the Ds are going to fully re-emerge into the collective consciousness as the right-wing/conservative party (the term "progressive-conservative" comes to mind, back when right-wing causes had the social license that left-wing causes do today). The Rs have very solidly positioned themselves on the left-wing/reform side, and Trump II exemplifies this.
Remember, Obama was the last time a D voter could logically/consistently claim to be on the side of reform, and [Rs voting in 2012 or 2016 for any non-Trump candidate] was the last time an R voter could do the same on the side of conservatism. This is what "right is the new left" was talking about. Biden was fundamentally a conservative pick, exactly what you want in a crisis (which said conservatives manufactured, but that's not actually important with respect to the actual dynamics).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
21d ago
This is why tomboys hate formal events - they are used to being able to be performatively androgynous without looking like they are cross-dressing.
And, in reverse, this is how you can trivially differentiate autogynephiles from everyone else (AGPs dress as formally as possible all the time).
I agree that autoandrophiles can exhibit this, but they often don't because the pull effect from "guy clothes" isn't as strong considering there's no article of clothing (except ones you can't see) that aren't trivially available for women; you'd have to go out of your way to be transgressive and most people wouldn't understand it being "designated guy clothes", they'd just see as "woman with unusually poorly fitting clothes".
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
The basic reality is that Israel is fighting an uphill battle on the PR front, given the raw optics of the current conflict, and zoomers don't have the entrenched preferences of older generations.
So perhaps it is then worthwhile for Israel to press the attack now, while they still have foreign support to enable such a thing- also because if Iran gets a nuclear weapon the places launching conventional weapons into Israel right now will be functionally invincible, and Israel doesn't stand a chance against Iran without Roman American support simply due to having 1/10th the population of Iran, having a small fraction of the manufacturing capacity, and being dependent on certain fragile Jew magic for continued survival (desalinization facilities are vulnerable to attack from the sea for obvious reasons).
Israel could tout being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East
And they still had Muh Holocaust in living memory. It's not in living memory any more.
Sure, but I don't think they're getting stuck in Iran. That said, I also think nuclear weapons are overrated, and while it's likely worthwhile to launch delaying tactics... once Iran has the bomb, what exactly are they going to do with it? Iran already knows that Israel has sufficient nuclear capacity to glass Iran, and Iran already has (or by all rights, should have) sufficient conventional weapons manufacturing capacity (possibly aided by the Chinese) to turn Israel into a parking lot. I think they'll sell them to African nations for shits and giggles and maybe explode some other neighboring nation's capital city CoD 4-style (Baghdad?), but that's about it unless they can convince Egypt to take the hit. Iran can't hit the US and if they try, they'll be quickly reminded that the Tomahawk was primarily designed with a thermonuclear payload in mind.
Which is probably why Israel is right to declare open season on Iranian allies right next to them. The thing about nuclear weapons is mainly that they allow small nations to go toe to toe with nations many times their size (they are, quite literally, the nation-state equivalent of personal firearms)- not relevant for the Iranians, very relevant for the Israelis (and the North Koreans, and the South Africans back before they entered their current cold civil war, and the Libyans, and the Ukrainians), and very very relevant for the Palestinians.
Ukraine, sure- both because Russia sucks, but also because the entire country is one big open field. That's why the Russians want it; a war fought against NATO in Ukraine is one that isn't being fought in Russia, a war fought against NATO in Prussia isn't one being fought in Ukraine, a war fought against NATO in East Germany is one that isn't being fought in Prussia.
Iran, on the other hand, is actually in a solid strategic position; Rome encircled it, warred against it, even outlasted it, but never conquered it. Seafaring peoples don't have that level of power projection- they discover this when they inevitably try to conquer Afghanistan- and the desert west of Iran is trivially conquerable by Iran simply because it's a desert. Ain't exactly much to defend, or many people to defend it with, out there. Judea is in the strongest tactical position and yet for most of its history it's been governed by one or other empire that, ultimately, revolves around Iran.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
I would model their close ally Hamas as being willing to sacrifice every soul in Gaza to kill a few 10k or 100k Jews.
That doesn't scream "crazy" to me, though.
Parthia has convinced Judea, and by extension Rome, to spend many shekels destroying an enemy who were attacking from, given the wider context, strategically insignificant locations. If Judea wants to occupy that land now they'll be spending even more shekels rebuilding it and spending Judean lives clearing out their own UXO, all for the price of the lives of an ethnic group the other Arabs in the region are all OK with being genocided.
This is exactly the same trade the US is making in Ukraine. For some of the same reasons, I might add; tying Russia up in Ukraine leaves room for the US to reconquer more interesting prizes like Syria all at the cost of checks notes the military hardware that was designed to fight that exact war, that was otherwise just going to age into uselessness anyway.
And no, the use of the odd child soldier does not crazy make, especially if by "child soldier" we mean "fighting-age male, but one young enough to make Westerners big sad" (or the occasional 8 year old with a grenade for the newsreels). Even the Taliban weren't that desperate.
back the last century
If by 'last' you mean 'the 19th', sure, I'll grant that. At no point past 1920ish was this true for women (so no woman born/raised in the West knows what it's like to be uniquely oppressed- that it happened once upon a time is their origin myth, just like it is for the Indians); for minorities, at no point in Boomer living memory (post-childhood, so 13+: someone born in '45 would be post-Brown v. Board at that age) were they really oppressed.
It's something their parents and grandparents had reason to take seriously; what we're seeing now is the echoes and turbulence of a once-truth so widely held industry sprung up around it reaching its sell-by date. (This is also why, if LGB organizations did not embrace and pump up T, they'd have faded away like MADD did: their original grievances don't exist any more, hence the lie that they do must be defended ever harder.)
That situation seems at least as bad as gay conversion camp
If it makes you feel any better (and it is literally the same thing, I'll add), my outgroup claims those don't work. Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they?
Where do you all draw the line? At what point would you intervene?
Depends on the kid, depends on the family. And really, you just do what you can within your strategic and tactical realities/liabilities; you can't influence if you're dead (either to them or more literally).
There does come a point where you just kind of have to trust the kid'll figure it out. Parents stop being the prime authority figures around physical adulthood sexual maturity (for blatantly obvious evolutionary reasons) anyway; this is why, when I hear "the teenage years were hell", I think "yeah, that's 'cause you were bad at parenting/were still under the pretense that the biological age of adulthood is 18, expecting the tricks that worked when they were 5 to work when they're 15, and taking it personally when they do not".
I once met one who was like this- 12 years old, standard fundie-type Christian family, tracked out the ass. Had a bedtime on vacation (wtf?). We watched Dirty Harry and he didn't object over the scenes I would have expected him to get upset over were he a party-liner.
Observably, he's going to be fine. Likely, so will this one.
His long hair was plaited, and every article of clothing was not even unisex, but just straight up girl's clothing and sandals.
Remember, the specific reason those who worship LGBTesus are destructive is that they impose an adult (sexual) outlook on a child not strongly caring about which gender clothes they wear (his behavior is still male, after all). I suspect that it would have been a fight to get him into those clothes if he actually cared; merely failing to care at this age is not really a sign of malfunction.
Actively adopting the other gender's clothes for the sexual reasons that the other gender wears them at a post-sexual-awareness age... that's different. (It's also only a reliable signal of malfunction in men, since there are no male gendered clothes except maybe boxers.)
When should the State intervene?
Given how hard it has been abused against me in favor of specifically this kind of child abuser? So long as the State is unable or unwilling to punish abuse from women in the same degree it does men my answer is "never".
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
it's just a grim reminder we should have banned tiktok ages ago.
As opposed to brainrotted Boomers who think women and minorities are oppressed.
They didn't need Facebook to come to that conclusion yet arrived at it anyway, so the problem rests with the people, not the technology.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
In the early '90s the GI Bill generation was rising to power: this was inevitable.
But I do agree that the women themselves will need to fix it, much as men did for women in the early 1900s. The catalyst for such a cascade is one I cannot guess, and I believe that the current US administration's support is underwritten by a populace that wants to take an off-ramp from this rather than collapse like the rest of the West prefers.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
So putting us back to the status-quo ante of 1990, and NOT expanding access to loans for college, we might be able to avoid the worst excesses of Feminism entering the mainstream.
Dealing with that will require tackling the education-managerial complex- it's a feedback loop, where the same women who benefited from the initial windfall are now in charge of expanding the problem.
It'll also require dealing with the Boomers. Boomers (and especially Boomer women) see education as an unqualified good because it was good for them, and that's the long and short of it. Of course, their preferred policies of "throwing all youth productivity into a hole because once upon a time someone was mean to a woman" is evidence that education is not the unqualified good they believe it to be.
Probably causes women's standards to rise
And that they rose artificially is the main problem here.
I had a reply to something about "progressive women having the most to offer over homemakers; they have degrees in journalism" which illuminates the issue perfectly- they think they have more to offer, but are only useful as an artifact of law- completely useless otherwise.
And nobody likes being taken down a peg, much less universally co-ordinating to do so to themselves... but that said, men have a history in the early 20th century of having done this, and we're back to that sociofinancial situation, so I don't believe expecting women to have to do that for themselves is exceptional in any way. (Men and women are equal, are we not?)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
SomethingAwful was never my jam BECAUSE it thrived on the malice.
It's also why I can't tolerate Kiwifarms or rdrama (or Tumblr, or to a point Twitter); those places don't function without it. Honestly I don't find 4chan to have really gone hard over (though that's arguably true of /pol/ and... was probably the reason moot came down on the anti-Gamergate side, though it would cost him everything); what I think happened is that the population declined and you don't have as many teens and twentysomethings to attract in the first place (and media standards rose- it's hard to rip something off when you don't have effective tools to produce that thing at scale). That, and the Moral Majority (which was in significant part a SomethingAwful creation) hadn't evolved into its present state yet, so being a moralfag wasn't as attractive a thing for the teens yet.
I've always loved edgy subversive humor... that wasn't entirely built on malicious intent.
Well... it's childish. To be adult is to know that speaking about sacred topic X is always and definitionally bad, and to ensure that anyone who does is cancelled. People can be childish in some ways but adult in others. When you have an adult that's basically just a big child things get a bit more interesting.
You have to do it completely earnestly [again, like a child would, but by no means their exclusive domain]. Gamejolt is a good place to find games like this (if you're really bored, try out Five Night's at Fuckboys for that mid-2000s Newgrounds feel- there are 3 of them, and they are legitimately very good) that speak to this particular style.
That whole "unburdened by what has been" thing is a right the moralfags claim from time to time, but because at the end of the day they are people of malice, it's not theirs to exercise. (That is why they are called 'moralfags' in the first place.)
I think a factor in depression comes from having a soul like this but not being able to express it for some or other reason, but that's unique to people like this in the first place and not generally applicable.
a more... nature-focused sort of an understanding of various things, such as sexual relations.
Something that Americans also adopted the instant the birth-control pill hit the shelves (hippies were famous for this- they said free love was natural for a reason, but every "all-natural" person exhibits profound ignorance of what technological advancement lets you see as natural, like how everything you eat has been specifically bred for gigantism). Being able to not get pregnant on a whim is a massively transformative technology; so is having so much food the poor only starve if they're explicitly trying to, for that matter (and the Germans invented the chemical process that makes that possible, too).
traditional religious morality
The foundation of traditional religious morality is not meaningfully distinguishable from "sex bad" (no other intelligent examination other than "Bible says it's bad"), so it makes sense traditions holding that viewpoint get absolutely bodied by the new reality that a good chunk of why it was destructive is now obviated. Some traditionalists have tacitly accepted this, but they won't actually say it for Overton window reasons.
The more intelligent traditionalists focus on "but a woman who has a body count is spiritually degraded" for that reason- if they had any better arguments, I think they'd be making them, but they aren't. So "vibes" (and "men want virgins", when they're being more honest- and I can accept that doing things that help men would make society better, but in a general sense rather than this specifically) is obviously the best they have.
I'm sympathetic to those for whom biology meshes better with first-century sexual norms, but they're too busy thinking with their other head in this matter. So putting them in charge in a context where technology has obviated most of the previous reality they cling to is (rightly) viewed by everyone else as destructive. (The same is true when you put women doing that in charge, but rejecting that is an even more cutting-edge idea.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
26d ago
but older liberal women especially seem to have an unfortunate tendency to speak publicly as though they are talking to children and struggling to make themselves understood, rather than struggling to persuade
It's called "condescension".
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
26d ago
Well, I assume people here are rational and know both the common and academic meanings of words until they prove otherwise, and are not intentionally taking things to absurd extremes- especially without any attempt to elaborate.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
26d ago
Sure, but it's also perfectly accurate; the problem comes from outdated notions of attaching a moral valence to it. It's just what each partner in a relationship has a high statistical probability of bringing to the table (or the opposite partner have a high statistical probability of attaching outsized value to) when negotiating how to live together- nothing more, nothing less. It and [love for one's partner] remain compatible with this view; indeed, love is the notion of long-term investment/convergence backstopping these negotiations.
Without that framing, the dynamics around the argument aren't comprehensible. You even get comment chains like this that show the people making these arguments are so incredibly close to completely understanding it, but are lacking that one final piece/self-honesty... or they're just burying it.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
26d ago
This is a perfect explanation for the semi-rhetorical question later posed by @hydroacetylene here- as a response to you, in fact- the reason "liburals" (I prefer "progressives" for this group- progressives are not classical liberals so I don't call them that) don't take traditionalists seriously about decreasing baby murder is that decreasing baby murder is obviously not a terminal value for them and it's just a fight over aesthetics (because if it was, traditionalist organizations would be handing out as many free IUDs and Nexplanon as humanly possible; since they oppose this, they're obviously not serious about solving the problem as long as it's not their way).
You're also wrong about age of consent laws. Before 1900 most states set the age of consent at 10-12. Higher age of consent laws are a modern invention.
No, you're proving my point. Gynosupremacy/feminism pushed for high age of consent laws coincident with their emergence as a viable political force, which itself follows socioeconomic effects (gender equality following the decoupling of physical strength from production of goods) in industrial societies; I'm explaining why they did that. I can't link to the original post(s) here more fully explaining this because the person who made them has their account set to private (and they're banned, or at least their alt is).
In the Greco-Roman world infanticide was allowed.
Yes, obviously. Children are property of those who make them, and it is their right to dispose of them as they wish coincident with the child's ability to resist it as dictated by market conditions (usually a society's age of majority, though less than that due to the fact an age of majority results in market distortions so it's usually higher than it actually is).
What, you weren't told "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it" as a child? That was a Cosby show thing, I believe.
You strike me as a secular right-winger who's grasping for straws to justify why the church lady anti-abortion crusade is actually rational and BASED, anything other than accept that maybe the hated liburals are right about a single subject.
You really haven't read enough of me.
It is currently doing that right now; that's what "Rape On College Campus" (and related), #metoo, #fightfor25 is agitprop for.
More options
Context Copy link