ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
16d 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Sure, but it's also perfectly accurate; the problem comes from outdated notions of attaching a moral valence to it.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
16d 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.
and think it must actually all be about women
That's because it is- more specifically, it's about power.
Abortion rights are, at the end of the day, a sex worker protection law. Babies are a service sex workers provide on contract, they're taking a lot of risk to provide one (especially true pre-medicine, but it's an obligation that normally consumes your entire adult life) and as such it makes sense that if that contract goes badly they should have an out. This includes things like "birth control doesn't work", "contract falls through" [husband leaves- progressives agree with traditionalists that a penis entering a vagina carries the same contractual obligations], "this service was stolen by physical force", and "this service offered violated other sex worker labor laws" [age of consent violations, casting couch, etc.].
This is why [the group of women who resent being sex workers, realize that they are sex workers, but have nothing to offer anyone beyond sex work] are most fiercely in favor of these, and related, laws. The average pro-abortionist is a #metoo and #fightfor25 proponent for this reason.
Traditionalists don't really have a problem with women being sex workers- rape could not be a property crime against fathers if it wasn't- but they strongly believe that a binding contract needs to be signed before sex work of this nature can occur as the primary form of worker protection. So, the fact that being 'forced' (in the presence of trivial alternatives) to carry to term when they have sex outside of that contract is good, proper, natural.
The thing they're missing is that the social infrastructure that once existed to punish this kind of contract violation has been destroyed (age of consent laws are the only compromise still standing, and is part of why traditionalists are very worried that progressives will erase them too). But they're also generally unwilling to build any new social infrastructure and just use what power they have to complain about this, just like progressives are- in fact, progressives would rather destroy traditionalist organizations that exist to support pregnant women in marginal cases than fix the problem; traditionalists do the same thing to conception-prevention organizations when they get the chance (and this should be a sufficient explanation as to why).
The personhood of a fetus, existing or not, really doesn't matter here for either group (traditionalists tend to more strongly believe that their property rights extend to their children; progressives are a lot more redistributionist about that, but they still believe it). Yes, it is convenient that it's alive for the pro-life side; but that's all it is- I have no evidence to believe this would be different were the matter of facts swapped (and is why progressives fight to prove the fetus isn't alive).
Yes, it's unpleasant to acknowledge that the occasional 10 year old will get pregnant, or that some women will die because of this, or that unborn children are killed- but they die because [we believe, and perhaps correctly] our contract law is more important, in the same way school shootings are [the right to defend oneself is a part of the social contract certain societies make with the expendable gender, in return for that expendability- when classical liberals say guns are the left's abortion, this is what they actually mean].
It's hard when many of the same people are arguing a few threads down that women having sex with no prospect of marriage or childbirth is the root of all of our problems.
Yeah, but they're just the spear counterpart to the group of women I described earlier (existential anxiety of men about what they are). If they do that task well, they'll be rewarded; that is one of the earliest contracts.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
17d ago
people will be able to pop a meaning of life pill every morning to motivate themselves
Nicotine and dextroamphetamine have been around for quite some time, but the delivery method for the former has been bad for a long time and the withdrawl symptoms are absurdly bad, and the latter still requires a prescription for whatever reason.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
17d ago
I was interviewing at a mining company way back when and they were just so boring and dry.
The West is like this in general. Despite what Ottawa would have you believe, it's a different country out here- one where you can afford a house at the price of [what you perceive as] your Canadian identity.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d ago
I love SwiftUI. There are a few other languages that do this as well, but SwiftUI is the one I know best.
I have a lot of trouble with XML-based layout strategies- there are way too many options to actually get right (WPF/UWP/Avalonia), layouts are fiddly and require specific boxes to be checked so your elements don't launch themselves across the screen as soon as you resize the window, and you have to move out of the layout editor to actually code anything.
With these new frameworks, you can just write and call functions directly from UI code, and the code that generates the UI (and calls the other functions you've attached to buttons, etc.) is itself just a function. Spacing/stacking is automatic (compared to XAML where you have to be explicit about literally everything).
It's an absolute joy to use, or it would be if Apple's implementations of certain things weren't so buggy. There's an Ada 2.0 a Rust implementation of this idea, but the downside to that is then you'd have to use Rust.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d ago
in the hopes that doing so will make sex easier and more pleasurable
I dunno, find better partners (not like I have any advice on that front; every time I write something here it's because I'm thinking about someone I think would be fun to do this with, and have some first-hand experience with someone who was kinda bad at this)? I can believe the stories of people who don't bother to look for this because they don't find this interesting, but to me it just seems like a waste.
Then again, I suspect this is just a (literally) childish way to look at sex, and literally nobody does this because rational self-interest trumps everything, or whatever. [Which comes back to "well then, if you're going to get married to do that because the sex drive isn't symmetric across the sexes, and aren't doing it because you already have that convergence-drive-love thing going on, isn't that just prostitution with a different name?"]
Porn allows your idealized image of sex to dominate, vs the actual thing which is limited by real social interactions and physical sensations
I guess so, but I'm already pretty confident that if I had my way with who I want it with it would look pretty close to what I think about. Maybe that's why I had a hard time with people who go "ur hormones make u a slave to ur passions" or finding masturbating to random attractive-enough people particularly fulfilling (imagining masturbating them, somewhat paradoxically, yields far better results).
ween
I think nofap would be more popular if they weren't all just a bunch of weeners
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d ago
Since you know, it's fairly well known issue that requires some clarification.
It certainly does- what are "the" passions?
If you're going with the answer of "lust and degeneracy" (which is what I believe you were implying, and what it directly says upthread) that's just "stop liking what I don't like" with the letters rearranged. While you've correctly identified every other response to that argument are [more sophisticated] "no, also fuck you"s, the argument they contain- that being "who decides, and why should the failure of others to control themselves be my problem; and the fruits of my virtue redistributed, stolen at gunpoint, to benefit those without?"- hasn't been answered.
In a sibling comment, you quote
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites
but I am more qualified for civil liberty because I have that disposition. So your "license", that you might demand I forfeit for the salvation of others, is at the same time inherently granted to me simply by being better at this than most people are, thus claiming I don't deserve this liberty is little more than theft.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
19d ago
Who are you to claim everyone's equally slaved to such passions?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
22d ago
Like the incest stuff that's taken over the world for some reason.
It costs nothing for the actors to say the word "step-X", so they do. Easy to dub out, too. (I think its prevalence far outstrips those who actually have this fetish for that reason.)
I rode my bike to school from 3rd grade to college. I never did stuff like that.
Yes, because you're high conscientiousness and that's all you had. That's why the average kid on a bike tends to be safer than the average adult- the former know what they have to lose, tend to be more aware of the fact they're harder to see (and are more aware of that fact than accompanying adults are, too) and that population simply has a lower proportion of retards in it due to being more representative of the general population (actually, probably slightly better than average, since the parent has to be well off enough to buy their kid a bike in the first place).
Adults on bikes, on the other hand, are there because they either can't afford a car or it's been taken away from them (DUI, etc.). Those things tend to predict bad judgment, so the average adult is more likely to doing things like riding through red lights the wrong way. The raw cost of a car (and the cost of repairing damages thereto), the fact you have an indelible identifying mark mounted to it, and the fact that the infrastructure itself works against stupidity in a way it does not for bikes tends to keep adults in cars acting in ways that aren't so blatantly suicidal.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
24d ago
is that punishment for such behavior would (hopefully) be much more frequent and fine tuned.
Well, it will be if you do it.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
24d ago
“No one is illegal on stolen land!” in discussions about the LA riots.
Translation: "Only Blue Tribe has the right to determine who deserves what land."
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
25d ago
That's also why traps aren't gay.
(But that category has been poisoned into undecideability, where truly boyish girls/girlish boys are pushed to the side and their prosperity sacrificed for women and men who are not, in fact, worthy of opting out. Traditionalists have identified, correctly, that the drive to trans your children is a communist impulse- they just can't explain why.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
25d ago
it will suggest that we’re this way because of “economic uncertainty” or social media. Others will say something vague like resale value.
If I can't afford to repaint something soon if I don't like it, I'm going to take the safer option where I have a higher chance of accepting it, or accepting it over a longer timeframe.
If I can afford to do that more often, I can afford to take a chance at something a bit more... out there. If I don't like it, I trust I can fix it later.
How do you act girly in accordance with nerd culture?
You can't, that's the main draw of it. The topic of what you're being a nerd about at the time, or the thing that you're trying to do at that moment, is the 'woman' in this context. Women who do this have either explicitly chosen, or have an innate affinity for, not being the 'girl' in this social context; that's what separates tomboys from your standard representative of Women, Inc. (and is part of why tomboyism is more common in childhood).
The thing about these topics, or goals, is that the mystery is... external, not personal. You either measure up to be rewarded for examining something or you don't- this can be from hunting to computers or music or anything in between [you either have the right answer], but it's not going to shut itself off, turn its nose up at you, or try to murder you for examining it like Women, Inc. will. This is an existential threat for us in a way the average man can't understand (they're missing a piece).
Obviously the really masculine thing to do is to just be one of the boys.
And from the male side, the really feminine thing to do is to just be one of the girls.
This manifests as the "gay best friend" phenomenon from Women, Inc. reps that don't fully understand this (they've identified the 'not a sexual threat' part correctly though, and something that tends to get in the way of nerd relationships; just because you spend most of your time as masc-presenting doesn't mean your attraction patterns aren't fundamentally female). If you watch [or were] the little boy who hangs out with the girls a lot (something more common for nerds than for the average man), this is what he is doing.
Guys have the attraction-dampening effects on for tomboys in a similar way, but the specifics are a bit different.
I feel sometimes that this remains a mote in our eye, who now complain about other unnatural degeneracy.
The people who do most of that complaining are not nerds. While I agree that "unnatural degeneracy" is the best way that the average man, or Women, Inc. representative, should describe someone not obeying their instincts, I also think that those are the people for whom (as you put it) dimorphism exists in the first place. From that viewpoint, that is why it is possible to "be turned [LGBTQP][1]", and I also agree that in some cases this is an accurate statement to make (especially since these people can be manufactured from stuff like "being a victim of sexual assault", and the meme that one can be "traumatized" by seeing porn or sex at a young age comes directly from this place)... but if you're not starting from that viewpoint then these claims become an incoherent mess.
masculinely inspired but genderneutrally applied ideals
Yes, I think that forms some anxiety, especially for autoandrophiles. Real women-men know they don't need to have a penis to be a man, but not all women are capable of getting to that state (and Women, Inc. has done its best to distract them for the reason I noted earlier- women-men are not a threat in the same way). So, if the ideals of your culture and the rewards given are disproportionately masculine... then it makes sense that more women will perceive they don't measure up. Combine that with the tactical and strategic implications of being a woman (where your only value at that point is childbirth, and the odd social crusade once you're too old for that) and it's not exactly a surprise why one would want to opt out.
[1] Which is part of why these "conditions" are grouped like this in the first place, and is also why these people claim P is an inextricable part of that grouping and are very invested in that "most gays were raped as children" statistic.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
26d ago
Perhaps, but the offense comes more because discussing them quickly pattern-matches into angry venting (in the "I don't see the use of you, let us clear you away" Chesterton's Fence sense).
That, and "knowing"[1] someone in public is just fucking obnoxious. "I read in a book that You People do X, so I'm going to do X then get frustrated that it's not working" kind of comes off like stealing in the... sense that you've taken information that wasn't being emitted then drawn conclusions based on that to gain a personal advantage. Compare the "I read that black people like fried chicken, so we'll serve it for Black History Month" thing for a more neutral? example.
But then, how to balance "making the attempt to understand" against "there's a right way and a wrong way to do this", combined with the fact that the people who aren't all that experienced (or competent, in some cases) at the former are less likely to understand the required secondary knowledge of the latter? And then you have people who want to do it for the wrong reasons anyway.
[1] I find the Biblical meaning of "knowing" to be instructive here (and as a consequence, take being trusted with certain other kinds of information more seriously than I do the knowledge gained by 'merely' sleeping with someone; there are plenty of things that can be way more destructive than that).
And I’m certain I could never understand the internal experience of maleness
Sure, but when people say that, a "so you don't have the right to call them out for destructive behaviors that I'm trying to normalize for myself" is being smuggled in. You don't need to internally experience being an X to have the right [when it is within my political power] to impose costs designed to constrain nastiness that the statistically-average member of X exhibits.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
26d ago
Instead, when they think about the differences between men and women, they think the women are just smaller men. To them, a woman is just a guy with a vagina in a skirt.
And from that, witness the fundamental anxiety: there are women who qualify as this (tomboys are not trans men, though they function like the platonic ideal of one, including attitude and general outlook on life- there are women who just act like this more generally without specific tomboy markers, and they're harder to spot, but they'll always show you who they are eventually), and there are women who do not.
Women who qualify tend to get lots of high-quality male attention, for reasons that are blatantly obvious (the self-awareness alone makes a much better partner, to say nothing of the other stuff; hostile unproductive attitude, which is something TERFs don't solve, is corrosive). Pick-me-s. This makes Mean Girls jealous.
So, how best to attack such a woman? By doing the same thing to these men-women that they did to men more generally- take away their spaces, destroy what was good about them through gender politics. That is the sole purpose of having men in women's sports: destroying the spaces where participating in a male-type pursuit is productive, and making them as miserable as every other worthless bitch (and now a disadvantage in the instinctual quest for the highest sexual price that defines womanhood). Mission accomplished.
The spear counterpart to this behavior is, of course, as you described:
that time he pulled the mask down a little bit, and expressed his annoyed bewilderment that the rest of us spectrum-y nerds were taking progressive politics literally, instead of understanding it as a cynical exercise in tricking other men into acting like dumbasses.
I'm talking about the internal experience of womanhood, the preference for faces over mechanics, the keen interest in social networks and how much a man makes and the low-key rape fetish
"Lived experience" of a thing is not required to know how expressions of it can be destructive.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
28d ago
Uniquely, the Afghans saw the American Empire's cultural exports as the net-negative that they are (the bombs themselves didn't help either), were in a very unique position to reject them, so they did.
Transing other countries very observably makes them weaker, and as such doing so is generally in the US' interests. That this also applies to the US itself is not as much a concern.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
28d ago
there's no money in space exploration
The engineering challenges that have to be overcome to do this tend to create some rather interesting products; space manufacturing may also have unique benefits, and that'll likely require human staff if only to oversee and maintain the equipment doing the manufacturing.
Being able to pick things up from the planet and deliver them back down is the first step of that; nobody's bothering to build machines or research processes for space because we're still working on getting there from here.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
29d ago
Don't take them too seriously. But the fight is real.
It's almost like negotiating these things in public isn't done for a reason or something, especially in the Internet Age.
If you understand how to deal with people that work that way (or aren't one of those people whose salary/political standing depends on you not knowing how to do that), you probably really aren't that concerned. They'll probably rapidly screw around and reach a settlement in a few months, just like the last time.
But maybe I'm weird and find that that "cutting subsidies that allow people to buy inferior electric cars pisses off rich guy whose fortune(s) lie partially in those cars" is not particularly interesting news. At least, it's not interesting yet, no consequences beyond the inevitable stock market dip.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
29d ago
consistent violence, emotional abuse
You don't believe intentional false accusations of the "State, please murder my parents and destroy my family" variety counts as that? People who try to get cops to kill people they don't like via similar means (SWATting) are still attempting murder.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
She would probably also stop it now if she was in a harsher incentive system... grow up into productive people because they are intelligent enough to understand the incentive systems created by society... but she doesn't seem to want to be purposefully causing harm to people around her.
But she didn't. She is intelligent enough to understand those incentive systems created by society to purposefully cause harm to others.
I think her actions would be a lot more destructive if that were the case.
Her actions were already seriously destructive. Tantamount to attempted murder, in fact. Preventing it already required her to be locked up, and that has already put the rest of the family in danger.
I think a huge cause of the issue with the girl in question is also that she is a child.
She really isn't (Western fiction about the age of adulthood aside); note that your suggested solution is to treat her like the adult she clearly is. Mine is too, of course- adults attempting murder get adult punishments (including and up to physical removal), and that's OK. The British hanging tables have data matching youth body types for a reason.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Most of what makes modern politics/political actors difficult to understand these days is not understanding that classical liberalism is [now] a "conservative" position, and taking what groups call themselves at face value rather than thinking about it for 5 seconds and figuring out that yes, actually, progressives are the most conservative movement today (in the "develop nothing ever, be safety-obsessed all the time, impose nonsensical social controls out the ass, sanction sex, hate the young, old women > young men" senses that popularly characterize conservatism).
Not that we haven't tried- "right is the new left" was nearly 10 years ago now (and people still just don't get it)- but ultimately the failure to understand who and what the groups are (and the groups themselves don't help either, to be fair, and this is mostly an advantage to progressives/the media's faction) will destroy anyone's ability to think logically about politics.
Haidt's 6 Foundations apply just as well (or even more) to the average progressive than they do to the average traditionalist, but as soon as you say the C-word, people start thinking they only apply to Boomercons and they shut right down.
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.
More options
Context Copy link