ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
30d 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
30d 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
1mo 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
1mo 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.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Must have been. The problem with ankle-biting the mods here is that, unusually for mods, they appear to be mostly competent (which is the reason I don't use Discord any more- jannies there are all universally terrible).
It's unfortunate, but what can you do.
Condos are probably better for housing a lot of families in less space, apartments are cheaper but probably better suited for single people.
Condo + strata fees = single family home mortgage payment, so they're not actually cheaper.
The reason detached single-family units are important is because they deliver the ability to personally develop. With a condo you're not actually doing anything; you're not doing maintenance on your mechanical devices (unless you're fortunate enough to have a garage or driveway, of course), you're not really able to store anything, you can't do anything loud (no instruments, etc.), it's more difficult to entertain people, etc. The same thing applies to townhouses to a lesser degree.
You don't get Apple Computer (to name a particularly famous example) without a garage to work in, and condos don't usually have those.
No politician want to be the person who made housing values fall.
Sure, but (and as "bullets instead of dollars" downthread mentions) that's also balanced against solutions that might be less than democratic (if the dominant voting bloc is smart enough to understand the issue they can avoid that, but they seldom are). Gerontocracies tend to be relatively bad at defending themselves simply because the average 70 year old tends to be an inferior soldier no matter how high up they believe their elbows might go.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Surely discourses of that sort were one factor why we've swung so heavily into the other extreme.
Oh no, the safety discourse is the same people, it's just that the "uncivilized" discourse has taken a backseat because most of their pet demographics do it. Being overly concerned about "muh order" is basing your public moralfaggotry on fathers overstepping their bounds; being overly concerned about "muh safety" is when you do that based on mothers overstepping theirs.
free range parenting dismissed not so much due to the potential harm to child but the potential harm to the rest of the society
Everyone has always hated the liberal types: either because they're incapable of doing it properly/just like the aesthetic and actually end up doing that damage, or because they're worthy to do it and hence resented by everyone else/crab bucket mentality.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
I'm afraid I'm not really that familiar with how pornography actors look in general, much like those from different places and times.
He legitimately looks like a woman (lesbian?) in that shot. I can understand "he's so self-aware of his looks that you're just going to get Romance Subroutine #1 that he runs for everyone else", but wouldn't that criticism itself suggest a difference between people who can sell very well on first glance ['it's just like hanging out with my girl friends except with the romance program'] but have nothing to follow it up with, and people who know how to play that game but are successfully pretending they aren't?
Of course, I didn't read that far into it initially.
I just looked at his face, saw "woman" written on it, and it just kind of followed from there.
but the fighting was just as vicious as anything else with the gender issue.
I'm shocked that you'd expect anything else.
This issue is derived from instinctual gender politics; follow the money.
It is to the advantage of old women that two things be true:
- Young women are as ugly as old women, to eliminate their competitive advantage
- Men are as much good little worker bees as possible with as little demand for pregnancy-causing sex as possible (castration is a proven method to achieve this; ask the Chinese about their eunuchs and the Arabs about their slaves)
Furthermore, old women have significantly more sociopolitical power than they did 50 years ago compared to everyone else.
So, what do we see? We see old women pushing hard on "encourage young women to destroy their sexual appeal to young men", for when attractive women are scarcer, men pay more[1] for inferior sex. Additionally, we see pushes for "the only safe man is a man who is either uninterested in sex with women, or if still interested in women, unable to cause real harm to them"[2].
Encouraging homosexuality, then transgenderism, is the way that is done- the end result of both is a social token that old women can hold up about Fighting Oppression(tm), and less competition. The fact that it destroys young men and women is not a concern to biological dead-ends (a fact said old women are extremely resentful of), forming a perfect moral hazard.
Is there any actual scientific evidence in favor of social contagion playing any part in transgenderism?
Other than Noticing it's always the mom? The more female-dominated the profession is, the more obsessed with transgenderism it is- I think this is the reason why.
This is [one way] women sexually abuse children. Men don't really understand it and aren't equipped to fight it (the conditions of reality- that being without them, women don't eat- haven't forced them to evolve a defense against this; now that automation has made it so women are on equal footing with men, these problems emerge), but the motive and the result, at the end of the day, is abusive[3].
Now, that all having been said, is transgenderism a real thing? I think so (ask the older pre-Third Wave Feminism examples about it), and puberty blockers/hormones might be our best response for that condition at this time. But much like our other "best answers" that psychology has given us listed downthread, it's also extremely destructive, and it's complicated by the institutions responsible for identifying it all being dominated by the gender most likely to abuse children in this way.
There's really no way out of this hole that has been created.
There is, and it's being followed. Because the faction currently pushing for puberty blockers and transgenderism to be a solution to everything is also the only one that the concept of "consent" serves (per the above: punishing men for sex with younger women that they actually want = more power for older women), sanctioning any woman who speaks of transgenderism to anyone under the age of "consent" is only fair... which is why laws are, though slowly and clumsily (re: Don't Say Gay), moving in that direction.
[1] Instincts are just brute force, and can't adjust for men having anything better to do- these days, men have plenty of other options, so the [sexual] market shortfall is hidden.
[2] The fact this (one or more of "sexual herbivorism", effeminate homosexuality, chemical interference) generally makes them worse at harming hostile men is not something women need to care about- if all their tribe's men are killed in war because they were unable or unwilling to dominate their own women, they still have inherent value to enemy men and will generally be treated well. Women even have instincts for accepting being carried off; they don't have a similar instinct for making sure their sons or daughters grow up to be attractive (men do, to a point).
[3] "But they enjoyed it/it actually had a positive outcome" is an excuse men use when they use their social station to abuse children, but not one we accept from them. Why should we accept it from women?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Carbonated water is also naturally acidic, though a few orders of magnitude less acidic than citrus fruit juices or cokes.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Men by and large stopped caring about the wilderness, and new (more rewarding) frontiers opened over that time.
men are not owed women
Then men do not owe women anything, including consideration or respect. Hence the efforts to impose that by force paid for by social credit.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Your categories are incorrect. The people you claim to be "conservatives" really aren't any more- there are elements of that in their policies since they're pushing in a pro-classical-liberal direction (which is itself a conservative idea just due to age), but the factions have realigned. Traditional conservatism, as you know it, is dead.
Right now, the Conservatives are in fact the Democrat-aligned faction [education-managerial complex, bureaucrats and white-collar workers, welfare state/make-work beneficiaries], and the Reformers are the Republican coalition [military-industrial complex, kulaks and blue-collar workers, welfare state/make-work maleficiaries].
They categorically reject any suggestion that he's corrupt.
There are suggestions that he's corrupt from Conservatives. Of course, because Conservatives are extremely butthurt because the Reformers got elected, they claim corruption at every turn and expect me to believe it because of some misplaced sense of social propriety (which is just a defense mechanism, and an especially womanly one, that Conservatives expect to work- but that only works on social credit, and their social credit card's been declined after they put their response to the uncommon cold on it).
serious criticism of Trump is inadmissible in conservative politics right now
Reformers have trouble criticizing Reformers. Conservatives have trouble criticizing Conservatives. That much is known. Reformers tend to form cults of personality a lot easier than Conservatives do; that's also because Conservatives are the faction with no ideas.
And I'd be perfectly happy to accept a Conservative claim that Reform is corrupt, if it had factual backing. But I'm still not seeing it; what I'm seeing is stuff like "the law's finally getting applied fairly for once" (laws that Conservatives fought long and hard for), "institutional human trafficking efforts by Conservatives are being addressed" (remember, it's "illegal immigration" when Conservatives approve of it and "human trafficking" when they don't), and "economic progress isn't getting unfairly impeded by regulators".
I've said this with regards to "the left are all pedophiles, look at all the groomer literature" before, so I'll say it again: if the strongest evidence opponents can muster is not actually what the word means, and they are incapable of coming up with a way to describe what's actually wrong beyond hand-waving and arguments from aesthetics, then their claims should be ignored by default.
So yeah, I have a hard time criticizing Reformers for ignoring "Trump is all corrupt, look at all the [aesthetically-repellent to Conservatives] things". Criticize his erratic governance, and the smarter ones will be happy to listen to you (because that is a factually-correct claim, and one that hurts his own faction), but that's also the best they can do because, again, the Conservatives are simply in the wrong here.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
You can see that in how none of her criticism is actually about attractiveness -- she's judging their personal style and how they come across in a social-presentation manner, not whether they're hot or not.
Meh, this is exactly the dating advice I'd expect from a cookie-cutter representative of Women, Inc.; the identification as "asexual" is... also exactly what I'd expect, too. So's the specific criticism, which appears to generalize to "this dude pattern-matches too closely to a woman to be husband material"- again, as much of a 'straight woman' thing as you can get.
Not that there aren't similar representatives of Men, Inc. around here, of course; you can tell someone is like that if they say things like "women who have sex have something wrong with their souls" or similar.
See, we already have a blueprint of what asexuality in women looks like; that's what that "secrets of female attractiveness" thing that gets passed around here is. Female asexuals just cold-open conversations with this type of thing and, if you're a man, will probably paint your nails for you if you ask nicely.
It might be intellectually incoherent
Nonsense, that is perfectly coherent.
Men, Inc. wants to acquire sex for as little a price as possible (as opposed to Women, Inc., which wants to set the price of sex as high as possible). Everything either one does is downstream from that fundamental fact, which is itself downstream from human biology. (This analysis ignores men that want commitment/women who want sex, but those are statistical outliers and can be safely ignored.)
So we should expect, when men are dominant in society, that we see lots of high-quality sex at affordable prices (so lots of mistresses, sex-pro-quo/workplace sex [historically frustrated by the lack of co-ed workplaces but the prototypical example is the Casting Couch] and secret other families, the 'raise my kids/be exclusive to me while I fuck other women' polyamory, and maximally attractive [as in, 13-16 year old] brides... into marriages that bind them but doesn't protect their interests in any way); when women are dominant in society, we should expect price controls out the ass ('fight for 25', #metoo, 'if she's younger than you it's rape', the 'pay my bills while I fuck other men' polyamory, and marriages that bind men but don't protect their interests in any way).
One might very reasonably say that it's bizarre and inconsistent
Unless Women, Inc. is in control, in which case again, it's perfectly consistent that men be punished [more severely than for most other crimes, including murder] for an act that inherently devalues older women. Young women are competition for old women, you see, so naturally old women would seek to keep them out of the sexual marketplace so they can demand a higher price. It is quite literally just the distaff counterpart to the "state-mandated girlfriend", but that selfishness is tolerated/Women, Inc. can afford that right now, so it continues (contrast men, who are forced to support children born of statutory rape).
There'd need to be a huge, forceful redistribution of political power for this to happen, likewise with largescale cloning or any other effective solution.
Not necessarily; Men, Inc. started ceding power to Women, Inc. in a major way centered around the 1900s. The suffragettes were not a violent movement. What did change was technology that brought the average woman up to the productivity of the average man- the sweatshop is an equalizing force, you see- and why lots of traditionalists get confused about the Sexual Revolution, because it was in a time of economic productivity that didn't solely advance men.
It is worth noting that the Japanese solution you mentioned above addresses both male and female selfishness according to what the balance of power in the society could bear at the time. To deal with Men, Inc. you impose heavy costs on sex (and make sure that having it with more than one woman is unaffordable); to deal with Women, Inc. you suppress their worth outside of sex (and make sure that they don't have a good life outside of a context where they're selling that sex to a man).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
It's actually insane to me to read the parade of guys coming to these comments to express that the criterion for less than six sexual partners is strange or puzzling or not fair.
And yet, you still didn't actually answer the question, which is "why are we supposed to care so much?"- probably because you're just taking "traditionalist/Christian sexual ethics are correct in all cases" for granted and going from there.
You could even get there from first principles and evopsych as it applies to the majority of people in any given place and time; you could argue that the liberal approach converges on the Christian one from a risk-management point of view so reality bears out that you should live by those rules, or you could come up with something different than those.
Or you could just say you don't like it and that's the way it is (and at least maintain a modicum of intellectual honesty), then extrapolate from there, since for n = 1 that might not be a particularly strong argument.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
It has to be visceral/instinctual; there's just no other explanation that makes sense. The people who do feel that are going to try to rationalize it quite a bit harder and, logically, would rather not have to work at sexual attraction because it makes the relationship much more likely to succeed (for obvious reasons). Compare [the emotional impulse behind] 6/6/6 for women. Preference falsification applies to everyone, especially those that suggest vanity.
Conversely, we should expect men who have to fight themselves every time they need to prove they're attracted to their wife to be worse at marriage, which naturally leads to a higher divorce rate. The implication when it's brought up is that it's all on the woman, but obviously that's not true (and considering the market value of sexual access to the female body has fallen through the floor -> sex is expected when dating, women who might not otherwise want to do that really aren't in a great situation).
It makes sense that the revulsion is instinctual; from a biological standpoint women who intentionally seek out sex are malfunctioning since it's very risky for zero benefit. It's only been within the last 70 years that the risk (of pregnancy) dropped to literally zero, so this trait hasn't evolved out of the male population yet, and the selection pressure might actually be in the direction of reinforcement anyway.
no instinctive revulsion
Interestingly, there are a couple of sex things I do feel instinctive revulsion towards (seeing two conventional men interact sexually is one of those; actually, I suspect this is also true for [obligate] gay men, which probably explains some furries... among other things) so I just kind of map that feeling onto this.
Perhaps that's just a side effect of my general pattern of sexual deviancy.
Personally, I would be more concerned about marrying someone who isn't sufficiently deviant/has too much instinctual revulsion about sex to actually be any fun to sleep with... but then again, low body count kind of falls out of that equation anyway for other reasons so maybe that's just a self-serving rationalization too.
It’s a completely different mindset to what happens in almost any other area of life.
Whose life?
In their lives, this is exactly how it works. They don't live in a world of reality, they live in a world of procedure; they don't live in a world of action, they live in a world of discussion and abstraction. They can even play-fight their own organizations (public-sector unions being the best example of this, since it's government negotiating with itself).
They don't have to produce any actual work, or any measurable results; they're getting paid either way. That's how the levers of power work for these people, and they are experienced in working them. (This causes anxiety in the personnel who pride themselves on doing the actual work- performing well is actually a detriment to your job security.)
It’s not just numbers of people and slogans, it’s about power, and if you don’t understand how to turn the levers of power you have access to, its not doing anything and you are wasting your time.
"Gaining power through manipulation of reality generating better outcomes" and "gaining power through manipulating the first group" are two very different things. The second group's power ultimately depends on the consent (manufactured or not) of the first group.
Trump, and the set of political undercurrents his movement represents, all represent a withdrawal of that consent. Some places- Western Europe, for instance- have atrophied so hard, and diluted the power of the second group so effectively, that the second group is unable to withdraw their consent. [Mass migration is instinctively encouraged by the first group for that reason.] The US is able to field a Trump specifically because it hasn't fully atrophied in that way.
Men are more private about their envy, they redirect it, channel it in different and sometimes more subtle ways; they are more embarrassed of it, more shameful of it.
Men buy sex, women sell sex. (This is just the way incentives work, not a moral judgment.)
The buyer dynamic is that being openly envious of people who have more money than you (and can afford better than you) is a signal you're poor. It is embarrassing and shameful to be poor. As an extension of that, if that man fucks your girlfriend or wife, he is walking proof that he is (and perhaps always will be) richer than you.
The same is not true of sellers; being envious of people who can command a higher price than you is not a signal you're poor in the same way. It is shameful to be outright undesired, but having to mark your body down to get the buyer's money is not quite the same thing.
I will refrain from further judgment, given the demographics of this forum
Rather humorously, the last time I made this point it was a woman complaining about it... yet that only served to prove my point further.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Really, the reason they exist is cost. It's cheap to take a one-lane-bidirectional road that has a bunch of existing development on it, expand it out to 2, maybe put a center turning lane in it, and you have what is effectively a highway.
Strong Towns and the other anti-car people get extremely butthurt about "but muh suburban financial sustainability", but this is why this kind of construction exists in the first place. Same with the 4-way stop and the traffic light; it doesn't require a few million dollars per intersection like roundabouts do (it's the cheaper, more technologically-advanced option, though it of course does make other sacrifices).
Yes, it'll cost you more lives and property damage because someone didn't look both ways and got (them or their car) hit by another car going 50 mph, but human safety and human dignity (in this case, the dignity of not living in a million-dollar shoebox and it only taking 10 minutes to get to your destination rather than 60) are always two sides of the same coin.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
'Stroad' is a shibboleth, generally meaning "[I don't like] roads that have more than one lane and are generally unobstructed".
And to put it bluntly, that personality type is “lightly on the sociopathy spectrum”
However, when you hear "the smart but lazy, you make into officers, as they have the mental clarity to make the tougher decisions", this is what they actually mean. You can't command an armed force (or a nation) if you're not willing to make decisions that can get your men killed, or to be more precise, ones that will outright cost you men. This can be direct, or it can be indirect (letting the CIA create a crack epidemic on your own streets so you can free some hostages means some of your men die, for instance).
If, at the end of the day, you're not willing to painfully incinerate the cutest little girl (regardless of whether or not it's actually her or you), you're not fit to command [and to be perfectly honest, you're not fit for politics either]. And that's just the way it is.
This is a distinction that's lost on many people: it's the difference between Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men and Brad Pitt's character from Fury (referenced above). The difference is, ultimately, that the former was stupid/lazy about it and the latter is not.
If you want a good example, look at how many people (even conservative pro-military types) were kind of disturbed by Chris Kyle’s autobiography.
This is also why certain tactics are derided as "Machiavellian" despite that being how systems of governance must work to be stable. It is readily apparent that Machiavelli thought in this same way; that's why people are disturbed by his observations even though I find them to be made in perfectly good faith.
that is not a personality type that really gels well with politics
That is because Western democracies are kayfabe and the power rests elsewhere. The people in power are all like this, make no mistake.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
I don't know why people have such a hard time believing that women are psychologically better-suited than men for caring for small children.
Because the follow-up question is "are men better-suited psychologically to certain tasks?", and the answer, "yes", strikes at the heart of how Western society's nobles (women as class) justify their current position as nobility.
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:
"Lived experience" of a thing is not required to know how expressions of it can be destructive.
More options
Context Copy link