ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
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.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
This is why some of us look back into the past and conclude "your late teens and early twenties are the objectively correct time to raise children; you can go into the higher-education tracks after that, college is free if you've replaced yourselves".
But mass immigration is cheaper than paying the youth of the country to do anything so that's what most of the West picks; much as the upper class is derelict in their duties by failing to hire lower classes to labor for them, so are the old.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
but I think part of this is largely an artifact of how history is largely written by some kind of "noble" class
Note also that, as far as the 20th (and so far, the 21st) century is concerned, I believe there's a strong argument to be made that that noble class is women in general.
Oppression is their origin myth, much like defeating Hitler was for Western powers in general.
I don't think that's quite the same, though: that just seems like normal low-commitment behavior to me (including the "what am I doing with my life?" piece every so often), cycling through hobbies once you've exhausted them. Not that this problem can't look like that, though (and it's a good first pass for normal people).
Most of the people I know (including the one you just described) like this are high-commitment for hobbies, people, etc. and actually try to make things work (scarcity/survive mindset?), so this doesn't fit. When I stop being able to consider working on something, or hanging out with people, it's not caused by that- it's something very different than "too hard, bored now", and to a point what I believe the 'depression' mechanism is supposed to protect us from (the "stop giving it your best, don't even look at that, save your energy for other opportunities"). It is probably functioning normally in this instance, but what's prompting it to occur is not.
[That first pass applied thoughtlessly is usually net-negative for us; from our standpoint, we're being clear and honest about how we work and that first pass signals you just aren't paying attention. I can see going to therapy/counseling being like this, which means it can be of limited effectiveness if you're running through the "troubleshoot a normal human being" checklist.]
and they aren't really considering the impact on others when they do it.
We over-consider it, because we're running the "functional/aligned-in-the-AI-sense human being" program in high-level emulation rather than letting the hardware model other people for us (the normal way). It takes a lot more energy to do this.
After that, it's down to personality. Some of us are real assholes about that and make that everyone else's problem by complaining about absurd nonsense; others keep it to ourselves.
A lot of anxiety lurking under the surface + it's not clear what she was 'fleeing' from in the marriage + wife had a bunch of male [read: high systematizing] hobbies
(Absurd simplification) Oh, so she's [platonically] transgender, got [by that definition] gay married, and it just didn't work out.
She might have been running from (or in this case, devoured by) that thing.
It's very hard to describe what that thing is. People call it "anxiety", but that's just a symptom (or how it manifests) and not the actual problem. I am, related to, and know a higher-than-average number of people like this.
I legitimately think it's related to sociopathy in the sense that predicting and manipulating human outcomes is important, and a skill that we have, but whereas sociopathy typically manifests itself as "I don't care lol, just be as destructive as possible" this is "I actually care a great deal about positive outcomes (and will create them whenever possible) and have an absurdly internal locus of control (and start malfunctioning when this is disrupted for no good reason- these people tend to be political contrarians for that reason too), but the prediction software that returns answers for how other people will react to me is failing to come up with the correct answer".
In technical fields, people call this "burnout". The symptoms are the same and what causes it is... also the same- software people will recognize this as that thing that happens that makes you far more tired than usual if you make no progress on a particular problem for a long time (configuration problems and poor documentation tend to trigger this).
That thing is what happens when that burnout generalizes to human beings when you have that defect that makes you see human beings as indistinguishable from other systems more generally. Everyone else has instincts to deal with this, or doesn't deal with it as hard because the volume is turned down, but we don't.
I don't have a solution for that thing other than "find other people who are also afflicted with [or understand/have a lot of trust in people who exhibit] that thing, then stick close to them". That is likely no longer an option in this case.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
that whole blog seems to be in the old genre of "everyone who disagrees with my tastes is falsifying their preferences or a degenerate, and here is some cherrypicked evidence"
Sure, but it's a bit different when it's an [ostensibly-straight] woman writing it, since the criterion of embarrassment would be satisfied in that case. I have no proof (other than hearsay on this very site) that is true in this case, but some of the other things on that blog make a lot more sense in that light (also, no man would claim garages are useless).
I think the sexual pattern matching function men operate on really is as simple as the article (and the stereotypes) make it out to be: big tits, big ass. Those that don't legitimately do have something wrong[1] with them- either they're running female pattern recognition software against male physical attraction patterns and the only socially-acceptable answer that function returns is "a woman with minimal secondary sexual characteristics", or they're running male pattern recognition software against standard female physical attraction patterns and the answers returned are all just "a man".
Now, I do expect some selection effect because the men who are willing to spend big bucks on a sex doll are also likely trying as hard as possible to pick a figure that maximizes "big tits, big ass" in a larger-than-life way... but that's also the assertion being made, that men who claim not to be concerned about it are not telling the truth for whatever reasons.
[1] In the sense that these conditions adversely affect reproductive fitness.
This has got to be the craziest explanation for domestic violence I've ever read
The question I think about is "why would a battered housewife not only stick around, but defend her husband's actions?". There's no rational reason for that, so this has to be a function (or malfunction) of some basic instinct.
I posit the basic instinct is "sell sex in exchange for resources", and that violent men tend to, for some women, result in the seller perceiving that the price the buyer is paying is high enough to labor as a very literal punching bag. Which also explains a few other weird things, like "women obsessed with serial killers".
It also explains why the modern women is choosier: on an intellectual standpoint/when women have other options, the odds they'll be selling sex for anything resembling a reasonable price is lower and they'll only consider lower prices when the "Reproduce Now" instinct turns on[1] (the flipside, of course, is that higher-quality women are now available at a bargain price if you're willing to look for them, which is to a point why so many software guys marry Asians[2] when they hit 30). The selection effects on the sexual marketplace are simply downstream of this; the reason men who can't pay as much still get laid regularly is because not every woman is Homo Economicus, and even when they are they aren't that way all the time.
The men and women who lack the instinct to min-max this way, or perceive the requirement to either be very muted or only have the cosplay of buy/sell on their minds? Those are the real "asexuals". They lose because they just want to be left alone and do their weird thing where they constantly fuck around.
[1] Buyers call this the "beta bucks"/"once she's had her fun" phenomenon; sellers usually just call it "settling".
[2] Their genetics predict a superior product even if their cultural outlook was more hostile to men on average, and it isn't... unless you also happen to be Asian.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
and there's no obvious way to fix it
Sure there is: the old simply need to decide/be forced to pay their damn taxes.
The old in the US chose to pay their taxes: they, wisely, chose someone who campaigned on imposing them- he even managed to make them fun. And while the results of figuring out that new tax policy have been... interesting, especially because the reformers choose to televise negotiations (which I will point out was vital to making them fun in the first place), this is necessary for American society to avoid becoming too top-heavy and collapsing under the weight of its unpaid debts. Or in other words, "a deep-seated economic crisis at a structural level".
The old in the rest of the Western world, by contrast (and you can blame some selection effects- these countries define themselves by their social conservatism, Decorum, and Orderliness), have soundly rejected paying their taxes and, as provinces of the Empire, now need to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so. "Muh Trump" is simply an excuse for this (and the fact that nobody in any one of these nations can articulate what is actually wrong with him besides righteous indignation reveals that).
The housing situation could be solved overnight if you mass-mobilized your potential workforce; I'd leave my current job instantly if someone showed up at my door, thrust a journeyman ticket with my name on it into my hands, and said "we'll pay 1.5x your current salary, and guarantee you a single family home in whatever location you choose, to come build houses for us for the next 4 years", and I think a lot of teen and twentysomethings would be willing to do that too. If the political will was there, it would occur.
There's no way out of this mess.
Well, not until the war in Ukraine wraps up, at any rate. I wonder where that massive surplus of small arms is going to end up if the Ukrainian government wins but can't pay its soldiers (to say nothing of the Russian one)? I suspect European nations in particular are not going to like the answer.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
and it is not even a "revolutionary" solution
I disagree; I think uprooting and firing 90%+ of the current academic apparatus (it won't be economically viable to sustain them with 1/10th of the current enrollment rate) is very much a revolutionary idea, in the political sense.
Is that reform needed, considering how much money the education-managerial complex costs society? Sure, but as far as what it's going to actually give way to is completely unknown especially considering what demographic a complete collapse of that as a job will disproportionately affect (it might legitimately still be better for the young if the child sacrifice is permitted to continue).
None of the journos or the academics quoted in the article can bring themselves to question if these young adults should even be in the university
Indeed- it is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
I believe that overtime, they experience a sort of unconscious strain that builds up with each casual sexual encounter, that worsens their mental health, separately from the regret they feel due to the aforementioned physical and social costs.
Of course. After all, who would want to buy goods from a seller that casually exposes their ware(s) to hazardous, ionizing XXX-rays?
But really, this is just "buyers being buyers", in the exact way that "sellers being sellers" is. You instinctively negotiate- used items are inherently worth a little less than new items, it's best to have a service history and low mileage, shops that take care to polish and present their merchandise command higher prices from you just based on the confidence it demonstrates in the product, etc. etc. blah blah blah.
Or is there some other reason I'm not anticipating why you'd believe this is true in the absence of evidence? You can just say "I don't want to spend the money", lol; that's just as morally neutral as sellers who say "that is not enough money".
People who claim to be asexual claim don't want to be treated for it at all.
Oh, I don't know about that. You get enough attractive young women together, along with perhaps a cute twink or two (just for variety), who are all extremely intent on trying to cure my (crippling?) asexuality? I'll absolutely submit to that conversion therapy, in earnest.
People have written many books describing this stuff, or so I'm told.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
Your Fourth Amendment concerns are probably suffering from being somewhere in the same ballpark. Forced on you by overcomplicated jurisprudence.
There exists a series of relatively well-known documentaries of the modern judicial system published in the 1970s, featuring Clint Eastwood.
The first one of these exists specifically to posit an answer to that question.
Why should we expect evolution to push for ‘getting your kids laid with as many partners as possible’?
You misunderstand- the thing mothers are failing at is not "getting your kids laid with as many partners as possible" (though admittedly this is more likely to happen given a proper education in these matters), it's "your son dies childless because he was too busy Respecting Women(tm) to ever get successfully laid even once".
In an environment of equality mothers have to look out for their sons' sexual interests (where they enable/encourage them to go from 0 partners to 1) just as much as fathers do for their daughters (and enable/encourage them to go from many partners to 1).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2mo ago
some women go on about how sex work is empowering for women
Perhaps the most obvious conclusion is that they're genuinely asexual (or just uncritically repeating asexual talking points), so sex work to them is legitimately not meaningfully distinguishable from any other work.
This doesn't prevent them from responding to other incentives, of course- for instance, a prostitute might prefer prefer porn be banned if they believe it would lead to greater demand for their services. Whether or not they're aware they're prostitutes is another matter.
Men by and large stopped caring about the wilderness, and new (more rewarding) frontiers opened over that time.
Then men do not owe women anything, including consideration or respect. Hence the efforts to impose that by force paid for by social credit.
More options
Context Copy link