ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6mo ago
What, you don't think "dae women should be property, also all sex is bad and evil and if u don't agree ur a cuck?" for the thousandth time is driving positive or thoughtful engagement?
Ironically it's only the female and the gay posters that have ever provided any worthwhile insight into relationship dynamics; I think about the framing of 'devotion fatigue' [extrapolated from old postings, never quite explicitly stated] quite a bit, since now that I have more language that reminds me it's a thing I just see it everywhere now.
Devotion fatigue sets in faster for the "leftists", partially because the things they tend to be wrong about are more emotionally charged/there's very little emotional validation for what they are right about by comparison; the trick is, uh, not being obnoxious about it. That's harder in a collective for what should be obvious reasons.
Honestly, /r9k/ had a solution to this especially if you coupled an LLM knowledge base trained on threads that go the same way; it would be nice to identify and auto-hide uninsightful consensus positions without having to think about it. Alas, no such platform exists.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
and ended with her issuing a number of demands which certainly wont be met by Ottawa
It wouldn't have mattered what she said
Carney will almost certainly represent a lowering of the heat relative to Trudeau
lol, no
but Albertans were about to confidently have their champion and that is now ripped away from them. When a people who see themselves as victims have their hopes dashed is when they are most dangerous
One can only hope.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7d ago
it’s a loose indication of maturity
It's an indication of someone desperate to signal maturity. [Hence, soyjacks.]
some lower or working class people who never stopped wearing them so much
You generally need to be clean-shaven for a respirator, so it's a sign you don't [have to] work in a factory.
It helps that the new wave of beards are generally speaking a little more cared for than previously.
They're all just neckbeards to me.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5mo ago
are you identifying as a traditionalist
No.
saying that progressives of today will think of resurgent [neo]traditionalism as "what happens when you shove alt-right liberalism down the throats of six-foundations who'd [now] have become progressives"?
With any luck, yes.
and am not sure what you're pointing at with "sustainable"/"unsustainable"
Let's say I'm a young man and have the ability to work for a few years and be set for life by answering a particular question. Of the set of things that could prevent me from doing that:
- care/harm: is answering this question actually productive (will people give me profit for answering it)?
- liberty/oppression: am I allowed to marshal my resources to take advantage of the answer?
- fairness/cheating: is corruption going to drain resources I need to take advantage of this question's answer, or steal it entirely?
- loyalty/betrayal: if I find someone willing to work under market value, how much am I permitted to take advantage of that?
- authority/subversion: am I unable to consider the result of this question because old men or women worked against it in the past?
- sanctity/degradation: am I unable to take advantage of the answer to this question because it's a repugnant conclusion?
From the perspective of the question-answerers (or people who believe themselves temporarily-embarrassed millionaires question-answerers), the last three are a damping force- a conservative force, if you will. They tend to be frustrated by damping forces simply by being someone who fancies themselves able to be correct more often than the average person, and from that perspective that's theft taxation parasitism.
As your mindset drifts further and further away from zero-sum it becomes easier and easier to see those people that way; as your mindset drifts closer to zero-sum, enforcing those last three things are what will make sure you get yours.
The trick is that parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy- in the eyes of the unproductive, it's no less inherently wrong or right than productivity in terms of "mechanisms that mean I won't starve to death". And people can switch from productive to unproductive in the blink of an eye, too- you can be automated into uselessness, you can lose a limb, changing conditions of reality can destroy your niche- so... how many social taxes do you think is the correct amount?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
Couldn't your conclusion that 'If Hamas manages to get an attack off it's the entire host nations problem as well' apply to Iran giving them a nuke in the first place?
No, because Iran is the only one capable of retaliating (in a nuclear fashion) hard enough to discourage that. And Israel doesn't need to go nuclear if this happens; a conventional war would be just as destructive for these nations and peoples. Perhaps that is part of why the neighboring countries are unwilling to host the Hamasi as refugees.
Couldn't Israel just state preemptively they will regard any use of nukes by hamas as use by Iran
Maybe, but I don't think Israel can win a war with Iran (hence the emphasis on keeping them down/contained). They're sufficiently equipped to wreck any country Iran allies with outside of that lovely mountain range that defines the western Iranian border, but unless the Americans want to put their boots on the ground and suffer the 3:1 attacker casualty rates to conquer Iran then Israel can't really touch them. Israel doesn't have those numbers, Iran's a peer nation (except for the nuclear weapons), and if either tries in the future are the Israel-hating Blues (and even Reds; Israeli influence might not be as stable in an era of Red reforms) even going to lift a finger?
Remember, the ultimate problem Israel is fighting is that, absent Rome/Europe/Washington and its religious fixation on holding Jerusalem, it is the natural geopolitical state of Judea to be in the Persian orbit. Hence the rhyme with Biblical times- Jews evict the Canaanites, then the Persians conquer the Jews.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
10d ago
Well, yeah; this is 100% an autistic Christian thing.
You make yourself an enemy of the God of America when you lie on the form, because He knows the contents of your heart and what is done in secret.
That is why "lying on the form about the contents of your heart" is accepted by American culture as both valid, and an offense that strips you of any right to participate in it so long as they see fit that the question remains on the form.
Interestingly, it doesn't actually make any moral judgment- it still maintains the presupposition that there are good people who are also [disqualifying class]- but then, if the man be good, he would not lie on the forms because [see above].
Thus lying on the form is, while a completely natural thing to do, a sin -> if you were good, you're certainly an enemy of God [and by extension, the country] now -> OK to revoke and eject on those grounds.
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
4mo ago
[Standard traditionalist (men have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-progressive (women have more social license to cheat/get the better deal by default)-liberal (space aliens who don't associate morality and sexuality as much) framing applies beyond this point.]
Because it destabilizes any society in which it takes root.
Which ones, and what are the symptoms of that destabilization? Be specific as to how people fucking is the first step in the causal chain. The 1960s US seemed pretty stable to me besides the tons of bombs being dropped in mailboxes and on Vietnam and the occasional race riot, and I don't think those things were due to a lack of specifically-virgin pussy.
And while "I can't believe there's so much non-virgin pussy, what the fuck, these women are just giving it away seemingly at random" is a typical radicalization story stated by at least one Islamic terrorist, it seems absurd to blame that reaction on the liberals.
we criminalize the mere possession of drugs. This is because
of a bunch of reasons; what's it to you if I shoot up in the privacy of my own home? No, you criminalize the possession of drugs because it's a combination of being low-class with very little (or negative) perceived socioeconomic value compared to their perceived sociopolitical risks (a trait the other possession crimes- guns and explosives, certain types of pornography, etc. also tend to share).
you slept with the nanny, or you slept with the pool boy? No one should deny or criticize your sexual self-expression and autonomy!
Where does your brain go, that you would assume my outgroup isn't also selfish bastards?
You're forgetting that this is a destructive thing to do even in a sexually liberal culture, not because sex is uniquely bad on its face (and sexual liberals do indeed reject that notion) but because, most of the time, it's violating an explicit agreement not to do that. The problem is not with the sex, though it is made worse by it- the "but it's not a big deal, sex = free, why is my husband leaving me" is a rationalization/excuse after the fact. This is also why it makes sense for a career where people live and die on the fact they can trust you not to be doing stupid bullshit like this to sanction it, especially one where you find a lot of traditionalists.
the high stakes of promiscuity / adultery's likely outcomes
The ultimate problem for traditionalist-progressives is that what their instincts tell them about sex (and the impact and seriousness thereof) and what the actual truth is (that if you're not a fucking retard you're not going to get pregnant or an STD beyond herpes- and while herpes is a big deal, it's nothing compared to the million dollars a bastard child costs) no longer match.
This is why the feeling that there should be more social stakes (and indeed, why they're created artificially by progressives filling a power vacuum left by a liberal withdrawl/die-off) is a unique vulnerability. But the reverse of female-privileging selfishness is not male-privileging selfishness (and vice versa).
do members of a society have duties and responsibilities outside of themselves to that society that are not codified in law?
Trivially, but good luck making society reward those duties and responsibilities with the corresponding rights and privileges.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7mo ago
Am I supposed to treat her like she's a completely fresh, clean bowl of cheerios?
Depends, are you getting straight-married or gay-married to her?
Because she seems the type to still want (or rather, need) a straight marriage, and at this point I think she’d have a hard time with both, because the betrayal in a straight marriage is not being a virgin, but the betrayal in a gay marriage is not being fucking trustworthy enough not to want to fall back into needing those straight marriage privileges for the relationship to be viable (because she can’t provide them now as well as she used to).
they just need enough to make the cost of a nuclear exchange so high Israel would never risk it
But this has further implications that you omit.
If Iran has the bomb, they can provide it to a smaller, far more suicidal group of allies (the Palestinians) to lock the Israelis into their current borders unless they negotiate with Iran. Technology transfers, taxes, religious rites/rights, not purchasing American weapons, etc. is what that looks like.
In this way, the Hamasi would serve as the permanent Iranian veto over the [Ashke]nazi. Because they simply don't care if the Israelis nuke them in response- the fact is, the Israelis get hurt far more than the Palestinians, the Palestinians are suicidal, and that is sufficient to accomplish this goal.
Conversely, if Israel believes that Iran will, or already has, or will inevitably soon obtain, a bomb like this... then their only response is to start removing the local kebab as fast as humanly possible. They didn't like the paragliders the first time; imagine how much they're not going to like them when the settlers further encroaching on their territory prompts an air-borne SADMization of the Israeli countryside.
The Iron Dome can stop a lot but the bomber is going to get through. And sure, Hamas could always attack from another country (perhaps one in which they seek refuge after the dust settles), but in that case that other country [and its people] are collateral the Israelis can threaten such that Hamas is kept down- since if Hamas manages to get an attack off then it's the entire host nation's problem, and Israel becomes the one with the nuclear veto.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18d ago
True cultured men know the mark of being an intellectual gentleman is to only be attracted to obvious signs of intelligence like girls wearing glasses.
Counterpoint: being attracted to women for stereotypically-masculine traits is childish and gay.
[Note that by "childish and gay", that's "this is how attraction works when your age is only measured in single digits" and "not confident/socially capable enough to trust you can dominate a more feminine woman", respectively. It's also preferring more "universal" traits than specifically masculine ones, if you prefer that framing.]
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
After all her whole interview was about supporting Pierre.
It would be easier for AB to get policy goals accomplished were its people represented in the Federal government, something they haven't been for a long, long time now. Liberals don't listen to anyone outside of Toronto, and it shows.
But I don't think there's a future for Reform parties in this country and yet another CPC loss/Eastern aggression + economic cataclysm might start convincing people of that.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3mo ago
What I'm really opening for is that we may get an Overton expansion to the right, a CPC re-absorption of the PPC, and open calls for very low levels of immigration and the end of DEI/affirmative action. Anything that puts those ideas into the mainstream is a win.
If there's anything that's going to happen in that regard, it's going to be provincially.
I am already lamenting that we wont get a confident and high-agency Western government with a large majority to reverse the damage Big City Easternism has wrought.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4mo ago
This idea that all of her songs are breakup songs is
what you're naturally going to converge on if you turn on any random Spotify playlist. It's not so much a meme as it is what actually gets played; I have no problem admitting that not all country songs are some variation of the guy's wife/dog/truck leaving him, but it's most of what actually makes it onto the airwaves.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5mo ago
they are the same people who made regime be about as close to liberalism as humanity has ever gotten so far
No, they’re those people’s children. Not the same thing; sometimes wise or well-meaning parents end up raising children who are neither.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5mo ago
What is woke?
"Woke" applies to an individual or work for whom all of the following hold:
- whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that this individual's actions, taken as a whole, appeal to the interest of their own class or privilege a set of protected characteristics they share;
- whether the individual in question pursues or conducts, in an intentionally offensive way, the privileging of certain types of sexual conduct or other discriminatory functions, as specifically defined by the letter of applicable equal rights legislation; and
- whether the works of this individual [or the work itself], taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit
The first category is to exclude those who are socially conscious of issues that aren't just a scheme to enrich themselves, which is a key feature of woke thought, and covers the standard "diversity over meritocracy" complaint. Compare stealing offense; they take that which isn't being given to them because it improves their social standing to do so (this is bullying/political strategy 101).
The second category serves to indict so-called "reverse" discrimination as discrimination- the "I can't be sexist, I only hire women" thing (which is usually used as an excuse for unevenhanded treatment when those who interpret the law are unwilling or unable to address it, typically because of the above). Again, if this occurs but isn't intended as nakedly self-enriching at the same time, it's more morally neutral than it is when perpetrated with intent; seeking eradication denies opportunity for education (hardened hearts and all that).
The third category must exist for free speech reasons; after all, are you truly free to possess selfish, illiberal views if you at no point are allowed to voice them? Steven Universe [for instance] thus cannot truly be considered a "woke show" even though it (and its creators) arguably satisfy (1) and (2), because it's done well and actually has something to say; compare how Lolita generally escapes the "child pornography" category.
The same principles we used to be granted offense to, and punish, obscenity serve to similarly convict wokeism and its practitioners- intentional, anti-social, and without any other mitigating merit. (Which is why I borrowed the Miller test for this definition.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6mo ago
And at that time, by the time the kids were capable of a reaction other than "eww, gross", they had already moved out.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8mo ago
nobody thought that made them men
Obligatory: what's a man?
(If you consider a 'man' to be a 'human doing' rather than a 'human being' it... actually kind of makes more sense to consider women who do that men in this context- but there's a right way and a wrong way to do that.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8mo ago
because it's transparently dishonest to associate yourself with menial work that you do not do and have never (in my knowledge) done
Yes, but associating yourself with them is the thing you have to do if you want to manage a company filled with the people doing those things regardless of whether you see yourself as above them or not (which you'll recognize as the stereotypical Karen mindset).
That is [one of] your job[s] in that position; Kamala is refusing to do that job.
(And that's completely ignoring the "leader is himself a servant" thing being... kind of foundational to the "Protestant" part of "Protestant work ethic".)
The entire philosophy is based around respecting what consenting adults do. They're fine with restricting what children do.
- Define all X as not-human with some scientific-sounding justification ("brain not developed till 25", "they're closer to gorillas", etc.)
- Claim anyone who disagrees with that definition is in opposition to the Science, and are obviously just in favor of X freedom because they want to have sex with [more generally, exploit] the women in X
- Rinse and repeat for Y, Z, etc. until you've reinvented traditional morality wholesale (more popularly known as "intersectionality")
No, I can't imagine why any freedom-minded person would have any problems with that. From a liberal standpoint, the problem with this strategy in an illiberal milieu is that you can't really take it on directly, and liberals being mistake theorists (and their tendency to be sexual mistake theorists doesn't help that) generally fail to understand that.
Thus, they tend to get baited into attacking (2), when the actual answer is to either go after (1) [which isn't scalable and is still vulnerable to "why do you care so much about hoaxes?", where people who can attack (1) can still be somewhat-credibly accused of having the same motivations as the people who just attack (2) do], or seek/implement/maintain social conditions such that yeschad.jpg is a valid response to (2)- this is being able to respond "all of them" to "how many children have to die before people who have (and will do) nothing wrong will give up their freedom to X" criticisms of [insert civil right here].
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
Sexist, yes, obviously, but you really have to squint to get to sexual.
A lack of active and/or claimed sexual intent doesn't mean it isn't sexual abuse.
Then again, I do agree that "sexual abuse" is not something that has a particularly coherent definition (since most of the time the definition is weaponized; if sex isn't special, rape is neither meaningfully nor mechanically distinct from other kinds of battery).
So I'm willing to concede it's mostly just bog-standard emotional abuse, but then, why are we permitting that on an industrial scale again?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18hr ago
Which proves a point that these brackets were always intended as a 'gotcha' more than anything else.
They were largely not sovereign nations
The Swiss and Spanish were (almost like that's why I mentioned them). The French remain relevant simply because they never adopted 7.62 NATO in any meaningful way until after the FAMAS.
The Czechs are also an interesting case, having fielded a service rifle in 7.62x45 in 1952 (more powerful than the existing 7.62x39 cartridge). So clearly the 'intermediates are the future' case isn't as clear-cut even when you have weapons available to you that are already in intermediate cartridges, but intermediate cartridges are limited in their usefulness if the gun you're using isn't a carbon copy of the StG-44 (the Czechs even had some of these actively lying around that the Soviets used to deniably arm some of its allies in North Africa).
And the StG-44 is a legitimately expensive gun to make especially if you're not well-versed in German space magic- you need magazines (and they need to be completely interchangeable; it's easier to do that with 9mm), the gun itself is more complicated (it needs to fire from a closed bolt to be viable at range), you need to supply it with enough ammunition to work (and you go through more rounds with these than you would with a full-power rifle round), and it's just as heavy as a full-power rifle is. The Czechs would eventually do the vz. 58, which is still a milled gun 15 years after it theoretically could have been made with stampings; Germany was legitimately that far ahead with the technology.
Another interesting example is Yugoslavia; they bought up most of the German surplus and were still actively using StG-44s (and AKs in 8mm Mauser, of all things) into the 1980s to supplement copies of Soviet equipment. Of course, they were and remain a relatively poor part of the world, so that wasn't as much by choice.
and forced to do so by Americans due to NATO
There was nothing stopping other countries from fielding two weapons or even to adopt it in the first place if they had sufficient logistics to do something different (or had already adopted something in large numbers re: France- who I will remind you was in possession of the future-HK engineers in charge of the StG-45); the US was doing that themselves (.30 Carbine) in the first place anyway.
So no, I'm not interested in the "stupid burger country intentionally screws up procurement" story. I will happily say that about the XM7 but in that gun's defense the US doesn't have any usable 7.62 NATO small arms in inventory aside from stuff at the end of its service life, so if they're going to switch to a more efficient (and more powerful) cartridge for a rifle and machine gun now is indeed the time.
Japanese adopted 6.5mm
Which is why I said
or with the .264s
for plenty of nations fielded rifles and machine guns in 6.5mm and 7mm (the 6.5mm cartridges all use .264 projectiles, except for the Italians who used .268). The two largest ones that actually used them in combat all dumped them for something in .30 during WW2 for reasons I already stated.
In fact, it's a good exercise to ask yourself what you owe to the artwork.
True, but the child[ish]-ness of that approach goes both ways; an audience that doesn't do that misses out on what the artwork had, but an artwork that isn't trying to hide what it has [beyond what is inherent/integral to the artwork] for [and this is subject to interpretation] "fuck you lololol" reasons.
Well, that's a result of the fanbase being largely tumblrites.
And the "fuck you, domination over accommodation" thing they embody means they legitimately don't understand those characters. Hence their rush to overwrite the plain text with 'no, he can't just be a crossdresser with other motivations, he has to be trans' [even though this breaks the entire reason his character arc ends the way it does].
I want Hiruko to step on me!
>Tells the MC to kiss her
>Accidentally pushes MC off the roof instead
>Promptly commits suicide
The funny thing about her characterization is, and unique to Hiruko due to her circumstances, that a good chunk of it is in the background and implications of certain events. I think she's the only character that does this across any of his works.
Vehx route too short
Why do you think so?
(I was legitimately shocked when I played that route because it's in large degree a match for this. Which is why I don't think it needed to be any longer; it showed V'ehxness was this way, and then ended.)
Yes, that's called "trans erasure". These women are performing opposite-, or rather trans-, gender roles- therefore, opinion discarded for doing work incompatible with one's gender.
Doubly so because they're gender traitors- again, traditionalist and progressive thought both agree that men owe women just for existing, so what are these women doing working, and why are they co-operating with men?
More options
Context Copy link