ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
It's not about solving or changing modern society so much as it's about keeping things in place and expanding the purvue of some of its most powerful factions.
In other words, progressivism is a highly right wing (conservative) movement. The meta-level of statements like DR3 is that the correct model for progressives is the one they claim owns the world, and given their attitudes towards things like development of resources and blocking any meaningful reform of any kind that doesn't come from their own tribe (as in, things conservatives do to hold onto their privilege past its expiration date), well.
The dominant left wing (progressive) movement today is what's commonly called "the alt-right". The leftist goal in the 1900s was equalizing the playing field between men and women because women are objectively the more oppressed/discriminated against gender in an industrial economy. The leftist goal in the 2000s is doing the same thing, as men are objectively the more oppressed/discriminated against gender in a service economy.
As for why the woke don't realize it... difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it, and that describes half the nation for various reasons. As for why the alt-right don't realize it... well, that's mostly to do with co-ordination and the fact their enemy [falsely] describes themselves as being on the side of progress (which is effective at confusing the moderates/liberals/the people who are doing most of the work).
"The competency crisis" is calling out a problem created by conservative privilege. It is a leftist meme.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
15hr ago
If climate change is a real problem, then the deal may be tackling it at a cost.
Hence "just build nuclear plants; if you thought it was such a problem you would already have accepted the added risk".
So either climate change isn't actually the existential risk they claim because they're willing to let other hysteria take precedence, or they are correct about it being the most important existential risk... which means the environment is precious enough that we're willing to let a reactor mess up a city or two. Drop in the bucket compared to "the world will be destroyed".
Teslas are nice..but they are still (in my view) inferior to a similary luxurious petrol car.
I wholeheartedly agree, but the reason given for not buying one is not "Electric car inherently inferior", it's "Elon man bad". People who take steps in solving the problem should be honored among those with the grievance; that is historically how the people with the grievance pay for the solutions. That they refuse to pay now, and will do whatever they can not to pay (the person who has done more for Blue environmental goals in decades than anyone else... is also their biggest political target), is notable.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
15hr ago
it makes the hands massive
But the real question: does that happen in reverse?
It would be darkly humorous for a yaoi fan to create a male model with large hands (I don't know why they do this) only for the final product to more closely resemble the unflattering physical stereotype of yaoi fans.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
16hr ago
Perhaps I will rethink my position on the possible existence of microaggressions.
Honestly, I think microaggressions are best modeled as "real, but 100% projection/revealing too much about the speaker/thief thinking everyone steals".
I propose "micro-defection" for this, or enshittification-by-social-capture. The "my patients/students/customers are [not my favorite race or gender], so I won't try as hard serving them; what are they going to do, fire me?" effect. The woke are more correct than the mainstream in asserting that the sum of micro-aggressions is outright aggression- it's just that the only people who really care to micro-aggress are the woke (which we see in stuff like Covid vaccine distributions, grading disparities by gender, etc.).
"As a nonbinary player I always wished they'd remove genderlocked customization"
Failure to acquire properly-fitted women's clothing generally blows ex-men's cover even before you see their face (ex-women don't have this problem since women's clothing is a strict superset of men's clothing). It is strange that there doesn't seem to be anyone trying to fix that problem (or if they are, they're on the down-low/everyone who wears it passes so well they're invisible?).
Though, I do have to say that the disruption is even-handed enough (and not just "ill-fitting female clothes on the male model") that I don't think it qualifies as "micro", since even the models that transpeople would prefer are ruined by this change (being they would already have picked "attractive model of the opposite gender").
what makes you think their other fears are going to be rationally evaluated against climate change in order to solve climate change?
Or perhaps more generally, what makes you think they're even capable of rationally evaluating fears in the first place?
it is my opinion they are absolutely sincere in being worried about the climate
Well, that's the good-faith answer. Yet, it concerns me that the things they appear to be genuinely afraid of also happen to be things that it is in their personal or class interest to be genuinely afraid of, and afraid in such a way that their opponents' good-faith efforts are never good enough for them.
If climate change sheds its master morality baggage and actually threatens to improve life for a change, maybe we'd start accomplishing those goals. Tesla did it, look how successful they are. (Of course, the most statistically worried about climate change also excuse themselves from buying a Tesla because they don't like what Elon says on the Internet- a good faith view of that is hyperconservative fear paralysis... which is why it's odd we consider progressives to be on the left when they're fundamentally an ultraconservative rightist movement specifically because fear dominates their reasoning.)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1d ago
While not strictly an acronym, this already exists as the short form of "global homogeneity/homogenization". It is used in the same way for the same reasons.
They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.
The right to vote yourself into a war means the responsibility to pay and support the soldiers fighting it.
Ukrainian women did the former, but not the latter (they skipped town).
Human beings pay their debts. Criminals skip town. Ukrainian women running from the war have thus committed a crime and should be deprived of their liberty as a consequence until they have paid their debt to Ukrainian society. The penalty for murder is generally a complete forfeit of that for the rest of one's life.
That is what we would do to men, anyway.
In an environment of equality this is what we would do to women.
Obviously, we are not in an environment of equality.
This problem does solve itself over time (eugenics through enemy action?), but that doesn't mean it's not going to suck for those who have to deal with it.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2d ago
I hear the chicks really dig Garrus. And I mean really dig Garrus.
Not like it's hard to see why. In all seriousness, you very much do get the "he's dangerous, take-charge, but kind of awkward, hurt a bit, and I can fix him" thing going on, which among the kinds of women masculine enough to bother with Mass Effect (and body pillows) is how their attraction works (though, of course, that kind of woman is rare to begin with).
I dare everyone to try to find actually-sensitive storytelling about male-female relationships, from a male perspective, that isn't 1. pornography 2. completely hamfisted or 3. downplayed.
I just watch anime for this; Tonikawa: Over the Moon and I can't understand what my husband is saying are good for that. Maybe "actually they love each other and nothing that cancerous happens" counts as pornography, though.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2d ago
Miranda
Ah yes, Reapers Miranda. Putting the ass in Mass Effect since 2010.
Tali
Honestly I'm not too much in knots about Tali since ME2 isn't even the first game she's in. Same thing with Liara, but maybe she doesn't count since you can't romance her in ME2 (not that you can do that with Ashley either, of course). I think the least fleshed-out/one that makes the least sense is Samara, discounting the alternative option.
I do find that the male options in ME2 were better but that's just because I think Garrus and Thane are better characters (not that Jack isn't a good character herself). Too bad they memed on Jacob in ME3; they didn't really flesh his character out at all in ME2 (maybe ME1 players blew up Carth more often so they didn't think it was worth the effort, lol).
resolves it's emotional catharsis by having her do stripper dances in your room
Doesn't that option become available to you before she gets kidnapped? I do agree it would be more interesting if that option was locked out after that because of that, but I'm not sure they thought about it that hard.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2d ago
the tendency to emotionally heal traumatized women by boning them
That's an interesting perspective. The only circumstance I can remember in this game is
Personally, I would have preferred to bone Legion, but you... kind of do that anyway, in a way. The Garrus romance is about as close as you can actually get for that one and he's not the same.
whether to celebrate too or feel sorry for the catwomen
I think that in any stable system, there will be as many unmarriageable men as there are unmarriageable women, and I don't think that's a big deal. I think the reasons those people remain unmarriageable are intractable, and that their not reproducing is going to have a non-trivial eugenic effect on the populations over which it applies (lower base rate of mental illness, less tolerant of selfishness).
my largest reaction is to want the people who have no role in the future to have no role in decision making today
I'm not as certain; a lot of parents get at least a little stupid when it comes to dealing with the most expensive luxury items they will ever purchase.
Then again, non-parents (especially non-parent women) are somehow even more risk/human-dignity averse when it comes to other people's children (which is why the education system is the way that it is), so maybe it'd still be an improvement.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2d ago
If feminine standards are telling them to be an unmarried cat owner looking for Mr. Right at age 35 then maybe we should examine why
I mean, you buried it in your post: equal rights came without equal responsibilities.
Now that men and women are equal, should it not be equally valid to say "another woman weeded out of the gene pool"? If we're judging each gender by their own standards, women had it far easier than men and they're still failing, so why shouldn't men rejoice the same way women do when this happens to a man? They have equal rights, they can take equal lefts.
Not that I think that's a helpful way to look at things, but the only people who can meaningfully change this for women are other women. Do I think that'll happen? Well, maybe; men have largely adapted from losing 200,000 years of biological supremacy overnight by comparison and I see no reason women should not be similarly adaptable after losing their edge to video games and porn.
safetyism does lead to (or contributes to) life being better than it has ever been?
All the things that make life better than it ever has been were created in a culture of calculated risk.
If there is no-one to compete against then your people don't need to be taking calculated risks
If they're not taking calculated risks, they're not developing/producing, and being undeveloped/unproductive is Bad, Actually. There's a balance between safety and dignity, and cutting dignity out of the picture means you stop advancing. "But we don't need to advance, just masturbate in your own existing greatness until you die" is not how human beings are wired, and doing that kneecaps your ability to handle internal crises properly.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3d ago
Clearly we need meta-safetyists to invent safetyist brakes.
This is generally called "the enemy tribe". The fact that, all else being equal, they'll outcompete you if they take more calculated risks is why safety cannot be first.
External enemies are the ultimate check against internal risk aversity, and when they stop existing that begins to spiral out of control. I don't see any external enemies around right now and life is generally better than it's ever been, so people just pay the toll and suffer the loss of dignity/productivity quietly since the bill will never come due... right?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
4d ago
Pareto. 80% of the improvement in auto safety over the last 40 years comes from seatbelts, first-gen airbags, and crumple zones. The first two were cheap, but the third one was not (if you crash/are crashed into- it's not really more expensive to make a car that accordions if you hit something, but a modern car is more likely to be a total loss from that event).
There isn't much of a difference between survivability of a crash in 2010 (average car on the road has airbags) and 2024 (average car on the road has... more airbags), but the cost of a car has doubled and pedestrians now get killed more often because visibility is the cost of that safety.
Safetyists are demonstrably utility monsters. It's like the car seat thing: massive improvements for a very small cost is fine, marginal improvements for a very large cost are not, and people who are incapable of differentiating between the two because they're stuck on the baseline risk treadmill (exactly like the hedonic treadmill, but for neurotics) will feed literally every scrap of productivity to the machine if they're not slapped down by the people who actually have to pay for it.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5d ago
I know what a gasket is
The head gasket is a special kind of gasket that goes between the engine block and the cover (where the valves are). The reason it's there is because there are passages for oil and coolant that are shared between those two halves.
Some of the older Subarus that didn't have turbos (specifically, the 2.5L models) until around... 2011ish? used a substandard head gasket that would eventually fail (it is an expensive repair). The turbocharged ones used a better one that don't have that problem.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5d ago
But you lot are certainly fond of overpriced pickups and massive SUVs used to ferry the kids to school and pick up groceries.
Small trucks are functionally illegal to sell in the US, so that's a gimme. As far as the SUVs (and the jacked-up station wagons we call "crossovers") go, I believe the reason people want them is sure, for utilitarian reasons, but there are a bunch of usability things that SUVs have over normal station wagons:
- Way easier to climb up than down, especially in tight parking spaces, or for people who are fat and/or old
- HID/LED headlights mean vehicle height is an arms race for visibility
- Extreme standards for rollover and crash protection mean you need all the height (for visibility) you can get
I will point out that it can be a viable strategy to get something older for cheaper and pay for preventative maintenance; your TCO may be less in that instance though after some years (15-20 in drier climates, but being close to the ocean brings salt in the air) you need to also start worrying about rust. I'm not sure if it's functionally illegal to have an older car in Scotland.
You want something fun that's also going to last... why not a Subaru WRX? Fuel economy with them could be better but isn't bad; just avoid the naturally-aspirated models older than 2012 or so because their head gaskets are wear items in ways not true for the turbos. Available in a sedan, practical enough, good for the occasional snowfall.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5d ago
but not really in the US, I think
"Miata is always the answer" is a meme for a reason.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
6d ago
And removing guns for mental illness or cars or knives doesn’t help when the people with those mental illnesses decide not to risk losing their guns or their car by talking about their anger issues or depression or bipolar.
Yes, but this is not something a safetyist culture is equipped in any way to constructively deal with (as a bonus, whenever this happens, it gives them more justification/fervor to ban and confiscate their outgroup- or in other words, "the demand for violence in society vastly exceeds its supply"- so it's only neutral at best).
Naturally, every other approach tacitly posits accepting a base rate of abuse of rights for the existence of rights themselves; that is why the Dead Kids South Park episode is the way that it is [but it only really works if you understand that viewpoint, since they don't actually go out of their way to fill in that blank].
If it becomes illegal to be a bad mom or dad
No, I'd say that being a bad mom or dad is actually required by the law. And... uh, it's required already in a good few places with CPS visits for the crime of letting your kids play outside and felony charges for having them walk half a mile, refusing to call them a girl even though they insist they are, etc. Basic 1984 stuff, internalized oppression begins at home after all.
As far as the gun thing goes... private firearms ownership by the 10-18 crowd was higher (and trivial to accomplish, just send the cash in the mail) 60 years ago yet the murder rate (and the rate at which they ran amok) was far lower, and I think the way society treats that crowd now (as opposed to what you were allowed to do in those years) has a lot to do with them deciding to act like this. They used to just bring their guns to school to go hunting afterwards in areas that weren't even that rural, but then again, you treat them more like adults when their biology demands it and you'll see better behavior.
Parents [and by extension, their kids] have been continually losing this battle for the last 40 years (with no indication yet they'll stop losing); it's not a surprise that prospective parents just adopt pets rather than have to fight the State and the demos tooth and nail for the right to parent correctly. Probably worse for the birth rates than the car seat thing, though data on how much isn't exactly easy to come by.
It would have been better had we simply banned daycare when society had the justification to do so in the '80s. But they didn't, so here we are.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7d ago
The bike trailer has a 5-point harness and an aluminum roll cage.
So it's a car.
I don't wear helmets in my car, not even if I had one with a removable roof.
For that matter, that FAQ more or less just says "they should wear a helmet in the car(t) because normalization of safetyism is important".
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7d ago
Within this argument the claim isn't that they're Becoming-Woman, the claim is that trying to mime the social roles and appearances of women and starting hormones appears to make them happier, more content, etc
I think most of the friction over transness (and gayness, which is typically only one step removed from transness anyway) is that doing that also tends to be an excuse to express all the attributes of that gender and not just the positive/productive ones.
Public perception is that, being born as the gender that doesn't express those traits as much would cause an ex-gendered individual to know better than to do them/have more innate resistance to them. Of course, that's ignoring that ex-women/lesbians get more leeway on this than ex-men/gays do for sociobiological reasons, so toxic feminine traits in men are going to be noticed and resented more than toxic masculine traits in women will be (if they even happen at the same base rate).
For example, there's a meme around 4chan that boys make the best girls (and... there's probably something to that), but that's ignoring all the times that boys make the worst girls. At an object level, this mainly comes in the form of catty bullshit and other gender-role-specific ways to be a bully, which is why it's easy [for otherwise-normal men] to form a strongly negative association with other men who have developed/are developing the gay lisp (to name one example).
Of course, that reaction also prompts toxic [same adopted gender] to rally around the flag and defend their right to that toxicity, and since the balance of power in western society currently favors women the "it's ma'am" shit gets a pass. Places where the genders are a bit less at war with each other (for whatever reason) tend to produce more media that portrays crossdressing/cross-sex activity in at least a neutral light, which is why that stuff more often comes out of Asia.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7d ago
That's what the internet's for.
Yes, there are specific points around the 'ring' that are more sensitive than others.
No, it's not a surprise that the remnants of the cover will retain some of the cover's effects when that cover is amputated since that's where the nerves would normally pass through.
Honestly, cutting that piece off is as stupid as the routine tonsillectomies were, for the same reasons (apathy, anger). Penises are supposed to have that ferrule installed for the same sorts of reasons they're on fiber optic cables (so that the thing covered by that ferrule remains as sensitive [to light] as possible). Of course, since this ferrule is biological in nature, it requires maintenance (and can malfunction) for reasons and in ways similar to the female end of quick-disconnect air hoses.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
8d ago
I have a meta theory that many problems of human activity involve too much focus on what people ARE rather than what they DO.
That's because it's the easy way out. You need to do intellectual or emotional labor to deal with people who DO [are aligned with your goals] but ARE NOT [aligned with the rules], and one way to deal with that is to turn your back and say you're not going to do it (doing this also gives you short-term power and sometimes people just get tired and want the easy way out).
Societies start to stop being able to do when the populace gets lazy like this. And while there is a place for identity, it must ultimately be subservient to activity, and when certain kinds of Christians/the Bible start talking about "women/the identity gender should not be in charge/operate unrestrained by men/the activity gender" I think this is what those parts are getting at.
Which leads to some interesting implications when you're talking about sexuality [and topically for this week, homosexuality], since "but what if my girl/boy grows up to be a woman/man incorrectly?" seems to me to be the driving impulse for the stereotypical swift parental overreactions to a woman who's more activity biased or a man who's more identity focused (regardless of how self-aware said child eventually becomes). And then, when that happens, is the implication more that two activity-genders or two identity-genders getting together is sinful (or is it just limited to "penis in the butt is bad", which... if the above is your understanding of gender/men/women that's going to seem immature at best and pointlessly angry at worst)?
"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is once instance of moving in the right direction
But that, again, requires an unwillingness to be intellectually/emotionally lazy (which applies to both parties in that interaction; the sinner? has to also not be taking the lazy "they hate us 'cause they ain't us, so fuck you, I think I'll be as obnoxious as possible because I like being transgressive more than I like accommodating others" [which... right or wrong, it's that last part that condemns you more than anything else]).
The similarities between affirmation/esteem culture and guilt culture have probably been underinvestigated.
Esteem/affirmation culture, in my view, lends itself far more to mere masturbation-by-proxy than a guilt or shame culture does.
The others tend to be a bit more overt about doing it and don't care as much about deniability; the entire premise of "micro" is that the action is either minor enough to be completely deniable, or apparently neutral on its own but not in aggregate. That is, far as I can tell, unique to woke; though that may simply be due to who is and isn't in power at the moment.
More options
Context Copy link