ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
I also find privacy warrior claims rather, lets say, Joker-level anarchistic about rule of law. Everyone should have end-to-end encrypted messaging and the government should be locked out of private spaces no matter what.
The steelman for this being "if technology is basically just telepathy, why should "because it's technically possible" ever be a valid argument for society to have any right to monitor the contents of the communication"? The strongest right is one you can guarantee personally, after all.
In no other domain do we accept a claim like "this dungeon in my house is off limits even to detectives with a court order because it is my private property"
We have at least 2; attorney-client, and religious priest-confessor.
this digital cache of self-produced child pornography is something we can take to our graves regardless of any legitimate pursuit of justice.
We throw, and threaten to throw, teenagers in jail all the time over this. It is probably good that they take steps to defend themselves if they're going to engage in this activity to avoid the current environment of societal overreaction; the entire point of "rights" is to limit the damage society can do when (not if) it overreacts (the flip side of the coin being "ticking time bomb plots", but I'm willing to trade the lives lost in those for the ones saved due to them not committing suicide any more over this).
The level of hostility towards government here surpasses any of government's responsibility to protect its citizenry.
The overwhelming majority of murders worldwide in the 20th century were perpetrated in an organized fashion by governments targeting their own citizens (organized mobs using simple demographic criteria make up most of the rest); the impulse to make one a harder target against those is only natural. Proponents of this approach can point to things like census records being burned to stop an angry invading force from determining which people were going to the concentration camps and which were not. The Germans are well-acquainted with this; being that they have committed the overwhelming majority of murder on the European continent in the last 100 years probably has something to do with that.
The fact that privacy fretting appears to primarily afflict men (with notable exceptions like Naomi Brockwell) suggests that there must be something autistic about it.
While there are a variety of reasons why this is true, men are murdered more often than women; I don't think it's more complex than that.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
Since when has any man written a fanfic about One Direction or Twilight?
It still never fails to impress me that one of the more well-known movies in the 2010s is literally just Twilight fanfiction with the names changed.
Even the smut on FFN leans more toward male fantasy than female fantasy.
What do you even consider "male fantasy"? I'm pretty sure that "Hermione gets raped by Draco" is mostly a female fantasy (written by women, for women); while I'm sure you could self-insert as Draco I don't think that's the point. Yaoi fanfic is also female fantasy; you can tell because the dom/sub dynamic is pegged at 11 from the first word (the stuff that's actually intended for gay men is... different).
If nothing else, I'd consider yuri fanfic to be mostly by/for men; women aren't as interested in lesbians as men are. Most MLP fics (both porny and not) were probably written by twentysomething men (I don't think the target demographic for the show is that interested in seeing Pinkie Pie turn Rainbow Dash into cupcakes or meme about "Applejack pregnancy scare").
Then they can understand the full horror
I still don't understand why people consider this unusual. "I can imagine attractive character from the show doing the sex to me in a way I don't have to feel otherwise morally conflicted about liking, also doing something nasty but not catastrophic to the character the reader is supposed to identify with means he would like me more than her" is arguably one of the more vanilla fantasies (and the more extreme variation of that, being "also, the self-insert doesn't survive the encounter", is an overwhelmingly-female favored fetish anyway).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
How accurate would you have been? My impression is not very accurate.
But it's actually very accurate (outside of certain kinds of immigration), given that 1923 birthrates are nearly identical to modern birthrates (though the shift to urbanization kind of throws this off; 1923 had 50% rural whereas 2023 only has 20% rural, and rural areas tend to have more kids for farm labor reasons and because there's nothing else to do) and far lower than one or two generations before that.
I assert that the financial conditions and constraints on the average potential kid-haver is probably the same, because the same thing is happening- rural centers hollowing out for centralized urban industry- and aside from cheap land, cheap transportation, and an abundance of well-paying low-credential labor becoming available in the 50s and lasting until about 1973 or so that drove this trend backwards (and led to the significant outwards expansion of cities into suburbs) we've regressed to the mean for Western nations.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
10mo ago
nor why anyone would describe him as a "loser."
"Once upon a time, I was discriminated against. I now practice that discrimination against others and am proud to be doing so."
Rejoicing in intentionally being part of the problem rather than part of the solution leads me to believe that person is a substandard human being. It's not much more complex than that.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
over half of 13 year olds have seen porn by that age. Pretty bad!
Biological adults interested in sex, news at 11.
Why should society's failure to reify the pretenses it currently has about teenagers, or parents failing to parent, ever be my fucking problem?
There probably exists some amount of parental options like this, right?
Those who failed to learn the lessons of the early 2000s are doomed to repeat them forever; what continuously puzzles me is the proportion of parents who were children at that time that don't seem to fully understand this even though they by all rights should. Censorship is effective- that's part of why we continually insist on doing it, after all- but a technological solution to a people problem doesn't solve the people problem that, as a parent, one should obviously be much more interested in actually solving (since the legislature won't)... and if they're not so invested, I don't see why I should have to subsidize these parents' pretense that their 17 year old is still 7 for just a little while longer. Letting them pollute the commons with this extra tax is not acceptable.
Younger children don't tend to search for porn because, should you be fortunate enough to remember what being one is like, it's gross and weird if you don't have the software package that lets you appreciate it. Hell, half of the reason parents even consider turning the parental controls on in the first place is because their kid brought them something they didn't fully understand (because clearly the way you reward your child's trust in you is to respond by revoking your trust in them; it's basically like telling your son who's smart enough to tell the neighborhood creep "no" despite never having received formal instructions to do so that he must now wear a condom at all times).
As far as the teenagers go, of course, you're past the point of realistically controlling them especially if they've inherited enough of their parents disagreeableness to find other ways; general purpose computers that can trivially bypass these blocks are easily-concealable and generally within teenage budgets.
As for your other points:
-
Realistically, they're just going to go to sites that happen to feature a significant number of results with participants a lot closer to their own age (worth noting that this is the main reason 4chan exists). So instead of being exposed to material traditionalist-progressives are merely concerned about, they'll see material about which they're absolutely apoplectic. At least it's higher-quality than whatever self-indulgent garbage progressives think is worthy of school libraries, and sites that feature this aren't generally trying to manipulate you into clicking on uglier porn like PornHub does, but it's the same "well they banned heroin so everyone just uses fentanyl now because it's easier to get" thing. Some jurisdictions are angrier about that material existing than others; I'm sure throwing the odd teenager in jail over loli is going to make things so much better for everyone just like it already does when they catch him with a nude his girlfriend sent him, and is definitely a good use of our resources.
-
Legislation can, and has, replaced parenting but only in the "makes it worse for anyone with an IQ above 70" direction. Bad parents don't follow the rules, good parents don't need them, and in its majestic equality the law prohibits both from ignoring them.
-
You misspelled "will"; this is a target for actors with State-level resources for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
-
Most countries whose citizens have at least a vague notion of free speech already get hauled to jail for posting edgy memes on Twitter (they're generally stupid enough to use their real names when signing up for their accounts). The porn equivalent of that would be bad, actually.
they're not supervillains doing evil things for the sake of it
No, it's just the more mundane "stop doing what I don't like"/"I don't want to solve the problem, I want to ban X" thing that slave morality modes don't see as distinct from evil.
[Preface: I'm defining "corruption" to mostly mean "there are kinds of subterfuge that human beings engage in to get ahead in zero-growth socioeconomic environments that generate a dead-weight loss for those not participating in said subterfuge. Normative statement is that this is bad, the people who do this and encourage more of it are bad, even if the terms are "lead or silver", and there's probably a good argument to be made that it applies.]
We tried "nothing morally relevant is happening" in the '60s and '70s, back before women regained the upper hand in the gender wars thanks to the end of the economic golden age in the West that elevated men-as-class to what very well might be a global maximum of their political power.
It has been found counter-intuitive; and left untried.
As I understand it our implementation of it was working just fine.
Of course, it is counter-intuitive to women that men shouldn't have to fully commit to them for evolutionary biology reasons (even though the economic boom made it possible for women to support themselves independently, pregnancy is still a problem, and concern about pregnancy needs multiple generations with the safety tech to evolve out of it), so the literal first chance they got, they took an axe to this system and completely destroyed it. The existing backdrop of Western Christian sexual ethics made that shift easier, as did the re-emergence of a literal death sentence STD that modern science still hasn't fully cracked (the previous one, syphilis, met its end through simple penicillin 40 years prior).
The trick is that going completely and utterly to the male side of the equation (which is what the sexual revolution ultimately was, and why it happened when male sociopolitical power was at its peak) with technology that actually made that viewpoint feasible (to say nothing of the advancements that have made sex even safer than it was 60 years ago) actually is the correct call if your goal is to minimize the amount of total social corruption(1).
This isn't to say that there still aren't problems with this approach, of course- since this still converges on the Pareto distribution of sex that young men complain about today (socially-enforced monogamy helps with this, but you don't get that without objective consequences for sex, so destroying them through technology means that's out the window), it does nothing by itself to tackle the fornication-pro-quo problem (the motte of #metoo) and related corruption, unsophisticated ideological consistency combined with certain initial social conditions means the end point actually is pedophilia(2), and a couple others I'm probably forgetting.
And there was real progress at fixing this from both men and (the non-corrupt) women right as Western society was descending into its current state of corruption- "man pays for everything" divorce laws [in terms of the end effect] are specifically meant to stop men from trading up to newer, younger women once they had dependents (the higher time preference that certain statistical US populations tend to have mean this isn't as effective a deterrent for them), "workplace harassment" laws are specifically meant to curb the "no, ass-grabbing as you walk the cubicles isn't OK" thing that inherently-diminished female power to control who touches them when inherently leads to, and so on(3).
The problem, of course, is that the conditions that enabled libertine sexual ethics which required those compromises no longer exist, but it is in the interest of the corrupt that the thumbs (with painted nails or not) remain on the scales just the same.
(1) Freedom, especially sexual freedom, is inherently incompatible with the sociobiological incentives of the statistical women-as-class even if they're expected to behave identically to men to earn a living, which is why when the economic pie shrinks (inherently favoring them) a small number of men are inherently able to leverage the instinctive need for social sanction of a large number of women against the rest of the men. Economic progress is the only bloodless way out- corruption cannot drive out corruption.
(2) Traditionalist-conservatives tend to have this blind spot where they're just parroting Boomer observations without thinking critically about whether the initial conditions are still true. The parents were correct- Tradcon anger over Liberal/Progressive pedophilia is correct if you're stuck in, or reacting to, 1970s sexual ethics- but their modern Rightist [millenial] children are almost completely off base when they claim the Left is still driven by this in 2020 given the Progressives hate straight sex and the men who want it far more than the Right [in living memory] ever did.
(3) Consent laws may or may not be an exception to this progress; I argue it's difficult to separate what ended up being imposed/"compromised on" as distinct from the more general complete and utter wrecking of under-18 rights that occurred in the '80s. Of course, given a choice between dealing with the occasional pregnant 9 year old and the "any woman has unilateral ex post facto legal authority to deem any past sex rape, but 10 year old men are still liable for child support after being [statutorily] raped" our current attempt to avoid pregnant 9 year olds has directly resulted in...
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
The overwhelming majority of mass shooters are not gun people. If they were, we'd expect to see illegal rifles constantly (illegal magazines are a bit more common but even that's not guaranteed) because the anti-gun side is actually correct about short-barreled rifles being more conducive to increased lethality over a handgun without sacrificing much concealability.
But that observation only appears to be correct in theory: illegal rifles and pistols never show up despite all the parts necessary to create one common to every single gun store for the last 10 years (the "braced pistol" thing), and we've never heard of anyone getting stopped because their rifle was poking out of their bag.
What video game logic is this?
If one stops working, only a gun person will actually know how to fix it. Unreliable equipment run incompetently has ended many sprees, and someone doing research on past shootings would know this.
So might as well have one more; it's an extra 10 pounds and a thousand bucks on a credit card you're not planning on paying off anyway. (Come to think of it, I suspect that loadouts of mass shooters are generally dictated by how high their credit card limits are; if you're planning on suicide, why would paying it back be a concern?)
An experienced shooter (who isn't suffering from a brain tumor) would... well, we don't really know what they do because we've yet to see a conclusive example of one committing this kind of crime and most of the time body count comes from "medical attention was delayed because the police failed to breach and clear in a timely fashion". I guess the Vegas shooter counts; medical attention was timely and that body count is what I'd expect from someone competent (though the number and types of weapons used suggests significant incompetence) but we don't know if he just planned to shoot up the concert or if there was something else going on.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
to the great benefit of the city's working poor
But if the city's working poor would benefit the most from this, why aren't they agitating for it? One would expect to see community groups spring up to deal with the issue, much like they did for the last 100 years of American history, but now there's nothing. Heck, I'd even expect it in the ballot box and candidates.
Now, I'm very willing to accept that the reason they aren't is propaganda and sabotage- and indeed, the entire reason why "muh oppression" continues is because it works- but I'm starting to suspect that even urban poor Americans are rich enough that their sense of apathy can take over (they're certainly much better off than any poor person anywhere else in terms of standard of living, and even some of the lower to middle class in other countries) and that the US crossed that point a generation ago.
So long as the poor don't feel themselves under threat and can afford the luxury belief of bike cucking accepting the occasional theft and confusing it for charity, I think it also releases citizens from the standard form of charitable obligations: the toleration of the underclass' behaviors is itself viewed as the charity.
The only place that really breaks this rule are West-aligned East Asian nations- but then again, they still have wireheaders all the same, and that's what hikikomori-dom is fundamentally caused by.
I suspect that for the causes the right favors it's more grassroots (apparently a good chunk of the funding for the last North American right-wing protest came from the US even though it didn't occur there- admitting that doesn't help anyone involved, of course) and for the causes the left favors it's a lot more organized.
[Assume left and right are just sides of the aisle for the following].
The right-wing party doesn't listen to its voters as much as the left-wing party does partially because the people the State wants to target disproportionately exist on the right (and right-wing parties aren't immune to this when they form government), so they can't be as centralized for legibility reasons WRT the State. Substack's model of "Stripe doesn't serve Substack directly" helps them significantly in this regard- Patreon isn't as useful for the more interesting parts but not all parts need to be interesting.
For the causes the left favors? The grassroots movement for them haven't been nearly as strong- mainly because they have less middle (a double helping of "they're the State so they're necessarily against it" and "their civil religion currently happens to align with its elimination"), so it's organized backing by the strongest foreign corporation that owns the American means of production along with domestic corporations through both official State and deep State (in the "adopt the [anti-middle-class/right] religion, or we stop inviting you to the WEF dinner parties and start working against you" sense) pressure.
Twitter is the prefect medium for this. It will get much worse.
And now you know why left-wingers are apoplectic about the fact they no longer directly control Twitter; I think they believe (correctly?) that they've lost Twitter as command and control for their human botnet like they made heavy use of in 2020 WRT coordinating riots and general disease hysteria unless they manage to neutralize him and state power is all they have to do that (left-wing people aren't Starlink or Tesla customers). Remember, the only people who stopped using Twitter when he bought it were the religious, and religion alone is clearly not enough (which the relative failure of Gab and Truth Social should have made clear before the Left tried and failed with Mastodon).
I like the term Steve Sailer came up with it: "Rule by Actresses."
I think it's even better if you use the old 18th century term for "actress" (the Junior Anti-Sex League exists as a desperate attempt to disclaim this reality). In a post-material-scarcity environment (like the one described in 1984), assuming the balance of gender stays the same, the shortage shifts to being a shortage of women.
Once that happens, there's nothing left to prevent pathological behavior (concern trolling, etc.) by that gender, much like a market with limited suppliers that co-ordinate can extract a rent so high it distorts every other adjacent market. This has been true for the last 150 years, Boomer era excepted (market distortions pushed this back towards equality, but no efforts were made to ensure that victory would last).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
The very obvious explanation is that neither men nor most women actually enjoy watching a woman act like a man.
Anime and other interactive media has quite a bit of this going on already; perhaps you just need to watch more of it. Popular examples include Gunsmith Cats (both the MCs do this), Gunslinger Girl, Ghost in the Shell, Upotte, Re:Zero, Made in Abyss (more 'girl acts like a boy', but she definitely gets beat to shit), Ranma 1/2 (and all the gender-bending anime that would follow in its footsteps; bonus points for female author), Genshin Impact, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy, the Persona series, Fate/Stay Night (and the Nasuverse in general), You're Under Arrest!, Hunter x Hunter, Trigun, Nier: Automata, Bayonetta, Half-Life 2, and every other shooter video game or RPG that allows you to pick a female player character (the usual answer is "actually, I'd prefer to stare at a girl's ass in third person", but come on). Western examples include Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Alien, The Matrix, Kill Bill, Terminator/2, and the X-Files. For rarer 2010s examples, all the movies in the Kingsmen series have female antagonists; Edge of Tomorrow had an action girl right out of the '80s but that's an adaptation of an earlier manga so maybe it doesn't count. Also the most popular Vtuber in the world is a woman who acts like a man. This isn't an exhaustive list.
Of course, I'd actually say that in a good number of these cases the women aren't actually acting like men, but then that generates the "what's 'acting like a woman' mean?" question (in the same way as "what's 'acting white'?"). Gynosupremacists (and black supremacists) are by definition going to answer that question as selfishly as possible- and in so doing miss the truth that nobody has a monopoly on acting constructively (in fiction or in real life), most constructive (and destructive) actions don't have a gender, and all successful writers understand this. Now, it might be the case that the more flashy constructive/destructive actions do tend to go to characters on the right end of the population distribution- which is why they tend to be white and male- but the choice to just not do that is always there (the problem comes from progressives wanting it for free, hence the desire to colonize previous works rather than creating something out of whole cloth- this is the root of corruption).
The best example of "wants it for free" I think I've ever seen is the opening to Terminator 6; where it's literally "fuck you, we're killing off the whole reason for the plot in the first place; this series is now about (if memory serves correctly) some random interracial lesbian couple".
To the extent that True Detective challenges this dynamic by treating two women as Mary Sues who just have victory outright handed to them, it's doomed to fail.
Beauty cannot come from corruption. The reason all the competent female characters come from the '80s and '90s is because feminism and gynosupremacism weren't quite yet the same thing for the average writer (or investor); that's no longer true, so all they can possibly write are Mary Sues. Places that don't have a culture of open gender warfare are less likely to suffer from this, though Japanese media also tends to have weird out-of-character things like "lost a fight, time to go back to the kitchen" (Sloot's DBZ example) so you have to contend with that instead.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
4mo ago
I need a new one soon, might be able to wait for the 4000 Super series
Go to eBay, buy a 3090. Today. Honorable mention to the 3080 12GB (Ti or not), and if you only care about games, the 7900XT/XTX.
They're cheaper or the same price as new cards of equivalent compute power, EVGA ones still usually have a year's worth of warranty on them, and 24GB of VRAM means it's exactly as capable as a 4090 is for ML workloads (sure, it'll be half as fast for about 40% the price, but it can run models that the 4070 and 4080 will never be able to).
Anything else that isn't either a 4090 or a 100-dollar 1080 is a waste of your time and money. The 3060 and 4060 are barely outperforming 1080s for 3x the price, 3070s are just 2080Tis but with less VRAM, the 4070 and Ti are just a 3090 with half the VRAM, and the 4080 is just too expensive to not have 24GB of VRAM (the reason why it doesn't is because, if it did, it would cannibalize 4090 sales to prosumers who are buying them for ML workloads) and if you're only looking for gaming performance AMD's 7900 series is better in the gap between the 3090/4070Ti and 4090.
Price per FPS is not coming down significantly any time soon thanks to TSMC having a monopoly on all advanced nodes (which they will enjoy far into the decade)- sure, the Super series might result in the eBay 3080s dropping in price by 10%, but the days of faster silicon for the same price are definitively over.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
The rising dragon and the falling eagle in a nutshell.
I'm not as certain this is as much a problem for the US as it would be for anyone else. Falcon 9s are ICBMs (Second Amendment intensifies); the only distinction between the two is in the payload (and that parts of it can be used more than once).
I believe this because the reverse is true; most satellites orbiting today were put there by missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads (either basically unmodified like the Atlas, or slightly modified like the Minotaur).
Yeah, there probably should be more of an effort to ensure that existing weapon-carrying missiles are sufficient to completely destroy the enemy, but private industry in the US could close the missile gap very quickly if they're asked to do so, and that's really not something any other country can claim.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
I don't know why Americans are still so anal about underage drinking under adult supervision
I think HBD is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this: the people who left Europe had a genetic predilection to have problems with vices (you only get a stick up your ass about alcohol in 2 circumstances- either your God tells you it's bad, or you can't handle it yourself and have the opportunity to leave for a land where there isn't any), and the natives never evolved the genes that down-regulate alcohol addiction. Mix them together and you get a temperance movement strong enough to enshrine itself into the toughest law in the nation to change.
Americans also have a general hatred of the underaged for some reason and I haven't fully managed to figure out why that is yet- maybe a combination of parents being worried about the above effects in their children, a genetic predilection to overreact to anything risky/fun (Puritanism), and being fans of Old Testament-style property rights over children due to the dominant religion espousing them for most of the country's history?
these staff were not in fact necessary to the continued operation of Twitter.
Software is fundamentally no different than other kinds of industrial endeavor when it comes to the infrastructure. It's fundamentally a blue-collar profession for people who desperately want to pretend it isn't. Pays the same, too (boom towns skew this average though).
In both industries, it takes an order of magnitude more people to construct something than it does to maintain it, but the people who maintain it are a trade unto themselves. The software industry calls them "developer operators" (to be fair, in most companies there's nothing "developer" about them... but the corruption of the term doesn't dismiss what it was fundamentally made to describe); the real world calls them "millwrights".
The bottleneck in development is ultimately how parallelizable the work is, which is why software companies that employ a lot of developers have to grow breadth-first (it's very difficult to justify throwing 10 people at a simple API; you need 10 "areas of concern" and they all need to be slowly growing). The developer's favorite line is "like asking 9 women to make a baby in one month" for this exact reason.
However, software is unique in that the operators of the system work remotely for free. So you actually can fire every single one of your local operations staff that aren't relevant to the fundamental operation of the system and still make just as much money in a pinch; yeah, you run the risk of losing institutional knowledge when it comes to improving or modifying the system... but Twitter (nor any company in dire financial straits) doesn't need to do that, so it's the first thing to go (after the sinecures).
I'd imagine that the administrators of a university are even more unnecessary.
I take a different opinion of this: the sinecure positions are there because they're important to fundraising. If some Blue-leaning rich dude wants to change the world, well, "change the world" is what the university is selling. But they're not very good at changing the world because R&D is hard, and all the things that could make a real difference are banned, so the only thing they even have to sell is social change. And "if you can help pay our admin's salary, we'll help shape our graduates in the political direction of your choosing" is something that will get people to open their wallets.
Besides, what else are the rich going to do? Venture capital? That's risky and has the same problems. By contrast, paying people with the power to fail the next generation if they refuse to DIE has a demonstrably positive return on investment.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
They're doing dull, rote work that often amounts to little more than taking someone else's code or architecture and adapting it very slightly to fit a specific new situation.
Come to think of it, why did computer programming stop being the "women's work" it originated as? Because that... actually kind of fits the description of secretaries and computers (as in, the job title), but in practice (in 2022, but it was true in 2010 to a large extent too) it's a little different than that. And I can kind of see it with more imperative "only do this thing" FORTRAN and, later, Excel-as-programming language, but it's weird that it doesn't apply to software as a whole (though MS' Power Apps platform might have something to say about that).
I think that it might be worth looking at the tooling and tools; I believe that software and developers are just uniquely bad at writing good documentation and it's to the point where you actually have to do heavier analysis to get anything done any more.
Maybe having to dig hard to get anything done in all these damn frameworks was job security after all?
You mean "prostitute?"
Yes.
It has a part where there's a bunch of young people floating around in space with absolutely nothing to do except talk to each other on social media.
Is this meaningfully distinct from "cute girls doing cute things" anime, I wonder? Most of those tend to be basically this- they have widespread appeal, but it's a very... masculine (or to a point, childish/innocent) way of looking at that concept, since women tend to be a lot more Mean Girls about it.
(Come to think of it, maybe the real root of anxiety mean(er) girls feel is that they sub/consciously realize they don't have any conception of this? I'd certainly feel like a defective woman if I didn't have the "I should fuck with people unduly and take their stuff rather than make anything new myself" bone in my body, so maybe the reverse is true? Come to think of it, do old portrayals of authority gone mad all have more equal gender representation than would otherwise be expected for the time period?)
Could you elaborate on what specific harm showing an anatomically correct sculpture to sixth graders does to them?
It's possible 11 year old straight girls and gays boys will experience arousal at the sight of a naked male body for the first time and seek out other depictions of naked men, leading them to engage in sex too early.
It's a violation of property rights. If I'm paying six figures a head for 18 years (well, on paper; in practice it's closer to 25) of latent ability to challenge me innocence, you better damn well believe I'm going to go after anything that threatens that. While I understand that I can't dictate society impose my standards- would that I could- it disturbs me that my property might be made to grow in ways that run counter to my interests.
I don't think it's more sophisticated than that. It's not maximizing the objective well-being of the kids we're worried about; they don't matter and are objectively worthless to society (a long-term net negative, if TFR is any indication) beyond the tasks their parents have for them.
The concept that society cannot violate parents' property rights over children are a socioeconomic wage in the calculus of having children- anytime someone says "but what if my kid grows up to be [undesirable thing]?" this is what they mean. If the wage is too low, society doesn't get kids, so society must defer to them or even the people arguing for these wages to be lower (for culture war reasons, or just rational ones) go extinct.
is comparable with being sent to a lockdown facility
If I, biological adult or not (though a second-class citizen in either case), leave public school on my own accord, men with guns will be dispatched to return me to it. Should I proceed to defend myself from those men effectively enough they will summarily execute me.
For an institution that I'm supposed to want to attend because it's good for me, that's pretty extreme.
and having conversion therapy performed on you
The education system will throw me in "the hole" (they usually refer to this by another name though) should I fail to sufficiently venerate things contrary to (my) nature- buttsex, crossdressers, certain skin colors, and even simply sitting still for 6 hours are very important to the education system. And that's assuming you have a decent set of fellow inmates; some people don't.
And sure, "yes, institutionalization is good for subhumans, because subhumans need to learn what's right and wrong and about various aspects of the world we live in", but at the end of the day we're just haggling over the price (and the values of those running the institution).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
8d 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").
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
10d 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.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
A wave of Chinese imports are coming which will cripple the U.S. auto industry.
They can't pass safety regulations. Chinese (and Mexicans, and Brazilians) are happy just to have a car and really don't care so much that they're guaranteed to die even in a single-vehicle accident at highway speeds; in a car that passes American/Euro standards, even vehicular suicide attempts (cliffs and head-ons with semis) are survivable in most cases.
Fortunately, since safety regulations are just protectionism by another name the Chinese cars that can pass safety are probably going to be price-competitive with Kia and Hyundai and still have their teething "lol the engine exploded, hope you're still in warranty" years to go; I'm not sure there's a market for that.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7mo ago
If it is then we would need to have a serious conversation about teaching religion, and everything else.
I, too, remember the popular political refrain of "it's like ramming your dick down my kid's throat" of 2010.
Of course, the same thing applies to other newly-protected characteristics like, well, sexuality; said dick-ramming happens to be a bit more literal these days.
A government that protects characteristics is, by the reasoning behind protective characteristics, not to then start "affirming" some characteristics over others. The Progress flag and the Christian cross belong in equal measure in government: completely absent.
why TikTok is worse than other versions of social media
New media is always evil. Remember how the last little bit of power the Traditionalist's moral majority had was spent on Grand Theft Auto and other violent video games?
That said, it's just a better content feed than US tech companies can (there are still lots of people at Google being paid 1% salaries to do nothing, just like there were at Twitter post-Vine... until Elon fired them all) or will support (in a free market of ideas, woke is outcompeted, and China is not prevented from recommending content or selling advertising to companies that Blues don't like- what are you going to do, not advertise or have a presence on a platform for 10 and 20somethings?).
A picture is worth a thousand words, there are 60 of them a second, and so long as you can figure out what those words are to which people you're unbeatable despite never having spoken a single word in chat.
Oh well, why innovate when you can regulate?
What we have instead is government banning a single platform because China bad
TikTok is unique because China can't be reliably leaned on to suppress Red political views and objectives, which threatens Blue dominance of the printing presses, so it needs to be banned. And if they can gut VPNs in the same legislation, they can make sure the Reds can't trivially skirt bans, makes the act of compromising a website more powerful (in fact, telecommunication companies hand that data out for free- that's part of why people use VPNs in the first place- and it would be a shame to stop getting invited to those nice NYC dinner parties, Mr. CEO...), and otherwise chill and criminalize speech beyond the strictures of 1A.
The Traditionalist Reds, being a bit more out of touch with technology, don't quite understand these things (or think handing dominance to the Blues is preferable to Chinese influence). Also, their tween daughter (and son too, probably) is shaking their ass for the camera in a way Snapchat didn't incentivize to the same level and that makes people (especially traditionalists) uncomfortable.
Twitter being the place used by trump to rile his base about election fraud?
Twitter was the place the Blues used to incite 2 years of riots and mass hysteria.
Now they don't have it, and what's replacing it in mindshare is completely out of their control (Elon can at least be assassinated if the Reds start an American Spring- that's not something they can say for Xi). I would absolutely expect them to be apoplectic about that.
I expect all TikTok-related legislation to pass the House in a landslide for those reasons, and 10 Senators can surely be badgered into supporting it on the Red side since their base still kind of cares about moral turpitude (and being outflanked by the Blues on that is a quick way to make the base stay home come election night) and Chinese unpredictability.
This is not going to be good for Bitcoin 1A.
It's 80,000 PSI. The upshot of this is that this pressure is above the failure point of brass casings; that's why the head has to be stainless steel. This also isn't new technology; Shellshock has been selling this exact thing for the last 5 years in their pistol cartridges at a price point that indicates it's actually quite a bit cheaper than brass is to make. You can even reload it, too, you just need to modify the sizing die so you don't rip the base off when trying to extract the case.
Most of the "but muh feasibility" people are the reason gun owners have the reputation for intellectual curiosity that they do. Even rifles produced 80 years ago and designed only to take 60,000 PSI are still capable of not turning into bombs at twice that pressure; making modern metallurgy take 10% more pressure on the regular is not a difficult challenge.
Barrel life is also not likely to be the issue people think it is, partly because they're using better steel and coatings, but also because of projectile choice. The tradeoff you make with the extremely long projectiles that 6.5CM in particular is famous for (and how it gets most of its performance at extreme distances) is that the projectile's bearing surface gets quite large- contributing to accelerated wear.
But if it can't defeat Level IV with assistance (as in, the AP cartridge that nobody outside of the military has been able to take a look at yet), then what the fuck was the point of switching cartridges? The thing to remember is that .308 and 5.56 AP also fails to penetrate (if the armor can't stop that it's not Level IV), but outside of that its wounding potential is higher, the rifles that fire it last longer (and already exist), and it has more room inside the cartridge for incendiary material.
(The article is simply wrong on this point- .308 AP and 5.56 AP, despite their name, do not penetrate Level IV, and Level IV is what the US/Aus military is worried about a mass of Chinese troops showing up wearing. They were certain the Russians would have had it too but, well...)
I refuse to believe the US Army (and the Australian Army, for that matter- they're also considering adopting a rifle in this caliber) is that stupid. Sure, there's always a chance that they want to go back to muh One Shot One Kill and fighting the last war (where they wanted a rifle that could perform from 0.8m to 800m, hence their use of the SCAR and re-issuance of the M14, and a usecase where the LVPO XM157 has a tremendous advantage- this isn't the XM25 where you had to lase the target for it to work, it's a scope first, manual rangefinder second).
They should have waited for Textron's all-plastic casings. I remember it being mentioned that they might run out of brass, which is already an expensive material to make functionally one-time-use casings out of. Being able to extrude the casing is the future of ammunition (just as it was back in the 1950s with the Dardick Tround- the ammunition was solid, the gun was crap), we just haven't managed to develop a good rifle for it.
More options
Context Copy link