ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
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.
The mandatory masking for children in schools and daycare -- while adults were free to go to work and bars maskless -- was a major black-pill on how society is treating children.
Children, and especially teenagers, are the most discriminated-against group in society today; a utilitarian approach to anti-racism would start with them.
If we believe that parents want to give their children the same kinds of opportunities they grew up with, and literally every parent says this, the generation who needs to decide whether they're having kids right now (1980/1990s-born) grew up after the point where child rights were completely and utterly decimated. No wonder nobody wants to have them! If you have to have them on a leash, and they'll never mature under your watch beyond obeying simple commands... well, you're describing a dog, and dogs are cheaper. And better, because they're physically incapable of saying "no" and even more disposable than even kids in the 1930s were: can't afford them, drop them off at the shelter, and if they were still there you could pick them back up afterwards.
It's literally 2010s-era "I'm not having children because I'm saving the climate" except this time it's "I'm not having children because they'd have to suffer through 25 years of modern society". Same thing in Asian countries (it will eventually become a thing in India for the same reasons)- sure, you can have a kid, but if you do that you've signed your future human being up for 15 years of slavery your neighbors have cargo-culted their way into for no socioeconomic benefit whatsoever. It's honestly surprising to me that reproduction in Japan even exists; I don't think it's a coincidence that a culture with an absolute hellscape with respect to healthy family life also produces the highest-quality pornography in the world.
The only "freedom" these human beings have these days is to stay inside and play video games; forced to exist as 2 arms and a head is enough for a reasonable adult to seek death instead, and as such it's not a surprise that suicide is usually more deadly to the under-18 set than accidents. Which should be the first indication that that demographic really isn't "living" so much as "existing", but that's OK because they haven't lived long enough to know better.
Your right to enjoyment of your own property is non-existent; with CPS being abused by concern trolls to the point where they'll arrest you if you so much dare to play in the front yard. Freedom of movement doesn't exist either; god forbid you walk or bike to your friend's house or the corner store because the State can just show up and arrest you for no reason. Want to go home for lunch? Same deal.
[By contrast, elementary-aged children in the 1920s were more than capable of doing all of these things, in working conditions far worse than school, and far more dangerous than modern life in general, tends to impose. The claim that they're not capable of getting from Point A to Point B just doesn't wash.]
Your right to bear arms is limited so hard that if you exercise it and are caught you'll never be able to do so legally again. Kyle Rittenhouse was put on trial in part for, functionally, being subhuman (edit: temperature) while armed; the emphasis on "but 17, therefore he's not a human, and should be charged for daring to act as if he was" was everywhere.
[Contrast Boomers that grew up in rural areas, who have formative experiences hunting rabbits in the woods at 10 with a rifle, and teenagers with gun racks in their trucks to go hunting after school let out. Sure, you had to store your guns in the office, but you can at least argue that's reasonable to reduce theft.]
Taxation without representation; income tax applies to them but voting doesn't.
I could go on. The only justification for this shit is "it's fine, because they're subhuman" (who hold that pop-psych belief that you don't pass the paper-bag test until 25 specifically for that reason), and while we can certainly argue about to what we should take away from subhumans to the extent that we're right about their tendencies for violence, nonsense, and disorder, my argument against this is the Progressive one: offer these people reasons not to do these things and you'll see better results. It's so bad that even the teenagers themselves will accept the rest of society's behavior as justified for this reason, though humorously you might argue that's just a logical consequence of subhumanity.
And I'm still not entirely sure where it came from.
-
Was it really the Satanic Panic, where Karen lost her mind because "muh D&D and pedos around every corner"?
-
State agencies adopting extreme aversion to risk allowing themselves to become weapons of the bored housewife concern troll?
-
Was it the cratering of the laber pool in the 1980s that solidified the segregation of the youth from the general public?
-
Was it the dramatic increase in crime because the CIA was selling crack on the streets?
-
The 24-hour news cycle and the Amber Alert (where 99.99% of its uses are custody disputes)?
-
Teenagers running amok killing their classmates because they correctly assessed that their life didn't matter to anyone and had no social buy-in (which is itself likely an emergent phenomenon; spree shooters in 1998 would have been born in 1980 and thus grew up post-enclosure)?
-
All of the above?
Even better is that, because abolition and miscegenation are (at least popularly) linked for what should be obvious reasons, anyone who dares attempt improve the standards of the under-18 set in society is clearly doing it just because they secretly want to normalize sex with them or otherwise expose them to danger for selfish reasons rather than actually wanting this class of people to have a life worth living for once.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
We torture children to death every day as a consequence of how we've decided to order our society; suicide is among the top killers of the under-12 (and under-18) population in all Western nations (and Eastern ones, too). Sure, there's a baseline rate of suicide, but given it gets worse around certain times of the year corresponding to things like exams I'm far from convinced it's all natural.
It turns out it's very economically productive to treat them the way we do, and should we create conditions sufficiently bad that they kill themselves to escape we have, effectively, tortured them to death for financial gain. Thus the amount of money for which we would torture children to death might be relatively high, but is clearly not infinite.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
The US and EU
The EU is itself a vassal state of the US and, honestly, has more anti-leverage than leverage in this regard. It's only European countries that are really affected by this; trade between China and the US naturally continues uninterrupted.
This washy middle ground of appealing to imperial obligations when it comes to Middle Eastern intervention, without control of the "vassal" state destabilizing the region, is a never-ending pattern that has to stop.
I mean, the US does have control over Israel. They already know who their leaders are, and they already know who their sympathizers/propaganda arms are (ADL members and wealthy American Jews happy with Israel's existence have names, addresses, and a host of young and violent enemies as willing to act on that information in 2024 as they were in 2020). Sure, going full Kristallnacht is probably not a good look for the Left, but the Left is powerful/popular enough to keep its brownshirts safe while they commit the violence (under the banner of anti-Naziism, naturally) so I don't think they really need to care.
No, the reason Israel gets a free pass is because, like South Korea (and the Philippines, to an extent) is with respect to China, they're a Roman beachhead right on Parthia's doorstep. So I'm not surprised the Romans are not particularly concerned about what the king of Judea does to non-Judeans on his border; I'm also not surprised that the Parthian response was to charge a massive toll for any trader wanting to transit the Silk Road.
It was pretty negligent of the Romans to permit a Parthian proxy to entrench itself between a Roman ally (the King of Arabia) and the Silk Road itself, but they were busy wasting quadrillions of denarii (and exhausting the will of the people) on some revenge mission in the strategically insignificant no-man's land between Parthia and China to bother.
Are you sincere that parents’ interest in their children’s education is a property interest?
Yes; what else can it be? From the religious angle (which is typically used to justify this) it's maximizing the chance their property makes it to heaven- they'll phrase it differently, but this is how it functions. From the secular censorship angle, any "seductive misinformation" damages the chance the property has to accept a way of life conducive to [what is believed by the elite to be] the global maximum of desired social behavior.
Either way, it damages their property in the same way that ChatGPT output unflattering to Blue tribe damages OpenAI's brand- it's something that they might have to put in extra effort to deal with.
Unlike artificial NNs, though, natural NNs cannot be reset, so once they know it they can't ever un-know it- causing permanent damage. The conclusion of the NN may be different at best and counterproductive at worst, like (with no other political valence) a pet going feral. Bad for the owner, bad for the pet.
Or is this a slightly hostile summary of what progressives believe conservatives are actually mad about
It's certainly unflattering, but the progressives work the same way with respect to them learning traditionalist ideas and I don't think the underlying (biological?) mechanism is any different in either case.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
If the UN or outside countries wish to punish El Salvador for doing what it needs to do to re-establish stability
They should have claimed that all the gang members were COVID superspreaders.
That might piss them off more, but it would have been funny- outside countries have no problems doing this sort of thing to their own people when it suits them, so you might as well at least throw their excuse back in their face if they're going to start the who/whoms.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
simply using UBlock, or Brave, or any one of the dozens of other ways to block Youtube ads is a really easy way to upgrade your quality of life to a surprising degree.
iOS has no on-device ability to block ads. Yes, you can do it if you set up a custom VPN, but that's work and added expense.
Android has several, including NewPipe and the fact that Firefox actually runs natively there (and as such uBlock works), but their devices are twice as expensive, get vanishingly few updates, and their top-end processors are 4 years behind what is available in an iPhone for half the price.
So you're stuck with an expensive boat-anchor or a nice device with ads; I don't begrudge the latter their choice.
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?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7mo ago
and it's the fanciness of said iPhone
As much as I might wish it wasn't true, iOS and the phones that run it are faster, better(1), and cheaper than the equivalent Android models and that's just the way it has been for the last 10 years. The only place Android phones meaningfully compete are on gimmicks (the folding or "gaming" phones that cost 1000+ dollars, and high refresh rate or wraparound screens) and the bottom-of-the-barrel sub-200-dollar phones, and I think the latter market segment does a lot to tarnish the halo effect the former products would otherwise enjoy. Same effect applies to laptops, which is part of why the affluent buy Macbooks rather than even more expensive Windows laptops.
And it's not really smoke and mirrors from a quality of materials (being solid aluminum slabs rather than plastic helps with this even though it means you need a machine shop to change the battery, and if you're keeping it for its full lifespan you will need to do this once) or performance standpoint either- that whole "we're going to make our own CPUs that are 4 years ahead of anything Qualcomm/Samsung are capable of" thing really paid off; so did the "we'll put an iPhone 13 in the shell of an iPhone 8, support it for 7 years, and sell it for Nexus/low-end Pixel money" thing. Unless you need some niche benefit or aren't well-off enough to take advantage of Boots Theory (and for 200 dollars there's always clearouts on the last-model SE anyway which still outperforms and will outlive any other device at that pricepoint because of that long support tail) there's really no reason to go with Android(2).
Oh yeah, and Apple Watches only work with iPhones so if you want one of those, well...
(1) Yes, you can't install system-wide adblock or root iPhones to keep them on software life support like you can with Android, and NewPipe doesn't exist for iOS which is a killer app in itself, but most people aren't technical enough to take advantage of that and it also subtly compromises the reliability of the phone as the versions get newer. It's also a massive pain in the ass to do it, too, since you have to erase all your software and data to flash a new ROM and it's generally more difficult and convoluted than installing Linux on a normal computer is.
(2) I understand the precedent that buying a locked-down appliance creates for computing devices from both a culture war (I'm pretty sure Gab still doesn't have an app) and actual war (though all phones are already pwned all the time because of the baseband processor- it's like Intel ME but a lot worse) standpoint, but at the end of the day (and I think a lot of custom Android ROM makers have realized this) phones are just VT-100s that go in your pocket and people only have so much time to become experts on their main connection to the outside world. Which, not coincidentally, is something a "stock" iPhone monoculture helps with; when you ask your friend how to do something they don't need to worry about whether it's stock Android, Samsung's S-Hit, or whatever other stupid Bonzi Buddy shell replacement the company you bought the phone from has forced upon you.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
Ask the auditors of your employee benefit plan.
Bible says (or at least heavily implies; it's been a while) "children are property of their parents", extends blessings to children who obey this and execution to those that refuse.
The employee benefit plan of Christianity is mostly rear-loaded; the retirement plan can be accurately described as "out of this world".
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'd want to maximize the chance my child takes advantage of it, and we can start by covering up everything that matches the naturally-emergent sin disgust heuristic, starting with a fig leaf on this nude statue over here. Why gouge out one's own eye (a popular and plain-ish, though not necessarily correct, reading of the passage) when you can see no evil by less traumatic means?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
Could someone explain to me the likely causes of homosexuality?
It seems very likely to me that 100% of (definitionally) homosexual behavior revolves around the [existence, presence, and availability] of [attractive people] of [the same sex]; it's just that those three things have asterisks to them. Another complicating factor is that love and sex could quite possibly have something to do with each other.
Anyway, I think the first part was pretty clearly covered by the sibling comments about situational/loveless sexuality, but the second and third didn't have much emphasis. So...
For the second, it's all about finding people of the same sex to whom you happen to be sufficiently attracted. There's a common meme around this about "are traps gay?", meaning "is it gay if you don't know they're a guy, or what degree of knowing makes it gay?". Now, while most men are quite a bit uglier than superstimulus-abusing merchandise machinery, it's still somewhat applicable to you if your pattern of attraction should happen to match one (usually happens to the denizens of 4chan with Asians; their physiology tends to pattern match to "female" for a non-negligible fraction of men, and one country in particular is in?famous for its crossdressers).
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of academic papers waiting to definitively prove that liking Felix Argyle is gay, but not Astolfo or Bridget.
Somewhat but not entirely related is the third part. What's "the same sex" even mean, especially when you start branching into the gender non-conforming spaces like tomboys, tomgirls, every gay man with the lisp, and the harder transgender (as in, they actually emulate the opposite end of the binary the way you'd expect them to)? Can wanting a woman who has more in common with a man in terms of general attitude or approach towards life be the primary feature of sexual desire, and if so, is that gay? How about the reverse?
I dunno. I think our models of relationships are popularly both as loaded and as accurate as the term "gender studies"; can fish notice water?
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
4mo ago
Do you have any improvements to the metric system you can think of?
Well, its base unit of measurement is fucking stupid. There's a very good reason that every pre-SI system of measurement, including the Chinese one (which was metric before the imposition of SI), has its two dominant units of length at 30cm (1 foot) and 3cm (~1 inch)- because it's meant to be human-scale.
Going off of something not relevant to the way most humans use measurement, like the size of the Earth, is a deficiency.
Nobody copies the French, and the French copy nobody- because the things they come up are weird and kind of batshit. Let them impose their standards at gunpoint (which is ultimately how SI spread across the Continent) and you're going to have a bad time- at least decimal time was too weird even for them.
The scientific evidence, from what I’ve read, seems to say that both sexuality and gender identity are influenced by the exposure to prenatal androgens and other hormonal factors.
Indeed. The anthropological evidence appears to tell a different story, though.
Gay men and trans women
There are 3 "genders": women, tops (as in 'dominant partner': men attempting to perform their standard sociobiological role 'properly'), and bottoms (as in 'submissive partner': all boys, and men not attempting to perform their standard sociobiological role 'properly'). One can transition between the latter two (and some men may find a niche that allows them to be successful despite not operating as a man should- but it's still an edge case for which the conditions that enable its prosperity -> visibility don't arise outside of highly dense urban areas), but never between the latter two and the first, because that is not how human bodies work.
This is why men who fuck boys in societies where that's a thing don't identify as "gay" (and why medical systems say "men who have sex with men" and not "gay"). The gender role of men is, after Maslow's Hierarchy has been mastered, to pursue whatever/whoever catches their fancy and so long as they're doing that we (provided your personal risk tolerance for disease is high enough and your culture lacks certain memes; Abramic religion being the most famous) usually don't care all that much about what that is. And while it's still somewhat of a duty to acquire a wife and maybe some kids of one's own too, dom men fucking sub men (outside of the confines of the financial relationship of marriage, or if the man is powerful enough that he doesn't have to worry about that) is not a property crime the same way fucking a virgin woman is, so it's more a curiosity than anything else.
Of course, this equilibrium can be disrupted by things like human ingenuity inherently creating conditions for an ever-shrinking top/male gender role while advancing the one for women (and the few bottom/males, but that's more a coincidence). But I can't see how putting the interests of a gender whose incentive structure is completely different on par with the gender that's still wired to work for a living would in any way change how society understands gender dynamics. If women are sufficiently incentivized to see themselves in the top/bottom structure as men do, there will be a lot more women in the bottom category, and they might completely destroy this compact in favor of... something else.
They also would, understandably, treat boys and bottom/men as women rather than their own distinct thing, but in fairness their parents didn't fully understand it either due to a meme or because they lived through the transition and didn't know what to make of it, so...
I think the core female complaint is that there aren't enough good men to go around.
The men say this too.
As the alternatives to (and opportunity costs of) selecting a bad partner pile up every time some new media comes out, the bar for who is marriageable in the first place rises, which means a man or woman who had marginal personality/attractiveness in 1960 is probably not getting out of that pool in 2024 without substantial mitigating factors (the "666" dating app meme is a symptom of this).
I think gender dynamics predict women will be more resentful of this than men specifically because it is the sociobiological role of women to be wanted. I think the "it's your duty to serve me and my interests" attitude from women comes from the same place it does from similar-quality men; incels say "state-mandated GF", femcels say "all regretted sex is rape", and they both seem to want to problematize anything that could possibly be sexually arousing to anyone (hence the DignifAI thing for incels, and 72 genders/drag queen story hour for femcels).
Kids don't like coffee.
Yeah, but they're right to dislike it (that's why everyone puts cream and sugar in it). It's actually kind of strange that energy drinks (that are just... better coffee/tea) took so long to appear on the mass-market, since aside from maybe Jolt they were very much a creature of the mid to late 2000s. Which is unfortunate, since there were far more drink companies and varieties to choose from whereas now it's all just Monster.
at least if we are alive to what is happening inside of us and don't just internalise a false ideal
The thing about beauty is that creating it requires serving others (if not created, simply possessing/being something other people want). Thus, those who think they know best cannot create beauty; that is why the master morality modes generally create ugly things (brutalism, Christian Rock, Steven Universe, etc.). It's just cognitive differences: servants specialize in creating the beauty, leaders specialize in refining it. These modes of cognition aren't equally represented across/between genders.
Living in this visually unprecedented world is constantly updating our sense of what is visually pleasing, whether we like it or not, and we can constantly learn from this experience.
Well, that and our art is more beautiful (our tools to make it are way better, we can spend more time on it due to post-scarcity, and unlike Medieval artists we have photos and videos as reference material), so much so that it's just background noise. Scream just doesn't really fit on a body pillow the way anime girls with... similar expressions do and I'd actually rather look at the latter than the former. Yeah, something something superstimulus, but all beauty inherently exploits that.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
Her level of tactical experience doing law enforcement operations doesn’t particularly effect her ability at grappling.
But it does make the non-stop screaming just as irritating as it was in her role in Gravity (bonus points for accomplishing nothing without a man present in that movie, too).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
I do not think a 14 year-old is mature enough and understands the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with an adult, simply because of their inexperience.
And I don't think black people are mature enough and understand the social consequences to consent to sexual activity with a white person (or other black people), especially because they commit a lot more sexual crime than the average white person (and crime in general, suggesting a lack of impulse control, understanding of social consequences, and general maturity), and have lower IQs than the average teenager. Allowing them to experience such a powerful stimulus like sex, or have someone else use them to access such, is therefore bad for them.
If we're going to start drawing lines on "social consequences" and "maturity" you ultimately run into the problem where there are objectively better lines to draw on than mere age- so what's different here other than "society now believes it's more proper to discriminate based on age rather than race when it comes to what we think they're capable of [consenting to]"?
(Of course, I'm sure our modern phrenology asserting the subhumanity of the under-25 set is totally correct this time.)
Does anyone know gay men who don't want to have sex with men?
I think they're typically referred to as "bottoms".
And... I really don't think it's all bottoms, but from a mechanical standpoint the preparation and cleanup involve dealing with a lot less shit in places shit isn't supposed to be. It's fine for shit to remain in one's ass and it's even designed to expel shit in liquid form (thus can handle other substances reasonably well); said shit is also naturally found around one's ass after shitting and the other fluid typical to sex is more amenable to cleanup. This also applies to straight sex.
Contrast tops; you're going to get shit and maybe blood on and in your dick if you just stick it in without prep on either side, and it's still going to be nasty even if you're wearing that dinky piece of latex (scent still gets through gloves and you're still probably going to get shit on you when you go to take it off regardless of how careful you are). So I really wouldn't blame them for either not wanting to do that, or (and the impression I get from a few other openly-gay posters here) it just takes them a long time to work up to doing it, which, as with straight relationships in general, is probably partially why the average top is a lot older than the average bottom.
(That last dynamic is also probably why you see a lot more "predation"- age gaps just make the tricks work better, and it's not like gay sex has much of a barrier to entry and is likely not, in more of a social vacuum or for higher decouplers- both things men tend to be- as traumatizing or formative as women claim casual sexual activity is. Which is kind of a steelman for double standards and certain kinds of gay culture, but I digress.)
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
11mo ago
but anyone who wants one can certainly have a black scary semiauto .223 of some stripe.
Sure... if they're willing to wait an entire year for the license that takes a weekend, 400 bucks, and (for Restricted) knowing 2 people who'll vouch for you to obtain.
And by and large, this system works. It will still get you killed if you need a gun right now (the archetypical example of this is a stalker who isn't obeying their restraining order; angry exes kill families quite a lot and cops can't be everywhere), but even that isn't a design problem and has more to do with its implementation.
This is the "compromise" position, and if approached in good faith it works exceptionally well specifically because it keeps guns out of the hands of the poor, the stupid, and the friendless- all traits associated with criminality (European citizens are fine with this approach; the US' system of wokeness considering everyone trustworthy until proven otherwise is specifically a reaction to this!). True, existing socially-vetted owners can still become insane later, but the compromise is specifically "we prove ourselves to you, and in return you treat the people who do get through with a 'forgone conclusion, they would have just used a truck or fire instead' attitude (and as such don't launch a bunch of legislation to punish everyone else)", and by and large that works. Most European countries have more liberal gun laws than blue US states (and British Commonwealth states) do as a result- and the most liberal ones were occupied by the Soviets or on their border.
This position can't be reached in the US (and to a significant degree, the government couldn't enforce it even if they wanted to- everyone owns property and there's just too much ground to cover to stop illicit manufacturing), so you end up with a bunch of patches on symptoms like "high capacity mags" and "assault weapons" even though a single-shot shotgun and a .22 is all you need to perpetrate a mass shooting (which is how it happens in the UK). They then proceed to export this solution around the world; which is why the populations of countries closest to the American orbit (Aus, UK, NZ, CA) had licensing schemes and population tolerance thereof that were subsequently completely destroyed (the compromise that was licensing can no longer exist because the population is now too Americanized to tolerate it). For example, NZ was the freest former English colony in terms of gun law, but the population's ability to compromise had been hollowed out by exposure to American culture war until an Australian national came along and shattered it. Canada is more complicated, because it's close enough to the US that the concept of high-trust high-freedom leaks through more, but also lacks the political safeguards to keep that part of the nation safe from its largest cities that the US does... so the rest of the country (culturally closer to the red part of the US) suffers.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
11mo ago
English's indefinite articles are not gendered
The fact that there are two of them serves the same linguistic purpose.
The a/an distinction is exactly like the le/la or un/une distinction in that it's fundamentally a smoothing tool to make the language sound correct when spoken, and is something you just end up getting a feel for after a while because you know by the character of the language which category you're in. (And "gender" is... kind of an ideal way to describe that.)
Was there a unique contribution that Jewish women made to feminism
Is "being a post-industrial society in pre-industrial times" not enough?
Post-industrial peoples tend womanist because there's no longer any biological advantage to being a man, and considering Jews tended to make (or be made) people who worked in occupations that we would recognize as the dominant components of post-industrial (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) economies.
So it would make sense that this sub-culture would have felt this influence early thus been a vanguard of it as the rest of the Western world "caught up". Interestingly, this also (to a degree) will erode their position simply because "success in a post-industrial environment" is no longer limited to Jews, though they still have 200 generations that selection pressure relative to the general population so it's probably going to take a while for their overrepresentation to end.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1yr ago
You get better battery life from the same size of device and pages/apps are, all else being equal, going to render faster (especially if they're using a JS framework adapted to mobile to cut development costs). iOS has always had the edge on Android in terms of UI responsiveness, too; managed languages are a bit of a handicap right out of the gate, and Google has never really been one to emphasize UI polish (much like post-2012 Microsoft, for that matter).
Really, though, iPhones aren't necessarily the most advanced in terms of specific features- it's true that Android has some real interesting things going on with its support for foldable screens (2 apps at the same time with a screen that folds up actually is a big deal- make it 250 dollars so I don't have to worry about it inevitably breaking, and I'll probably buy one). But it works pretty damn well, and you can walk into any repair shop in the world and get parts for it.
"DAE women bad?" It's like I travelled back in time to early 2010s Reddit or something.
Why? Any good Marxist should understand the fundamental divide is between capital/human beings and labor/human doings- that whole "workers of the world, unite" thing doesn't ring any bells? Yeah, being one sex or the other tends to overwhelmingly bucket one in one or the other group for evolutionary reasons, but not always- there's plenty of (by this definition) room for transgender activity and group membership is not set in stone. Technology will soon arrive to obsolete what little productive role capital has in the same way technology obsoleted labor 100 years ago, and there will likely be a renegotiation between the sexes at that time, so there's very little novel observation to make about inter-sexual relations other than watching the system evolve from those initial conditions.
And Eve was the first to eat the fruit. You were raised Catholic, so you should know that's, uh, a low-hanging fruit. Not a new observation.
No, I'd say the capital gender understands the social framework perfectly fine. If the society has managed to defeat every enemy capital can (and the West absolutely has, at least for now) be as corrupt as it likes; it doesn't need to work or improve anything because there are no barbarians to come and lead them away in chains as a punishment for their waste of resources, and that's just the way it is.
Yes, 1984 should have taught you this is what the capital gender brings about when it has no external opposition. As described, we also observe the emergence of the Junior Anti-Sex League as labor declines in social power; while man/woman are a proxy for labor/capital, that proxy isn't useless to capital, and now you know why progressive women have the internal politics that they do (and also why they're fine with encouraging anything but bog-standard heterosexuality).
More options
Context Copy link