ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
and think it must actually all be about women
That's because it is- more specifically, it's about power.
Abortion rights are, at the end of the day, a sex worker protection law. Babies are a service sex workers provide on contract, they're taking a lot of risk to provide one (especially true pre-medicine, but it's an obligation that normally consumes your entire adult life) and as such it makes sense that if that contract goes badly they should have an out. This includes things like "birth control doesn't work", "contract falls through" [husband leaves- progressives agree with traditionalists that a penis entering a vagina carries the same contractual obligations], "this service was stolen by physical force", and "this service offered violated other sex worker labor laws" [age of consent violations, casting couch, etc.].
This is why [the group of women who resent being sex workers, realize that they are sex workers, but have nothing to offer anyone beyond sex work] are most fiercely in favor of these, and related, laws. The average pro-abortionist is a #metoo and #fightfor25 proponent for this reason.
Traditionalists don't really have a problem with women being sex workers- rape could not be a property crime against fathers if it wasn't- but they strongly believe that a binding contract needs to be signed before sex work of this nature can occur as the primary form of worker protection. So, the fact that being 'forced' (in the presence of trivial alternatives) to carry to term when they have sex outside of that contract is good, proper, natural.
The thing they're missing is that the social infrastructure that once existed to punish this kind of contract violation has been destroyed (age of consent laws are the only compromise still standing, and is part of why traditionalists are very worried that progressives will erase them too). But they're also generally unwilling to build any new social infrastructure and just use what power they have to complain about this, just like progressives are- in fact, progressives would rather destroy traditionalist organizations that exist to support pregnant women in marginal cases than fix the problem; traditionalists do the same thing to conception-prevention organizations when they get the chance (and this should be a sufficient explanation as to why).
The personhood of a fetus, existing or not, really doesn't matter here for either group (traditionalists tend to more strongly believe that their property rights extend to their children; progressives are a lot more redistributionist about that, but they still believe it). Yes, it is convenient that it's alive for the pro-life side; but that's all it is- I have no evidence to believe this would be different were the matter of facts swapped (and is why progressives fight to prove the fetus isn't alive).
Yes, it's unpleasant to acknowledge that the occasional 10 year old will get pregnant, or that some women will die because of this, or that unborn children are killed- but they die because [we believe, and perhaps correctly] our contract law is more important, in the same way school shootings are [the right to defend oneself is a part of the social contract certain societies make with the expendable gender, in return for that expendability- when classical liberals say guns are the left's abortion, this is what they actually mean].
It's hard when many of the same people are arguing a few threads down that women having sex with no prospect of marriage or childbirth is the root of all of our problems.
Yeah, but they're just the spear counterpart to the group of women I described earlier (existential anxiety of men about what they are). If they do that task well, they'll be rewarded; that is one of the earliest contracts.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
That doesn't follow whatsoever. It presupposes that we're always capable of evaluating deep consequences, which is plainly not the case. It also presupposes a ton of wisdom on the part of the person being persuaded.
Yes, progressives say "it's not my job to educate you" as well. (Traditionalists are just the progressives of 50 years ago, after all.)
If the only difference between you and them is that they have the social power to enforce it and you don't [because your thing is Totally 100% True Trust Me Gaise] then you're worthless and offensive as a movement, and people are right to reject you.
People generally don't like being tricked or called stupid; when you do that I'd argue it costs you a bit of your saltiness.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
10d ago
Where's that CS Lewis guy when you need him?
never been a shortage of Christian intellectual tradition
You're making my point for me: there has been a serious lack of meaningful addition to Christian intellectual tradition over the last 60 years, and that tradition ran into a sort of... replication crisis of its social science (from the standpoint of those on the ground at that time).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11d ago
The basic reality is that Israel is fighting an uphill battle on the PR front, given the raw optics of the current conflict, and zoomers don't have the entrenched preferences of older generations.
So perhaps it is then worthwhile for Israel to press the attack now, while they still have foreign support to enable such a thing- also because if Iran gets a nuclear weapon the places launching conventional weapons into Israel right now will be functionally invincible, and Israel doesn't stand a chance against Iran without Roman American support simply due to having 1/10th the population of Iran, having a small fraction of the manufacturing capacity, and being dependent on certain fragile Jew magic for continued survival (desalinization facilities are vulnerable to attack from the sea for obvious reasons).
Israel could tout being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East
And they still had Muh Holocaust in living memory. It's not in living memory any more.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11d ago
I would model their close ally Hamas as being willing to sacrifice every soul in Gaza to kill a few 10k or 100k Jews.
That doesn't scream "crazy" to me, though.
Parthia has convinced Judea, and by extension Rome, to spend many shekels destroying an enemy who were attacking from, given the wider context, strategically insignificant locations. If Judea wants to occupy that land now they'll be spending even more shekels rebuilding it and spending Judean lives clearing out their own UXO, all for the price of the lives of an ethnic group the other Arabs in the region are all OK with being genocided.
This is exactly the same trade the US is making in Ukraine. For some of the same reasons, I might add; tying Russia up in Ukraine leaves room for the US to reconquer more interesting prizes like Syria all at the cost of checks notes the military hardware that was designed to fight that exact war, that was otherwise just going to age into uselessness anyway.
And no, the use of the odd child soldier does not crazy make, especially if by "child soldier" we mean "fighting-age male, but one young enough to make Westerners big sad" (or the occasional 8 year old with a grenade for the newsreels). Even the Taliban weren't that desperate.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
16d ago
Sure, but it's also perfectly accurate; the problem comes from outdated notions of attaching a moral valence to it. It's just what each partner in a relationship has a high statistical probability of bringing to the table (or the opposite partner have a high statistical probability of attaching outsized value to) when negotiating how to live together- nothing more, nothing less. It and [love for one's partner] remain compatible with this view; indeed, love is the notion of long-term investment/convergence backstopping these negotiations.
Without that framing, the dynamics around the argument aren't comprehensible. You even get comment chains like this that show the people making these arguments are so incredibly close to completely understanding it, but are lacking that one final piece/self-honesty... or they're just burying it.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
They did not marry young because they were successful young.
Sure they did/were. A man in the '50s was wildly successful compared to the older cohort of men, and that success was bestowed just for showing up.
So they started their lives very early: a huge luxury. As the old get disproportionately more successful compared to the young, the average age young men get married increases. (This is part of a feedback mechanism that naturally depresses TFR when a society is overpopulated, though naturally that lags reality a bit.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
to avoid calling it a paraphilia.
Yeah, but that's both because nobody knows what a paraphilia is[1], and because it sounds like that other '-philia' that means you're into kids.
(Actually, the same's true of using the expanded form of 'AGP', for the same reason, and those who use it know that.)
[1] I mean, I like that caliber and being prepared and all, but I've yet to develop a sexual attraction to bullets and MREs.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
16d ago
Well, I assume people here are rational and know both the common and academic meanings of words until they prove otherwise, and are not intentionally taking things to absurd extremes- especially without any attempt to elaborate.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
10d ago
What did you think 'sinful' meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays?
Yes, and trivially. The problem with 'sinful' is the same problem 'misogynistic' or 'hateful' has in that it's thought-terminating and usually invoked as "fuck you, stop doing what I don't like".
I am happy that the traditionalists have figured out they actually have to make the argument without the short-circuit. Which should be easy, because they're unimpeachably correct, which is why they were right to pick up the thought-terminating argument from aesthetics in the first place and it didn't take them 60 years to come up with a workable counterargument.
Well, you can have that, or you have the traditionalist/progressive projects which are just unironic rewrites of Harrison Bergeron (the only difference between the two is the hair color and name of the antagonist).
(And that story itself is basically just a modernization of Cain's justification for killing Abel.)
back the last century
If by 'last' you mean 'the 19th', sure, I'll grant that. At no point past 1920ish was this true for women (so no woman born/raised in the West knows what it's like to be uniquely oppressed- that it happened once upon a time is their origin myth, just like it is for the Indians); for minorities, at no point in Boomer living memory (post-childhood, so 13+: someone born in '45 would be post-Brown v. Board at that age) were they really oppressed.
It's something their parents and grandparents had reason to take seriously; what we're seeing now is the echoes and turbulence of a once-truth so widely held industry sprung up around it reaching its sell-by date. (This is also why, if LGB organizations did not embrace and pump up T, they'd have faded away like MADD did: their original grievances don't exist any more, hence the lie that they do must be defended ever harder.)
a more... nature-focused sort of an understanding of various things, such as sexual relations.
Something that Americans also adopted the instant the birth-control pill hit the shelves (hippies were famous for this- they said free love was natural for a reason, but every "all-natural" person exhibits profound ignorance of what technological advancement lets you see as natural, like how everything you eat has been specifically bred for gigantism). Being able to not get pregnant on a whim is a massively transformative technology; so is having so much food the poor only starve if they're explicitly trying to, for that matter (and the Germans invented the chemical process that makes that possible, too).
traditional religious morality
The foundation of traditional religious morality is not meaningfully distinguishable from "sex bad" (no other intelligent examination other than "Bible says it's bad"), so it makes sense traditions holding that viewpoint get absolutely bodied by the new reality that a good chunk of why it was destructive is now obviated. Some traditionalists have tacitly accepted this, but they won't actually say it for Overton window reasons.
The more intelligent traditionalists focus on "but a woman who has a body count is spiritually degraded" for that reason- if they had any better arguments, I think they'd be making them, but they aren't. So "vibes" (and "men want virgins", when they're being more honest- and I can accept that doing things that help men would make society better, but in a general sense rather than this specifically) is obviously the best they have.
I'm sympathetic to those for whom biology meshes better with first-century sexual norms, but they're too busy thinking with their other head in this matter. So putting them in charge in a context where technology has obviated most of the previous reality they cling to is (rightly) viewed by everyone else as destructive. (The same is true when you put women doing that in charge, but rejecting that is an even more cutting-edge idea.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
As in, "whoa, you're telling me she hasn't had a job since college, AND she never leaves her room, AND she has severe social anxiety? Now that's what I'm talkin' about, I want that".
Translation: she's got a cute face, and while she might be a bit of a fixer-upper that's perfect for someone "gifted" with enough autism/slight sociopathy (which is why it's a 4chan thing) to obviate most of the things that [we believe] would make someone that anxious in the first place. There is an element of "might not be self-aware enough/self-doubting enough to not entirely know her full value/potential, so will be available at bargain-bin social prices", or perhaps a bit of a savior complex, but that's underwritten by the implicit co-operation you get from knowing that their actually leaving their room/inviting you into their room is the hardest step.
Could you imagine any woman saying "you know I really just want an [cute but] unemployed loser, that's what really gets me going"?
This is the cougar effect; women being sexually attracted to men with... uh, growth potential. It's kind of a trans-gender behavior (their occasional pursuit of illegally-young men is too- there's very little biological reason for them to take on that kind of risk, especially compared to men for whom that behavior is evolutionary-biologically imperative), though nobody will ever fully recognize it as such.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
Or in other words, more proficient [sex] workers tend to end up with more lucrative exclusivity agreements.
Which is why it's understandable that a generation of people who just take being well-off/stable for granted will deny this dynamic exists.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
True cultured men know the mark of being an intellectual gentleman is to only be attracted to obvious signs of intelligence like girls wearing glasses.
Counterpoint: being attracted to women for stereotypically-masculine traits is childish and gay.
[Note that by "childish and gay", that's "this is how attraction works when your age is only measured in single digits" and "not confident/socially capable enough to trust you can dominate a more feminine woman", respectively. It's also preferring more "universal" traits than specifically masculine ones, if you prefer that framing.]
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
16d ago
This is a perfect explanation for the semi-rhetorical question later posed by @hydroacetylene here- as a response to you, in fact- the reason "liburals" (I prefer "progressives" for this group- progressives are not classical liberals so I don't call them that) don't take traditionalists seriously about decreasing baby murder is that decreasing baby murder is obviously not a terminal value for them and it's just a fight over aesthetics (because if it was, traditionalist organizations would be handing out as many free IUDs and Nexplanon as humanly possible; since they oppose this, they're obviously not serious about solving the problem as long as it's not their way).
You're also wrong about age of consent laws. Before 1900 most states set the age of consent at 10-12. Higher age of consent laws are a modern invention.
No, you're proving my point. Gynosupremacy/feminism pushed for high age of consent laws coincident with their emergence as a viable political force, which itself follows socioeconomic effects (gender equality following the decoupling of physical strength from production of goods) in industrial societies; I'm explaining why they did that. I can't link to the original post(s) here more fully explaining this because the person who made them has their account set to private (and they're banned, or at least their alt is).
In the Greco-Roman world infanticide was allowed.
Yes, obviously. Children are property of those who make them, and it is their right to dispose of them as they wish coincident with the child's ability to resist it as dictated by market conditions (usually a society's age of majority, though less than that due to the fact an age of majority results in market distortions so it's usually higher than it actually is).
What, you weren't told "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it" as a child? That was a Cosby show thing, I believe.
You strike me as a secular right-winger who's grasping for straws to justify why the church lady anti-abortion crusade is actually rational and BASED, anything other than accept that maybe the hated liburals are right about a single subject.
You really haven't read enough of me.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
28d ago
Uniquely, the Afghans saw the American Empire's cultural exports as the net-negative that they are (the bombs themselves didn't help either), were in a very unique position to reject them, so they did.
Transing other countries very observably makes them weaker, and as such doing so is generally in the US' interests. That this also applies to the US itself is not as much a concern.
they just need enough to make the cost of a nuclear exchange so high Israel would never risk it
But this has further implications that you omit.
If Iran has the bomb, they can provide it to a smaller, far more suicidal group of allies (the Palestinians) to lock the Israelis into their current borders unless they negotiate with Iran. Technology transfers, taxes, religious rites/rights, not purchasing American weapons, etc. is what that looks like.
In this way, the Hamasi would serve as the permanent Iranian veto over the [Ashke]nazi. Because they simply don't care if the Israelis nuke them in response- the fact is, the Israelis get hurt far more than the Palestinians, the Palestinians are suicidal, and that is sufficient to accomplish this goal.
Conversely, if Israel believes that Iran will, or already has, or will inevitably soon obtain, a bomb like this... then their only response is to start removing the local kebab as fast as humanly possible. They didn't like the paragliders the first time; imagine how much they're not going to like them when the settlers further encroaching on their territory prompts an air-borne SADMization of the Israeli countryside.
The Iron Dome can stop a lot but the bomber is going to get through. And sure, Hamas could always attack from another country (perhaps one in which they seek refuge after the dust settles), but in that case that other country [and its people] are collateral the Israelis can threaten such that Hamas is kept down- since if Hamas manages to get an attack off then it's the entire host nation's problem, and Israel becomes the one with the nuclear veto.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
23hr ago
What we instead got is this monstrous inversion where our successful people generally act conservative in their personal lives while encouraging self-destructive libertinism and emotional disregulation in the rest of the population.
Indeed; and while invoking Cain and Abel may flatter my personal biases, there's another one right next to it that very certainly does not: you can perhaps view [those humans given to be] traditionalists as Adam, progressives as Eve, and liberals as the Snake (and the sexes in that story are that way for good reason).
The liberals lie to the progressives so they'd take accept something that was too advanced for them and [that the liberal knew] the only reason they [progressive] wanted it was to be turbo-selfish with it.
The progressives in turn lie to the traditionalists, saying the thing was perfectly fine and good for everyone, don't think about it, just enjoy it.
And now everything's fucked up because beings that weren't supposed to have to deal with knowing [thing] now just have to deal with the consequences of knowing you can do [thing].
That, combined with the separation from God that comes from not being perfect with it, is how the knowledge from the fruit kills you!
Actually, both the Garden of Eden and Cain vs. Abel contrapose when read this way, but then the difference between the snake and Abel was that Abel acted faithfully and the snake faithlessly (and the siren call of the liberal t'was ever thus: did God truly say?)
It's strange that I've never heard anyone explain this in this way. Or maybe not, considering it's quite embarrassing, and especially to those "closer" to the fault (though there is ultimately no degree of "closer" in sin, and the traditionalists are too busy abusing it to shit-talk the progressives anyway in the "hurr Eve ate it first that means I'm better" sense anyway).
And maybe it's wrong, maybe I'm reading too hard into these... but if you're trying to explain how human nature and sin works to a prehistoric people then I'd say it describes the major players/impulses/excuses of the classes of humankind very well.
Of course, it doesn't say what each should do in response; the fact people can be bucketed this way is [and quite importantly] not part of the curse, but "the people more ready to accept 'did God truly say?'-type questions when they're posed in faith will instead desire and be ruled over by that class of people who are not so willing, and they will not be willing because they're cursed with having to work for a living until they die" sure is!
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
a male-created space, dominated by women, that the males don't even get to stay in
Seems like a perfect metaphor to me.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
It seems to me that feminists and red-pillers agree on most ground facts
More generally, it seems to me that progressives and traditionalists agree on most ground facts, and the fighting is mostly just the narcissism of small differences/whose brand gets to be on top.
(Some red-pillers are not traditionalists, of course, but they're not a major influence compared to those that are.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
25d ago
That's also why traps aren't gay.
(But that category has been poisoned into undecideability, where truly boyish girls/girlish boys are pushed to the side and their prosperity sacrificed for women and men who are not, in fact, worthy of opting out. Traditionalists have identified, correctly, that the drive to trans your children is a communist impulse- they just can't explain why.)
How do you act girly in accordance with nerd culture?
You can't, that's the main draw of it. The topic of what you're being a nerd about at the time, or the thing that you're trying to do at that moment, is the 'woman' in this context. Women who do this have either explicitly chosen, or have an innate affinity for, not being the 'girl' in this social context; that's what separates tomboys from your standard representative of Women, Inc. (and is part of why tomboyism is more common in childhood).
The thing about these topics, or goals, is that the mystery is... external, not personal. You either measure up to be rewarded for examining something or you don't- this can be from hunting to computers or music or anything in between [you either have the right answer], but it's not going to shut itself off, turn its nose up at you, or try to murder you for examining it like Women, Inc. will. This is an existential threat for us in a way the average man can't understand (they're missing a piece).
Obviously the really masculine thing to do is to just be one of the boys.
And from the male side, the really feminine thing to do is to just be one of the girls.
This manifests as the "gay best friend" phenomenon from Women, Inc. reps that don't fully understand this (they've identified the 'not a sexual threat' part correctly though, and something that tends to get in the way of nerd relationships; just because you spend most of your time as masc-presenting doesn't mean your attraction patterns aren't fundamentally female). If you watch [or were] the little boy who hangs out with the girls a lot (something more common for nerds than for the average man), this is what he is doing.
Guys have the attraction-dampening effects on for tomboys in a similar way, but the specifics are a bit different.
I feel sometimes that this remains a mote in our eye, who now complain about other unnatural degeneracy.
The people who do most of that complaining are not nerds. While I agree that "unnatural degeneracy" is the best way that the average man, or Women, Inc. representative, should describe someone not obeying their instincts, I also think that those are the people for whom (as you put it) dimorphism exists in the first place. From that viewpoint, that is why it is possible to "be turned [LGBTQP][1]", and I also agree that in some cases this is an accurate statement to make (especially since these people can be manufactured from stuff like "being a victim of sexual assault", and the meme that one can be "traumatized" by seeing porn or sex at a young age comes directly from this place)... but if you're not starting from that viewpoint then these claims become an incoherent mess.
masculinely inspired but genderneutrally applied ideals
Yes, I think that forms some anxiety, especially for autoandrophiles. Real women-men know they don't need to have a penis to be a man, but not all women are capable of getting to that state (and Women, Inc. has done its best to distract them for the reason I noted earlier- women-men are not a threat in the same way). So, if the ideals of your culture and the rewards given are disproportionately masculine... then it makes sense that more women will perceive they don't measure up. Combine that with the tactical and strategic implications of being a woman (where your only value at that point is childbirth, and the odd social crusade once you're too old for that) and it's not exactly a surprise why one would want to opt out.
[1] Which is part of why these "conditions" are grouped like this in the first place, and is also why these people claim P is an inextricable part of that grouping and are very invested in that "most gays were raped as children" statistic.
Which is why this was the historical norm in the first place.
Divorce meaning the man loses most of their assets is, quite literally, a pension plan for when a sex worker has had enough of the job. That this means they're grossly overpaid and encouraged to retire that way is a problem not unique to sex workers, but it does come from the same philosophical place as other pension systems do.
More options
Context Copy link