ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
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.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo 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.
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.
I'm actually surprised by how strong themotte's negativity toward the prostitution is here.
I think the people who would post a semi-thoughtful response are too busy enjoying the delicious irony that is men who [claim to] sleep around a lot complaining about their "visceral revulsion" to whores (alongside the traditionalists talking about "violation of duty to her future husband" as if that was a real thing in any post-dowry society). I think I'd rather have someone who both drinks and already knows alcoholism isn't going to be for them than someone so scared of any risk whatsoever that they don't trust themselves to reject it, something something Parable of the Talents.
Anyway, that's the end of the reasonable part of this post.
Or, more honest than she had to be.
imagine marrying someone who doesn't want to be overly honest with you even when it's real bad (and its mirror image, "imagine marrying someone who's psychologically incapable of not going full Madonna-Whore on you").
Is that really so different from if she had casual sex, which not infrequently entails the man paying for drinks/dinner/a hotel anyway?
technically speaking, marriage is just really expensive prostitution that costs half your income and comes with an exclusive supply agreement
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
and that is the end of it
If by "it" you mean "mostly peaceful transition of power from the bureaucrats to the kulaks", I agree- it stops being "mostly peaceful".
Per modern attitudes about violence, the side that shoots first is illegitimate. That's something the Left has taken advantage of, but it by no means has a monopoly over it; should the Right start winning peacefully and the Left reply with violence their moral legitimacy (which is the only power they actually have) evaporates.
An assassination is not in the Left's interests; it'd justify turning a soft coup like that into a much harder one.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
Obligatory "iPhone SE", but that might be too expensive for what you're looking to do, the screen might be too low-res, I wouldn't buy one until the 4th gen comes out, and you're giving up NewPipe + proper Firefox with uBlock + being able to run whatever you want by going with iOS.
You do get a lot for the money, though; it's the third-fastest phone available (leaps and bounds better than everything else; the 2nd gen is merely on par with those phones- Qualcomm's main business is very expensive modems with CPUs that are already 4 years out of date attached to them) and is as simple as you want it to be, being that it's an iPhone 13 packed into an iPhone 8, with everything that implies (including parts availability).
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.
You, like them, have nothing to offer people like me, other than to leave us alone.
Then perhaps people like you should side with the sorts of people that will leave you alone (and have a lengthy track record of doing so), rather than the ones that will not, so that when socioeconomic conditions stop being able to sustain liberalism and that freedom dries up it's your brand of [master] morality and not theirs with a better chance of coming out on top.
People generally sympathize with women for solid, well-founded reasons
Reasons which are no longer relevant or correct, but their biological and cultural inertia remains. Traditionalism has, traditionally, never needed to come up with an answer for why women with the same (or more) sociopolitical power as men should obey rules meant to deal with the problems women create when they're the less powerful gender; that's the entire reason why it's been losing ground for the 300ish years since the Industrial Revolution. Traditionalist moral philosophy just isn't set up to handle post-scarcity environments for what should be obvious reasons, and corruption in post-scarcity environments is inherently progressive-biased anyway (as the former masters of North America, being a network of matriarchies that failed to advance technologically in any way over the 10,000 years they had the continent to themselves under functionally post-scarcity conditions, demonstrate).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
round userpics, which waste space.
I'm going to defend this a little bit, too. If a profile picture is designed to show one's face, having it be a circle makes sense since that's how faces are generally shaped. With a square box, you're also showing your shoulders in the picture and it's a little more awkward to get the picture framed just right.
Of course, that's assuming you'd prefer to share your face and use your real name, something generally more conducive to the goals of female users than their male counterparts. It is absolutely more inconvenient to have to fit a more generic square picture into a round hole.
[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
8mo ago
It is very possible for our unappealing hero to make a Faustian bargain: find a way to signal - loudly - that you know your place and are not interested in sex or relationships, but instead in something that is prosocial and noble
Becoming a eunuch or being homosexual are two other increasingly popular options that are also totally-coincidentally considered prosocial and noble by tribes that make more Faustian bargains.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
There's nothing in either the tradcon nor the progressive nor the liberal worldview that has any inherent problem with child sex as a concept.
On one end, you have... well, everything before the early 20th century, where the age of consent was somewhere in the single digits (if it even existed at all). This was necessary, because if a family fell on hard times and had some girls, that is what they would be encouraged to do: get married to someone who could actually afford to feed them (no welfare state and the church-run orphanage is a week's ride). Then you have the religious angle, where Christianity has its barely-teenaged Mary expecting a child (something normal enough in those days, though certainly an edge case in more than one way), Mohammed's wife of some single digit age, and the Mormons who, if you go deep enough into Utah or Montana, get busted for doing this every so often. Even as late as the '80s, "marrying one's rapist" was acceptable enough.
Thus, empirically, this concept is compatible with the tradcons.
On the other end, you have the progressives, where the only sex they care about preventing is that which occurs between men and women. Note that all the high-profile examples of "sexualized" children (Desmond, Jazz Jennings) are biologically male, the lack of literature portraying heterosexual (it is rare they involve women in any way, really) child/adult pairings, protecting (and in some early cases, actively facilitating) rapists so long as they're not straight, and so on.
Thus, empirically, this concept is compatible with the progressives.
And then you have the liberals, who are the entire reason we're even having this conversation in the first place and are the first to brag about having had sex-while-child (there was one in this thread already, most of the loose '70s were spent promoting this, and provided you're of a sexuality compatible with the progressive memeplex you're still generally allowed to say "had sex as teenager, 10/10" and have the news media nod along).
So, yeah. Economics and social developments downstream of that enable this taboo (itself a logical extension of the "kids aren't allowed to do literally anything and must be segregated and kept indoors 24/7, because otherwise they'd get seduced by the pedos and end up buried in the woods" trend of the '80s), but beyond that there's as much factual backing for it as there was for taboos like miscegenation and gay sex.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
When top level comments that were nothing but moralizing started showing up, I knew it was too late.
And while I'm sure the lurkers appreciate takes that aren't merely adding to the "bog-standard 90s South Christian morality fights a woke argument made by someone who doesn't quite understand the where or why woke even got that argument in the first place" (if one takes updoots as evidence of engagement, which is the only feedback I ever seem to get when I do this), even that might as well be ChatGPT-rephrased or just a bog-standard repost after a while since my arguments aren't getting sharper.
Of course, my revealed preference is clearly that I'd rather masturbate do short-form point-scoring on the Internet than spend more time doing something about it, so...
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
Being "Woke" is seeing the world as that series of power imbalances, and "Identity Politics" is being aware of one's own membership in one or more disempowered groups.
It's also why "Woke" are terrified of what they call the alt-right: because the alt-right work exactly the same way, but have an alternative (and possibly more correct) view of who is more disempowered. Which, ironically, makes the Woke a conservative [privilege-safeguarding] movement and the alt-right a progressive [privilege-shuffling] one.
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.
More options
Context Copy link