ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
28d ago
how can you jerk off to porn?
Maybe he doesn't; maybe he just watches in a "huh, neat, sex and nudity" way (and maybe goes and does it after).
If you need to get to know someone before you feel sexually attracted to them
I think the whole conceit of "demisexuality" is trying to communicate, for lack of a better word, that the 'tricks' don't work on you- you don't have the... compulsion? to fuck or compromise as hard when you see primary sexual characteristics (as opposed to hetero/homosexuality, who by comparison to demis do).
At the same time, it's also an attempt to communicate that you still find sex pleasurable and desirable, as opposed to [a demisexual's assumption of] asexuals who do not (while that may not be taxonomically correct, I think that's the reason they want to label themselves differently in the first place).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
28d ago
but someone said the whole "demisexual" thing is just "being normal" and I still haven't heard a compelling counter.
No, that's called "heterosexuality". Biologically speaking, letting your dick do the driving (or taking advantage of the fact that most men do this) is optimal from a reproductive standpoint for what should be obvious reasons, so it makes sense that's the default. You're not supposed to think, you're just supposed to do (insert "only enough blood to run one head at the same time" meme here).
Isn't sexuality supposed to determine who you find sexually attractive?
Yes; heterosexuality (and homosexuality) [in men] is keying off of normal secondary sexual characteristics. Demisexuality isn't a real sexuality though (I think it describes something else; maybe 'male sexuality' and 'female sexuality' are built out of components, it's possible to only get some of the wrong ones, and they cause different problems [from a biological standpoint] when run on the wrong hardware), so it doesn't fit the 'who are you horny for' that hetero/homo/bi/ace can be used to answer.
Because slavery is done for the interests of the slaveowner
Reproduction is done for the interests of the parent.
Kids are not, generally, capable of understanding the distinction.
No, I think they understand the distinction perfectly (in that there is none). "Slavery" might be a loaded term (parents and adults more generally will take reflexive offense to children calling it this, even if you ignored that it's an insult to their legitimacy on its face because it is loaded, something children also are well aware of), but in their defense it is a perfectly accurate description of the situation.
[Mistake-theory description of biological reality below]
Children are, by their nature, property; something they have in common with women. Scalable primary resource extraction is difficult to impossible to establish for them. Thus, sons work for you until they become too large to physically dominate (which is the definition of "adulthood" for men), daughters you sell at physical maturity (the definition of "adulthood" for women) to the highest bidder (they're a net loss otherwise), and your wife is such a purchase.
Now, this isn't to say that some fathers treat that property very well- as if they didn't own it, almost (and property that has 2 legs needs to be motivated pretty strongly to stick around; you can do that through love or fear, fear is easier and always your fallback option as a father but it's less productive in the long run so generally worth putting in the effort to not do that)- but that doesn't make the balance of power any different and selfishness on the part of the parent (or the surrounding society- like Asian nations and their ludicrous education systems, or certain US states where the State will punish you if you're let outside) will always push that balance towards fear.
Really, at the end of the day, we're just haggling over the price. For example, something that can break this reality is if scalable primary resource extraction in terms of a man's body is completely obviated by mechanization/technology/market forces- if that happens, the bride price goes to infinity, and with that men can no longer meaningfully own women. This happened to children at the same time for the same reasons, so you had a lot of effectively-emancipated "teenagers"... until the Great Depression put a so-far-permanent end to that (with a slight rebound for them around the '60s).
Chains that set lightly upon you are still chains; what harm does noticing them do?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
27d ago
My answer is 100%
As far as the Motte answer, I'm predicting
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
27d ago
Is there any reason why this might not be true?
QC. A lot of German-designed stuff is pretty convoluted and is banking on higher-than-normal precision in manufacturing to work properly; you tend to find that out pretty quickly when you buy their cars.
That's not to say that China can't do that, but just like salaries for [competent] software developers in India, it's going to cost you just as much for China to make high-performance parts as it is for you to source them locally (and the way to make those parts isn't going to suddenly walk off, and counterfeits aren't as easily going to make it into your parts stream)- turns out globalization works both ways. So getting them to do it instead is neutral at best.
And there are indications that the Chinese in fact cannot reproduce the most specialized parts because its manpower surplus meant people who could focus on that were out-competed (this is why polities that [can] depend on slave labor generally don't industrialize, and a manpower surplus is not meaningfully distinguishable from slave labor simply because the individual wages are so low). Which is why, despite Chinese expertise in industrial espionage, their attempts to actually build from the plans they steal generally don't end well, which makes them cost even more than it does Westerners. And when you realize how much Westerners spend developing these things...
Now, that isn't to say that advanced manufacturing will always redeem an overcomplicated shitty design that barely works in the first place (something the Germans have been historically, and are still to this day, guilty of), but it's arguably better than the alternative.
Though really, all the Western nations have to do to save their automotive sectors is to ditch the "we're banning the good cars by 203x" mandates. Which is part of why Tesla is mostly focused on, surprise surprise, using their engineering and advanced manufacturing expertise to widen their already-high profit margins even more by doing things like die-casting the entire car (something that will pay off, and another technology that can be licensed for other things, even if governments ditch the mandates).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
27d ago
Does it look like that will happen?
Given how foolishly and self-destructively governments acted in the face of 2020? I'm not holding my breath, though the governments that are about to replace the most foolish of them might punt (at least on a federal level; the Biden administration delaying the nastier EPA mandate until '28 makes sense for a couple of reasons and I suspect the other car-manufacturing countries are going to follow suit with punting- I question whether or not Japan ever will since the only thing less useful than a BEV compact car is a BEV kei car).
This is all just armchair speculation; but I think it lines up considering just how awful battery technology is at the moment. Either the mandates aren't reversed, in which case they never bother with a cheaper car and still manage to undercut every other automaker (who are still doing the "build a normal car, except with a battery" thing); or they are, and they need to drop the price dramatically in order to have half a chance competing with cars that are still objectively better (and having very few parts will help them significantly with that) and sandbag until better batteries come out.
Which... I'm not holding my breath about that either; electrochemistry is a harsh mistress.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
26d ago
Posts and comments aren't the same thing. Posts are the submissions that appear on the front page; you'll get a blue notification when a user you're following makes one.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
26d ago
It's more like Fascism With Chinese Characteristics.
Or in other words, it's national socialism. Germany used to be national socialist in the '30s, then all their men got killed in the war they started, now they're just socialist.
I think that National Socialism is one of the systems of government that can emerge when you have a relative balance of male and female interests in a nation, and that nation is significantly overpopulated relative to its economic opportunity at the time. Places that have no need of men are socialist to the point of complete paralysis (the West), places that have no use for women are extremely militaristic (Afghanistan is the best example, but the middle and near east are all like this) or busy fighting civil wars (Africa).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
26d ago
I'm not convinced; I think following the money on environmental and socialist fifth-columnists leads back to Washington, not Moscow.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
26d ago
It's a shame there wasn't a Knowledge option
Maybe, but the only thing Knowledge rewards you with is Lamborghinis and I'm dreaming a little bigger than that.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
26d ago
Anyone have an opinion on the benefits of getting an SE vs. a 13/14/15?
The bog-standard one, which is "wait until the refresh of the SE comes out, then buy that". The current SE is an iPhone 13 in the shell of an iPhone 8, and has 5 years of support left (that's about how long its battery is going to last). The only real reasons to get a non-SE iPhone are the front LiDAR scanner for FaceID and the specialized cameras.
The only reason to go with Android is proper Firefox (with the good ad blocking) and NewPipe- but in my opinion, if your phone isn't your primary computer, those are negotiable. Android phones are fucking junk because Qualcomm sucks ass at CPU design and dominates the market enough that they don't have to care, which is why 2000-dollar Android phones get handily beat in hardware by 4 year old iPhones, and the OS being laggier doesn't help either.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
26d ago
has Apple stated that somewhere
I don't believe they ever explicitly state this, but every phone they've made in the last 10 years has had roughly a 7 year support window starting from the time it's first introduced. For example, the first gen SE was introduced in 2016, and went out of software support in 2023.
The problem with going 13 right now (I'd prefer a 13 Mini myself, all else being equal) is that it's quite expensive relative to that support window, since it's going to drop out of support in 2029 like the third-gen SE will. Sure, it's smaller and more modern than that SE is, but at twice the price it might not be worth it.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
24d ago
It's hard to know why, so it's best to enjoy the ride
Maybe, but that's also incompatible with safety culture, on its face in fact (safety from hellfire for the traditionalists, safety from 'rather have a dead son' for the progressives, and for both of them safety from having a kid you can't stand).
By contrast, what you've described are parents/people aligned with dignity culture instead, where the right approach for reasonable actors is to just give them time/space/real opportunity to figure out the right answer themselves; restating "sensible boundaries" as "safety is only useful insofar as it furthers the cause of dignity, and we're already secure in our knowledge of what the truth and goodness are that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion provided we give them initial conditions suitable for discovering it".
"Isolate yourself. Other people will kill you by existing."
Probably worth noting that a significant contingent of Westerners are already primed to think this with respect to global warming climate change (and the solutions thereto generally being "so kill them destroy their ability to meaningfully exist at gunpoint, before they kill you").
Covid is not the first "hide in a hole, the world is going to explode, and it's all the outgroup's fault", and it certainly won't be the last (nor is it unique to one or another political faction e.g. "sin causes extreme weather") but it is an excellent illustration of just how harmful that kind of thinking is.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
24d ago
strict abortion laws literally killing people
Or not-so-strict abortion laws literally killing people, in the Red tribe's case. (Which is why the Blue tribe's defense of abortion rests on the definitions of "killing" and "people".)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
24d ago
it’s hard to say the platonic ideal is male or female
The distinction between male and female both does and doesn't exist at the same time.
You're not supposed to mess with God's vision, maleness or femaleness.
Sometimes the vision comes pre-messed-with. It's not like anyone actually knows what maleness or femaleness are anyway, and fewer still are able to come up with a complimentary picture. Rather humorously, it's usually the manlier women and womanlier men that have a better understanding of how the sexes are supposed to work together, but they're also the furthest away from the vision-as-written simply due to their nature.
Why would going from the one to the other violate that ideal, so long as you arrive at the right spot (theoretically)?
Because the Bible says gayness is bad, on its face in fact (implications for transsexuality follow from that). Uniquely, it's one of the things that are said to be bad but doesn't have self-evident negative effects (gay marriages [the ones that follow "the vision" except it's 2 dudes instead] are more stable than straight ones, apparently). So then, what's that mean (figurative, literal, or both and if so under which context?), how much should we care, and should our approach be more Proverbs 3:5 or 1 Corinthians 8 when it comes to the gays (and what forms of gayness should we accept)? It'd surely be nice if we figured it out before God decides to go full Sodom and Gomorrah on us.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
24d ago
or Elric of Melniboné
I'm more familiar with Elric of Amestris; he is a bit more well-rounded when it comes to the topic of forbidden knowledge. While his actions do cause a great deal of suffering to himself and others, he isn't actually evil.
The difference is that most of his actions were in (or eventually orient themselves towards) the cause of serving others and not just serving himself; the person most affected by his actions in the first episode knew there were risks involved (though, inherently, not necessarily which ones).
Which is, ultimately, the difference between "we're pushing the boundaries with an objective goal in mind even though we know there are risks involved" and "that you felt like a girl one day is good enough for me so here's the pills, this'll really shock the squares/your parents/the outgroup, I swear I'm prescribing sterilization surgeries because it's helping the patient and not because I'm getting off on the idea of young people being castrated/that all men should be like this, etc.".
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
24d ago
I have a meta theory that many problems of human activity involve too much focus on what people ARE rather than what they DO.
That's because it's the easy way out. You need to do intellectual or emotional labor to deal with people who DO [are aligned with your goals] but ARE NOT [aligned with the rules], and one way to deal with that is to turn your back and say you're not going to do it (doing this also gives you short-term power and sometimes people just get tired and want the easy way out).
Societies start to stop being able to do when the populace gets lazy like this. And while there is a place for identity, it must ultimately be subservient to activity, and when certain kinds of Christians/the Bible start talking about "women/the identity gender should not be in charge/operate unrestrained by men/the activity gender" I think this is what those parts are getting at.
Which leads to some interesting implications when you're talking about sexuality [and topically for this week, homosexuality], since "but what if my girl/boy grows up to be a woman/man incorrectly?" seems to me to be the driving impulse for the stereotypical swift parental overreactions to a woman who's more activity biased or a man who's more identity focused (regardless of how self-aware said child eventually becomes). And then, when that happens, is the implication more that two activity-genders or two identity-genders getting together is sinful (or is it just limited to "penis in the butt is bad", which... if the above is your understanding of gender/men/women that's going to seem immature at best and pointlessly angry at worst)?
"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is once instance of moving in the right direction
But that, again, requires an unwillingness to be intellectually/emotionally lazy (which applies to both parties in that interaction; the sinner? has to also not be taking the lazy "they hate us 'cause they ain't us, so fuck you, I think I'll be as obnoxious as possible because I like being transgressive more than I like accommodating others" [which... right or wrong, it's that last part that condemns you more than anything else]).
The similarities between affirmation/esteem culture and guilt culture have probably been underinvestigated.
Esteem/affirmation culture, in my view, lends itself far more to mere masturbation-by-proxy than a guilt or shame culture does.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
23d ago
That's what the internet's for.
Yes, there are specific points around the 'ring' that are more sensitive than others.
No, it's not a surprise that the remnants of the cover will retain some of the cover's effects when that cover is amputated since that's where the nerves would normally pass through.
Honestly, cutting that piece off is as stupid as the routine tonsillectomies were, for the same reasons (apathy, anger). Penises are supposed to have that ferrule installed for the same sorts of reasons they're on fiber optic cables (so that the thing covered by that ferrule remains as sensitive [to light] as possible). Of course, since this ferrule is biological in nature, it requires maintenance (and can malfunction) for reasons and in ways similar to the female end of quick-disconnect air hoses.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
23d ago
Within this argument the claim isn't that they're Becoming-Woman, the claim is that trying to mime the social roles and appearances of women and starting hormones appears to make them happier, more content, etc
I think most of the friction over transness (and gayness, which is typically only one step removed from transness anyway) is that doing that also tends to be an excuse to express all the attributes of that gender and not just the positive/productive ones.
Public perception is that, being born as the gender that doesn't express those traits as much would cause an ex-gendered individual to know better than to do them/have more innate resistance to them. Of course, that's ignoring that ex-women/lesbians get more leeway on this than ex-men/gays do for sociobiological reasons, so toxic feminine traits in men are going to be noticed and resented more than toxic masculine traits in women will be (if they even happen at the same base rate).
For example, there's a meme around 4chan that boys make the best girls (and... there's probably something to that), but that's ignoring all the times that boys make the worst girls. At an object level, this mainly comes in the form of catty bullshit and other gender-role-specific ways to be a bully, which is why it's easy [for otherwise-normal men] to form a strongly negative association with other men who have developed/are developing the gay lisp (to name one example).
Of course, that reaction also prompts toxic [same adopted gender] to rally around the flag and defend their right to that toxicity, and since the balance of power in western society currently favors women the "it's ma'am" shit gets a pass. Places where the genders are a bit less at war with each other (for whatever reason) tend to produce more media that portrays crossdressing/cross-sex activity in at least a neutral light, which is why that stuff more often comes out of Asia.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
22d ago
The bike trailer has a 5-point harness and an aluminum roll cage.
So it's a car.
I don't wear helmets in my car, not even if I had one with a removable roof.
For that matter, that FAQ more or less just says "they should wear a helmet in the car(t) because normalization of safetyism is important".
If it becomes illegal to be a bad mom or dad
No, I'd say that being a bad mom or dad is actually required by the law. And... uh, it's required already in a good few places with CPS visits for the crime of letting your kids play outside and felony charges for having them walk half a mile, refusing to call them a girl even though they insist they are, etc. Basic 1984 stuff, internalized oppression begins at home after all.
As far as the gun thing goes... private firearms ownership by the 10-18 crowd was higher (and trivial to accomplish, just send the cash in the mail) 60 years ago yet the murder rate (and the rate at which they ran amok) was far lower, and I think the way society treats that crowd now (as opposed to what you were allowed to do in those years) has a lot to do with them deciding to act like this. They used to just bring their guns to school to go hunting afterwards in areas that weren't even that rural, but then again, you treat them more like adults when their biology demands it and you'll see better behavior.
Parents [and by extension, their kids] have been continually losing this battle for the last 40 years (with no indication yet they'll stop losing); it's not a surprise that prospective parents just adopt pets rather than have to fight the State and the demos tooth and nail for the right to parent correctly. Probably worse for the birth rates than the car seat thing, though data on how much isn't exactly easy to come by.
It would have been better had we simply banned daycare when society had the justification to do so in the '80s. But they didn't, so here we are.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
22d ago
And removing guns for mental illness or cars or knives doesn’t help when the people with those mental illnesses decide not to risk losing their guns or their car by talking about their anger issues or depression or bipolar.
Yes, but this is not something a safetyist culture is equipped in any way to constructively deal with (as a bonus, whenever this happens, it gives them more justification/fervor to ban and confiscate their outgroup- or in other words, "the demand for violence in society vastly exceeds its supply"- so it's only neutral at best).
Naturally, every other approach tacitly posits accepting a base rate of abuse of rights for the existence of rights themselves; that is why the Dead Kids South Park episode is the way that it is [but it only really works if you understand that viewpoint, since they don't actually go out of their way to fill in that blank].
Honestly, that was a bit of a culture shock when I went there; I wasn't expecting to see someone standing around with a rifle at what I'd consider low-ready in the tube stations or just casually walking around, but the English and the French (at least; I'm pretty sure this is normal for everywhere inland) are armed to the fucking teeth. Some of them are subtle, like "this person isn't distinguishable from a normal guard, but the gun she's carrying was never made only in semi-auto... so what the fuck's so important back there?".
It's kind of disingenuous to say "yeah, British cops don't have guns" to New World audiences, because New World countries don't have soldiers on the streets whereas they're so common in Old World countries that their residents find it completely beneath notice.
Maybe I draw more of a distinction on the presence of pistols vs. rifles; pistols are defensive weapons that aren't front and center in any interaction you have with someone carrying one (there's an assumed continuum of escalation there where the cop has to pull it out first), rifles are very much not (they can't be carried in as neutral a manner). Serve and protect vs. seek and destroy.
More options
Context Copy link