ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
Perhaps feminism should instead go for shaming man of pre-marital sex
It is currently doing that right now; that's what "Rape On College Campus" (and related), #metoo, #fightfor25 is agitprop for.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11d ago
it's just a grim reminder we should have banned tiktok ages ago.
As opposed to brainrotted Boomers who think women and minorities are oppressed.
They didn't need Facebook to come to that conclusion yet arrived at it anyway, so the problem rests with the people, not the technology.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
25d ago
Instead, when they think about the differences between men and women, they think the women are just smaller men. To them, a woman is just a guy with a vagina in a skirt.
And from that, witness the fundamental anxiety: there are women who qualify as this (tomboys are not trans men, though they function like the platonic ideal of one, including attitude and general outlook on life- there are women who just act like this more generally without specific tomboy markers, and they're harder to spot, but they'll always show you who they are eventually), and there are women who do not.
Women who qualify tend to get lots of high-quality male attention, for reasons that are blatantly obvious (the self-awareness alone makes a much better partner, to say nothing of the other stuff; hostile unproductive attitude, which is something TERFs don't solve, is corrosive). Pick-me-s. This makes Mean Girls jealous.
So, how best to attack such a woman? By doing the same thing to these men-women that they did to men more generally- take away their spaces, destroy what was good about them through gender politics. That is the sole purpose of having men in women's sports: destroying the spaces where participating in a male-type pursuit is productive, and making them as miserable as every other worthless bitch (and now a disadvantage in the instinctual quest for the highest sexual price that defines womanhood). Mission accomplished.
The spear counterpart to this behavior is, of course, as you described:
that time he pulled the mask down a little bit, and expressed his annoyed bewilderment that the rest of us spectrum-y nerds were taking progressive politics literally, instead of understanding it as a cynical exercise in tricking other men into acting like dumbasses.
I'm talking about the internal experience of womanhood, the preference for faces over mechanics, the keen interest in social networks and how much a man makes and the low-key rape fetish
"Lived experience" of a thing is not required to know how expressions of it can be destructive.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
I admit I can't explain why "feminist" in the public imagination is sex-positive.
Boomers' cultural worldview of feminism is stuck in the '70s, which is the last time that was true.
The side of feminism comprising the modern #fightfor25/Junior Anti-Sex League wouldn't get back to the same rent-seeking position on sex it had in the early 20th century until after AIDS.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d ago
setting up a system where men are most successful in their early 20s seems unlikely (and even if it could happen, would put a crimp in family formation)
US TFR (and teenage pregnancy, as a related metric) hit its highest post-industrial point under that exact system; it's just that to institute such a system you just need to explode half of Europe.
Or, in other words, the aisles are swapping underneath the parties, and the Ds are going to fully re-emerge into the collective consciousness as the right-wing/conservative party (the term "progressive-conservative" comes to mind, back when right-wing causes had the social license that left-wing causes do today). The Rs have very solidly positioned themselves on the left-wing/reform side, and Trump II exemplifies this.
Remember, Obama was the last time a D voter could logically/consistently claim to be on the side of reform, and [Rs voting in 2012 or 2016 for any non-Trump candidate] was the last time an R voter could do the same on the side of conservatism. This is what "right is the new left" was talking about. Biden was fundamentally a conservative pick, exactly what you want in a crisis (which said conservatives manufactured, but that's not actually important with respect to the actual dynamics).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
24d ago
“No one is illegal on stolen land!” in discussions about the LA riots.
Translation: "Only Blue Tribe has the right to determine who deserves what land."
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
17d ago
people will be able to pop a meaning of life pill every morning to motivate themselves
Nicotine and dextroamphetamine have been around for quite some time, but the delivery method for the former has been bad for a long time and the withdrawl symptoms are absurdly bad, and the latter still requires a prescription for whatever reason.
It's obviously not one where you and your wife actually love one another.
I am reminded of the classics. The key word is learn to love, and there's no doubt in my mind that this is a learned skill for lots of people, maybe all of them, to some degree. Some more than others, some never do. There's growth potential- I think someone else mentioned "people who think in terms of pathological bargaining in marriage are all insane, those who see it as an investment opportunity prosper", which gets at this- if there was nothing to be learned it wouldn't be growth, would it?
you believe in the Good Old Days she'd just have to spread 'em anyway, no recourse, and if she resists, you could beat her until she stops resisting, and that is the past you want to return to?
As opposed to today, where he'd just have to spread 'em anyway (the folds of the wallet, in this case), no recourse, and if he resists, she can beat him (with another man's fists/State power) until he stops resisting?
Surely there must be some sort of compromise (we did have one in the past, but the problem is that men and women do not, in fact, have equal biological constraints)- a new paradigm is needed to account for a seismic technological shift where women have near-total control over conception and marriage is worth less and less in the face of better alternatives (at least, from a hedonistic perspective).
DreadJimming is just as destructive when women do it.
It's a measure of your capacity for destruction
The fact that we only control the capacity for destruction/abuse in men, but not in women, is closer to the root of the problem. Men are normally attracted to women with a high capacity for destruction: social popularity is a direct measure/expression of that capacity (and conversely, creates "nice girls finish last" problems if they can't secure a boyfriend powerful enough to resist hers when she sends him through that social pressure to take your resources).
Punishing women for doing that is harder, which is why it's normally (and traditionally) imposed by men-as-collective at a group level by default. Which makes things harder for the women who are responsible with that power, and something the ones who aren't interested in using it that way will (rightly) complain about being assumed guilty of wanting to abuse it by default.
The woke are once again more correct than the mainstream- gendered violence is a sex crime- it's just that most of the problems in society arise because the female gender isn't punished for its violence (and because feminists are all about encouraging its use...).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
9d 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.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11d ago
This is why tomboys hate formal events - they are used to being able to be performatively androgynous without looking like they are cross-dressing.
And, in reverse, this is how you can trivially differentiate autogynephiles from everyone else (AGPs dress as formally as possible all the time).
I agree that autoandrophiles can exhibit this, but they often don't because the pull effect from "guy clothes" isn't as strong considering there's no article of clothing (except ones you can't see) that aren't trivially available for women; you'd have to go out of your way to be transgressive and most people wouldn't understand it being "designated guy clothes", they'd just see as "woman with unusually poorly fitting clothes".
That situation seems at least as bad as gay conversion camp
If it makes you feel any better (and it is literally the same thing, I'll add), my outgroup claims those don't work. Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they?
Where do you all draw the line? At what point would you intervene?
Depends on the kid, depends on the family. And really, you just do what you can within your strategic and tactical realities/liabilities; you can't influence if you're dead (either to them or more literally).
There does come a point where you just kind of have to trust the kid'll figure it out. Parents stop being the prime authority figures around physical adulthood sexual maturity (for blatantly obvious evolutionary reasons) anyway; this is why, when I hear "the teenage years were hell", I think "yeah, that's 'cause you were bad at parenting/were still under the pretense that the biological age of adulthood is 18, expecting the tricks that worked when they were 5 to work when they're 15, and taking it personally when they do not".
I once met one who was like this- 12 years old, standard fundie-type Christian family, tracked out the ass. Had a bedtime on vacation (wtf?). We watched Dirty Harry and he didn't object over the scenes I would have expected him to get upset over were he a party-liner.
Observably, he's going to be fine. Likely, so will this one.
His long hair was plaited, and every article of clothing was not even unisex, but just straight up girl's clothing and sandals.
Remember, the specific reason those who worship LGBTesus are destructive is that they impose an adult (sexual) outlook on a child not strongly caring about which gender clothes they wear (his behavior is still male, after all). I suspect that it would have been a fight to get him into those clothes if he actually cared; merely failing to care at this age is not really a sign of malfunction.
Actively adopting the other gender's clothes for the sexual reasons that the other gender wears them at a post-sexual-awareness age... that's different. (It's also only a reliable signal of malfunction in men, since there are no male gendered clothes except maybe boxers.)
When should the State intervene?
Given how hard it has been abused against me in favor of specifically this kind of child abuser? So long as the State is unable or unwilling to punish abuse from women in the same degree it does men my answer is "never".
I rode my bike to school from 3rd grade to college. I never did stuff like that.
Yes, because you're high conscientiousness and that's all you had. That's why the average kid on a bike tends to be safer than the average adult- the former know what they have to lose, tend to be more aware of the fact they're harder to see (and are more aware of that fact than accompanying adults are, too) and that population simply has a lower proportion of retards in it due to being more representative of the general population (actually, probably slightly better than average, since the parent has to be well off enough to buy their kid a bike in the first place).
Adults on bikes, on the other hand, are there because they either can't afford a car or it's been taken away from them (DUI, etc.). Those things tend to predict bad judgment, so the average adult is more likely to doing things like riding through red lights the wrong way. The raw cost of a car (and the cost of repairing damages thereto), the fact you have an indelible identifying mark mounted to it, and the fact that the infrastructure itself works against stupidity in a way it does not for bikes tends to keep adults in cars acting in ways that aren't so blatantly suicidal.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
24d ago
is that punishment for such behavior would (hopefully) be much more frequent and fine tuned.
Well, it will be if you do it.
But man I wish we had more liberals/libertarians posting here.
Sure, but most of us aren't filtering that through 7000 levels of irony and then getting butthurt about it being perceived as pointlessly-hostile nonsense.
The problem is that [too much acknowledgement of] HBD is just as destructive to classical liberalism as it is to progressivism for reasons that should be obvious- once you start treating HBD as prescriptive rather than descriptive then there's no reason to be anything but a hardcore turbo-trad. If your political philosophy suggests society should maximize its "gain" from realizing HBD is true and immediately go full Apartheid, then you prevent those with [the characteristic that predicts poor performance] but perform well anyway from properly developing[1].
This is OK for traditionalist societies in which one Knows Their Place(tm)[2], but there's only one way to compromise such that differences are sanded down over time, and that's by giving them more freedom then their characteristics suggest in the chance that, when members of that group beat the average, we enable both a eugenic effect and more effective suggestion that the HBD-disadvantaged group better assimilates. (Whether those things have worked is an exercise for the reader- I assert that they have, that what is left at the bottom probably can't be fixed, and that it is unfortunate that they look that way but our ruthless market system will pay them what they're worth backstopped by our infinite greed above all other moral principles.)
Since the entire conceit of liberalism is that good performers who are worthy of unrestricted freedom shouldn't be held back by bad performers who are not[3] (and those negative consequences of excess freedom correctly fall on the virtueless, which is the fundamental problem trads and progs have with liberalism since charity for those people isn't mandated), we can understand it, but we can't really do anything about it other than offer our velvet glove before we give 'em the iron fist.
That does mean HBD predicts those most likely to get the iron fist are going to be [characteristic predicting poor performance], which means we can have the potential blind spot of confusing [characteristic predicting poor performance] with [poor performance], and the fact we know that means we're vulnerable to the bad-faith rent-seeking my outgroup defines itself by having the right to do because Muh Oppression or whatever.
[1] And now you know why otherwise high-potential modern teenagers and early twentysomethings are so fucked up- arresting development like this has serious group-level long-term consequences, but we pretend it's OK because "at least it's not HBD".
[2] Knowing One's Place is not unique to Traditionalists; after all, Progressives have the same stack vocabulary, they just put themselves on top of it axiomatically, where with the Traditionalists they at least have the notion (albeit as unenforceable as the liberal claim that charity will fix the problems) that those on top are to perform like they're at the top.
[3] And note that liberalism doesn't inherently conflict with HBD categories from being imposed; you can still have a liberal slave-owning society, or one with limited franchise for certain groups, and nearly every place with a tradition of liberalism has been this way at some point. This is another weakness liberals have to progressives, since progressives will argue using liberal aesthetic but will destroy all protections for high performers in the process if left unchecked.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
but not any other relevant thing
The mud test is just one of the "sacred cows" that that channel was designed to challenge- that being "AKs aren't as good as you think they are, and M16s are far better than anyone thinks they are".
That's what their 'WWSD' rifle was designed to showcase, and the myths it was designed to smash: AR-15s are the best rifle system developed to date and don't need some stupid piston to "increase reliability and fix its fundamental flaw" [actually it makes the gun less reliable and heavier], pencil barrels don't shift zero any more when hot, plastic is just fine for parts that used to be made of aluminum provided they're manufactured with that material in mind, guns don't need to weigh 11 pounds to be good, and Chinese optics really are Just As Good.
After that paradigm shift they... just petered out, and became more of a social club to support Brutality matches (which I will note have changed the competitive shooting landscape significantly). And then 2020 happened and Karl went full conservative Progressive at that point- it wasn't really apparent (IMO) until then.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
lol, whatshisface
Anyway, that's pretty much it; if there was a serious conflict I think it would have been a more immediate split. Actually, the arc of the channel is like that as well- born of match footage, they made a competition gun that nobody was really considering at the time [and single-handedly ended the AR-15 Bad Because Muh Vietnam meme], and then drifted apart.
I think that the ultimate problem with Karl is that he honestly doesn't really do very much on his own (I believe he thinks he's quite a bit smarter/more switched-on than he actually is) and is prone to flying off the handle at times; his channel took a very noticeable drop in quality after the split and hasn't recovered (there was promise, but since none of it delivered after the split I think that's a pretty clear sign the brains of the operation left). The totally-not-sponsored-sponsored-content (half the time it's the KE Arms show) sections are more technically interesting, which I think is an issue.
Karl's views match those that traditionalist gun owners (i.e. Fudds) tend to express- because progressivism is [morally speaking] just traditionalism with the valence switched (which you'd think he'd be able to figure out considering he's a Satanist, but again... what he wants to be and what he is are two different things). Ian is, far as I can tell, clearly not like that- while he can run into too-big-for-britches problems (depending on who you believe) that's relatively normal for those in his position- not like he has time to do that anyway.
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.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
21d ago
Like the incest stuff that's taken over the world for some reason.
It costs nothing for the actors to say the word "step-X", so they do. Easy to dub out, too. (I think its prevalence far outstrips those who actually have this fetish for that reason.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
28d ago
Don't take them too seriously. But the fight is real.
It's almost like negotiating these things in public isn't done for a reason or something, especially in the Internet Age.
If you understand how to deal with people that work that way (or aren't one of those people whose salary/political standing depends on you not knowing how to do that), you probably really aren't that concerned. They'll probably rapidly screw around and reach a settlement in a few months, just like the last time.
But maybe I'm weird and find that that "cutting subsidies that allow people to buy inferior electric cars pisses off rich guy whose fortune(s) lie partially in those cars" is not particularly interesting news. At least, it's not interesting yet, no consequences beyond the inevitable stock market dip.
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.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
3d ago
I disagree with his framing (and yours) that women are just tee-hee frivorce-raping hapless men with the power of the state.
Starting from egalitarianism, I would expect there's likely the same amount of abuse of both processes by their respective bad actors when each was/is the dominant mode of abuse.
And then there's the illegibility of what that being a possible outcome actually does to the average citizen's behavior under that law; men talk about it all the time, so do women. (So do responsible parents when the topic of CPS comes up- same kind of chilling effect.)
I don't think one or other gender holds a monopoly on that evil (and am not really willing to consider it, because DreadJimming/DreadJilling is inevitably where that ends up). If both are permitted, each can check the other, but more total abuse then occurs at the margins.
it's not by listening to people who, frankly, hate the other sex.
Yeah, but arbitration and spending hours trying to pass the Turing Test for the interested parties is boring, I'd much rather complain about how cokes that have had 40 penises inside them are spiritually degraded or whatever instead.
It's called "condescension".
More options
Context Copy link