ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1hr ago
You're still agreeing that this is a real phenomena just putting it into a different box.
No, the point of doing that is because people who say they have it are usually using it as an excuse to be destructive, and the cost of making a Type I error here is nothing compared to what you'll spend if you make a Type II error here instead and give a bunch of wicked people carte blanche to just make up self-serving nonsense at everyone else's expense (otherwise known as "sufferers of Cluster B disorders").
Naturally, this has a huge selection bias, where people who are just making shit up are overwhelmingly more likely to talk about it, especially if society is currently biased towards making Type II errors in their direction. The word "religious sacrifice" was generally used to refer to this when society contextualized its desires using that lens, which is why people with an inkling of this tend to class atheism and woke as religions (because of the way they justify the benefits of intentionally making those particular Type II errors).
And even then, there are people who can use this 'condition' productively, and there are those who can not. Again, in conditions of societal oversupply [which people without the condition are relatively adept at noticing, at least on a group level] it can be a reasonable strategy to over-reject people on the grounds that they're destructive with that power, or that they don't have enough of the power to actually be worth fully utilizing them.
Much like with words related to gender identity and sexuality, and potentially for the exact same reason, the terms the wise (or more precisely, those who have this condition, or at least those who are fully capable of understanding what it is and how it works) use to talk to each other are dangerous to everyone else when they inevitably fall into the wrong hands.
A big part of having this condition is knowing when, when not, and how to talk about advanced topics to co-sufferers.
Feminism is redistributionist at its core, though. It just looks really weird because men don't understand women, and understanding women takes way more words to write down. They have a 200,000 year head start on their complexity and selection pressure has been high with respect to hiding their resource-extraction behaviors from the gender that most often takes the time to seriously analyze this sort of thing.
Redistribution looks like traditional communism when men do it because their biological specialization [and inherent worth] is based on labor (so equality of outcome means a good laborer and a bad laborer receive the same economic capital). When your biological specialization is something else, the character of redistributing what that is will be entirely different (perhaps one where equality of outcome means a pretty woman and an ugly woman receive the same social capital- efforts to establish equality of outcome won't focus on labor, or if it does it's just a side effect of technology-enabled gender equality).
Only in the sense that Marx (as far as I can gather; I haven't taken the time to properly read his work) is pointing at (intentionally or not) what the wiser Christian communities were doing at the time. And neither of those approaches scale, for the same reasons- they don't account for the wicked.
More options
Context Copy link