@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Tomboy miscegenation

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC 

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Tomboy miscegenation

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 3 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Because this process takes like 10 years and we'd like to hurry up so they aren't denied the objectively best years of their life?  (Note that this also applies to every other college degree.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Men and women currently have legal equality in the United States.


They pretty clearly don't have legal equity, though.  I believe the feminists/progressives are correct when they say this matters; where they're wrong is that they have excess privilege and will on balance be more oppressed than men if it was to be equalized.  (Which is why they're not exactly in a hurry.)


Equality was supposed to be a stepping stone to equity, and the liberals were correct that it would [and did] help in that regard, but it's gone as far as it realistically can and other solutions are now needed.  Strict egalitarianism was perhaps OK in the early-mid 20th century, but in the 21st now leads to destructive nonsense, like forcing women to permit men to compete in women's sports so long as they claim to be female, institutional sexism (gender quotas, etc.) in companies, moral hazard enabled by human instinct to value women more than men, etc., which helps nobody, intentionally frustrates your high performers, and weakens the social contract for everyone else.


So no, I don't think strict legal equality is desirable any more.  I think women need to be punished for hysteria just as much as men do for violence as hysteria is their biological way of marshaling violence (we punish those who hire hitmen in equal measure as the hitmen themselves for this reason), and that human dignity must be balanced against pure safety concerns when drafting laws (for in its majestic equality, the law prevents both men and women from activities and socialization preferred by men).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure, but who's going to hold them accountable if they don't do it?


(The current answer is "nobody, and if men themselves try it, they'll just get oppressed and blood-libelled even harder for it", and it shows.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				My Willing Complicity in "Human Rights Abuse"
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I agree with your assessment of feminists unionizing to increase its market value, but think that this makes them just as bad as the dudebros who want to minimize its market value.




Ok, now apply that to all work (assuming sex is just a special type).  So, arguments rephrased, we'd see




Being forced to work with someone who doesn't want to work with you in exchange for resources dilutes, destroys, and delegitimizes the value of [whatever goal you had, prosocial or otherwise].  This is related to the job-hopping crisis as well (where employees don't stay around long enough to accumulate appropriate experience, and employers don't bother training or retaining employees).




and




Workforces are free, open, impersonal, interchangeable. Projects are not. You can't funge progress in one project for progress in another. Not if you want to ever do anything difficult or of actual consequence.




which seem pretty correct to me.






I look at all the people angry about gender issues, and see that almost all of their problems wouldn't have happened a hundred years ago.




100 years ago, feminism was at its political zenith, so I don't think this is true at all.  200 years ago, perhaps.




Relationships shouldn't be treated as markets of exchange.




Nobody knows how to properly calibrate to the opportunity cost of switching (and setting it to 'infinite', which is the traditional solution, has some pretty trivial abuse paths- that's how you get death-by-overwork on one end and work-to-rule on the other), and nobody wants [or knows how] to invest especially when losing your shirt is a possibility that you don't have to submit to any more.






I don't see how you can look at the modern dating market and go "this is basically fine, nothing needs to change".




Don't confuse my observation of 'is' for 'ought'.  Actually, I think most of the problems arise from the participants in the modern dating market failing to assess their value accurately, but the alternative to that- which is that they know exactly what price they merit and why- might be even worse off for "well, guess I won't even bother trying to raise that value" reasons.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


is to give them a hard, confusing, self-contradictory problem and then see which ones figure out the answer.




Sure, but instinct doesn't self-moderate in the presence of better alternatives, which is why a good chunk of [modern] men can now go "you're not worth it, go fuck yourself" to women (and society as a whole, for that matter).  It's not necessarily a positive thing, but it is a necessary part of the process.


Just as fathers failed their daughters in the '50s and '60s by giving them outdated self-sabotaging advice (the "never make anything of yourself, just marry well" one that feminists complain about), mothers fail their sons now in the same way (the "respect women and make yourself as unattractive as possible" stuff).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But all men, including her dad, need to feel shame for the choices of those 15 year olds.




It's called "internalized misandry".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				My Willing Complicity in "Human Rights Abuse"
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You don't believe that sex is labor. Not really.




The baseline reality of a sexually dimorphic species is quite literally just this.  I've talked about this before, and you know that.

We can pretty it up with a bunch of things- something about "inherent dignity" or whatever (which can be valid, if you can command enough violence to enforce it)- but at the end of the day this is the condition.




Because then a rapist isn't a violator of a woman's chastity, but merely a robber of a stranger sort.




Robbery is the main crime, but rape also generally involves a bunch of other more interesting types of robbery (assault and unlawful confinement being the usual two, but there are others).  Those things also come with significant costs that push the cost of that action far beyond the 300-600 dollars a naive assessment would suggest.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
First one's always free.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Apparently, we didn’t realize hijackings could be suicidal.




You don't need the TSA precisely because, since 2001, every passenger has had it drilled into them they're the last line of defense and that if you let a hijacking go, you're going to die.  This isn't the '70s or '80s where hijackers were annoying but mostly harmless- it is that kind of population that needs the TSA, not the modern one where everyone knows they're an existential threat.


If you're going to die in an intentional plane crash at any time past that point, it's because the plane hijacked itself pilot did it on purpose, and the locked door kept the passengers out until it was too late.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				My Willing Complicity in "Human Rights Abuse"
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This is exploitative because it forces people to perform actions they shouldn't be forced to perform.




I_consent_I_consent_I_dont.jpg




Meanwhile, the exchange of labor for money is inherent to... reality.




Sex is labor, usually performed in exchange for vital resources (modern welfare states excepted).  Even the feminists acknowledge this, though considering feminism is in a very literal sense a union of the dedicated sex-laborer gender, and a cartel interested in driving the price of that sex as high as possible (and your "shouldn't" happens to be one of their slogans), I'm not sure how much credit they deserve for pointing that out.




but this is fundamentally different from saying exchanging labor for money is inherently exploitative




No it isn't, per the above.




Unless the argument is that labor itself is inherently demeaning and degrading, in which case Marx just has an irreconcilable problem with reality itself




No further comment.




that by all rights ought




Who "ought" decide that?  You can say "the community", but there's nothing that backs that up outside of its members' capacity for violence in the service of reaching a consensus.  Which is kind of just how socialism works.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


corruption refers to a specific set of practices, many if which are illegal and most of which violate ethics rules




No, corruption is the idea that your personal goals are so important that you're willing to break the law to accomplish them.  Antifa, therefore, is simply corruption by another name.




and holding certain opinions isn't illegal




It isn't illegal to be a member of the Mafia either, but they're never punished for that; they're punished for the evil, corrupt actions that naturally arise from that idea taken to its logical conclusion.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


'There can't be any "members" of Antifa. It's just an idea, not an organization, bro.'




"Corruption" is just an idea too; that doesn't stop us from punishing those who advance its cause.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Man I always complete forget that the Zumwalt exists




Yeah, it's a stealth ship, that's how it works.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But that gets too close to the truth of the matter: illegals are an invading army, and they were actively aided in their invasion of the US by the people in power at the time, English Civil War-style.  (Which is why the domestics responded, correctly, by voting for the guy who promised to send his army after them.)


That the foreign soldiers should be treated differently than the domestic soldiers (Blue's other pet demographics, as they carry out the violence they wish they were doing to those with something to lose) would just be too much, because it would open the door to using it on other useful-to-Blue demographics (or "racism" for short).  It's also not something you can really turn against Reform as easily, because Establishment benefits disproportionately from the ability to make the process the punishment- that's not something you could do if you have the right to a speedy trial a more efficient tribunal system, and certainty of being punished for bad laws speed-camera-style generally results in an stronger impulse from the population to reform them.