ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2d ago
the trans monoculture is especially susceptible to globohomo
"Give more privileges to the trans monoculture" is currently well-understood to be a conservative-as-in-50-Stalins movement (reformers don't really like it that much) and its adherents can claim to be oppressed and hated if they don't win, much like how back in the '80s the conservatives at the time could reasonably claim rolling back religious rights was a direct attack on Christians.
Consider also that de Tocqueville's statement about revolution only happening when things are improving also applies on a personal level to suicidal [including the running amok kind] behavior- when anti-depressants precipitate suicidal behavior, it's because the sufferer finally has the energy (which leads to collecting other resources) to finally carry out their plan (and is, I believe, why people who have experienced this tend to say "don't go for a permanent solution to a temporary problem").
In this case, we have an angry Moralistic/conservative man who Feels Oppressed, is getting better now that he actually has a support group, and decides it's time to accomplish the support group's stated goals and commit suicide for The Cause at the same time (it takes time for your life to start to matter; young men (13+) perceive, generally [and for society at large, shamefully] correctly, that theirs doesn't so big flashy statements like this are more attractive to them).
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2d ago
Making it up in their heads based on attempted mindreading
Yeah, because women would never try to do that, especially when men are concerned.
Men, despite their actual statements and their observed behavior, are secretly all hateful towards women and actually dislike them very much.
Well, we could turn that around and say
Women, despite their actual statements and their observed behavior, are secretly all loving towards men and actually like them very much.
which I think is closer to the truth of the matter but it's inconvenient for both parties. That whole "seriously but not literally" thing comes to mind... but then the [comparatively rarer] women who don't work like that achieve power -> an audience because they don't work like that, then start telling the more traditional women that not being treated [as a fellow man would be] is bad, who then believe it and enter a state of confusion where they don't actually want to be treated that way but insist on it anyway because femininity is, like, weakness or whatever.
(Of course, because that's been the room temperature for the last 100 years, most of the literature about this is just, like, really bad, and as we can see from what passed for psychology in the late 1800s [and earlier] we were just as stupid then as we are now so it's not like you can even go back to the past for answers.)
Meanwhile we can see many womens' negative feelings towards men demonstrated constantly in their easily observed behavior.
You know, it's almost like that negging thing is fundamentally uncomfortable to women [the kind it doesn't work on] more because they know it's the thing their gender does to men. A trans-gender behavior where the man's adopting what the woman sees as a female behavior.
We can't talk to each other honestly because some of us don't even work like that and especially post-feminism it's all case-by-case for people who aren't used to that. The pronoun discourse is perhaps instructive about this matter.
If I was of a group that had barely any ancestors [particularly, of my gender] that did anything interesting, it's only natural I'd be tearing down the notion anyone should be proud of that too, least of all the people closest to me (i.e. men) whose ancestors actually did do anything interesting.
I would also be incredibly concerned about the fact that the technological developments that even allow me to feel this way in the first place were also nearly exclusively developed by those ancestors. I would claim that the reason why my ancestors have no achievements is out of malice, and make sure the dominant pretense in society is that my gender (in aggregate) is just as capable- because if those guys organized (in the way my gender does instinctively), they would shut me out again.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
4d ago
True, but sufficiently advanced risk-taking is indistinguishable from suicide.
This is most apparent in war zones; as the designated war gender, men are a bit more instinctively accepting of this.
Rather than judge the emotion, we should judge the reaction to them
Perhaps, but some emotions are very easy to judge this way (anger leading to violence), and some emotions are very difficult to judge this way (fear leading to sabotage).
It's extraordinarily difficult to judge sabotage, both in that it happened, as well as what impact it actually had. And some forms of sabotage are known by other names, like "prudent business practice" or "protecting women and girls", where society at large can't even decide what is/isn't, and that's not even getting into the associated moral hazards from each group that would benefit from the laws against that kind of sabotage being stricter or looser. Oh yeah, and some elements of sabotage are personally profitable for whoever's doing them, and some people care less or more about that, and...
and we can generate emotions too to some extent
True, but see above, so the saboteurs are far more likely to get away with failing to control themselves. It's pretty easy to judge people who generate within themselves anger and then go out and get in a fight (hard to hide bruises or broken limbs). It's very hard to judge people who generate within themselves anger (or fear) and then go out and sabotage their domestic enemy with -ism or drowning them in an ocean of what-if. There's just no hard evidence that [progressives and the emotions they're responsible for] are harmful in any way, and since our system is set up for benefit-of-the-doubt, you can't catch them without going full RICO (which, it's worth noting, is exactly how laws mandating discrimination already work against their targets: a progressive would argue that law discriminates against Italians and be correct).
It is very likely that a panopticon society would be capable of prosecuting this, but the nature of/reasons such a society arises means it could only ever target the innocent. Ancient societies squared the circle by pre-emptively convicting [the gender of person more likely to cause sabotage by emotion] of that sabotage and limiting their opportunities to do that, but that filter punished most those who could control their emotions (and if we're going by contribution to economy, men and women are pretty equal in an age of automation so a more granular system is needed anyway).
but they've messed up the scale of the matter pretty badly
Difficult to get a wo/man to understand something when her/his salary depends on her/him not understanding it.
That was pure oppression pornography perpetrated by those who know in their hearts they deserve to get stabbed to death by spurned teenagers, though.
Or perhaps more charitably, they're rationally afraid of the only force that could actually hold them to account for what they have done at that group's expense.
More options
Context Copy link