ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
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.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
3d ago
and we insist on making this a moral issue
True, but remember what this is actually litigating. Because the worth of woman-as-class (statistical aggregate and instinctual behavior, not a value judgment) is specifically beauty, this is an attempt to make it so that women who provide much beauty and those who have little are equalized in political power. That's the moral [redistributionist, communist, equality, "equity"] angle.
This is why it's most salient for the ugliest ones, and why the ugliest women tend to be the most feminist- they have the most to lose. (Of course, the ultimate extension/expression of the power to equalize this is demonstrated by the ability to force other women to treat men-dressed-as-women as women, including when it comes to dating, which is why you only hear about this in women's spaces, never men's.)
It's not actually about men-as-class here other than the inescapable fact that they are the arbiters of who is beautiful and who is not (in the same way women are for success in men). Women must solve this for women.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
3d ago
This is a costly chimpout for the rest of us.
I think the term is "vae victis".
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5d ago
Remember that you're talking about the Groupie Generation here. They're '70s people. And House is kind of peak liberal (as in, not progressive) media anyway so it's natural that people who aren't tied into knots about the fact sex exists are going to treat hangups about that as a punchline.
The gynosupremacist "every female teenager who has sex was raped" angle ramped up later, in the '80s.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5d ago
services such as AOL, Genie, Compu$erve, Fidonet, and standalone dialup BBSs
These still required specialist knowledge, and specialist equipment, to actually use (AOL did try their best though). The technology became refined enough for general use in the late '90s; graduation from dial-up to dedicated always-connected hardware helped with that especially in the pre-cellphone days.
Academia was a few years ahead of that in terms of having those kinds of networks ahead of time, of course.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5d ago
Why is prejudice based on sex tolerable, but prejudice based on race & religion, not?
What made you come up with that observation?
Prejudice based on race and religion is not only accepted, but encouraged.
This is downstream of (I'd argue a direct result of) prejudice based on sex, which is accepted even more than prejudice on race or religion.
And that's just downstream of the fact that Cain's rights and responsibilities are fundamentally different than Abel's- so whenever you have an easily-divisible dichotomy where one side is lesser than the other, that dynamic re-emerges. Man vs. woman maps onto that pretty well (especially in the age of mechanization, and especially if Abel isn't paying attention to the downstream social effects), as does white vs. other and Christian vs. other to lesser degrees.
The Abel side has to pay attention in a way the Cain side does not. Abel doesn't need an in-group bias because he'll generally succeed wherever he goes (and developing one would be corrosive to Abel-ness); but in-group membership is life or death for Cain.
Ironically, encouraging the side of a population perceived as more likely to contain Abels to develop that in-group bias is the main thing that would destroy that perception, but the problem is only an Abel could do that.
Not as much as you think, because transing kids is just a logical extension of what the state's actually backing, that being feminism (or to be more precise, gynosupremacy).
In fact, I'd go so far to say that 'gynosupremacy with self-identification' is technically better than the alternative for those who suffer under it, though whether the people most likely to take that opportunity deserve to benefit is another question (I think the typical term for that is "poor sportsmanship").
Telling them to pull back on the corruption there isn't going to solve the underlying cause, but it would be enough for progressive-driving-the-speed-limit-style conservatives.
The internet was not, in fact, invented just in time for the millennials
Oh no, of course not. Gen X is 45-60 now; millennials are 30-45. The Internet graduated from being the domain of the specialist to general usefulness in the late '90s, so "just in time for" is still broadly accurate. At that point, Gen X was half past 35, so per Douglas Adams the Internet is still against the natural order of things for a lot of them, where for Gen Y it is not.
The Greater Eternal September came about coincident with the advent of the mobile VT-100, most commonly known as the "iPhone", but that's more a Gen Z thing. (Gen Alpha's major technological advancement is AI; they have the most to lose from Gen X caprice, as they're actively in its crosshairs.)
Actually, a good chunk of millennials aren't digital natives either, but in 30 years most of what Gen X is about to impose will likely start to lose significant ground. Most of the younger generations know "but teh pedos" is a Gen X thing anyway (outside of the conservatives among them that just copy whatever Gen X does, much like how millennials did with Boomer thought [particularly 2nd wave feminism]), or are at least in a better position to see it as bullshit as they grow up.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5d ago
Many of the self described feminist, and many leftist i ran into quite literally believe this.
Yes, but I'm not sure what information you get by noticing that, other than "people believe what is obviously self-serving/in their sociofinancial interest to believe". Which is true for everyone, including classical liberals.
Can be used to argue for gendered treatment of individuals
No, it's avoided because it provides an alternative (or rather, the logical/unselfish conclusion) to "feminine neutral vs. conservative masculine" sense of "gendered" treatment (since at present, we only have non-gendered treatment in the 'in its majestic equality, the law bars men and women alike from acting like men' sense).
This will be the real travesty of Epsteingate IMO.
Evil women gonna evil woman, what else is new?
we might be looking at the most draconian assaults on ordinary people's civil liberties and digital lives since the Patriot Act.
This is also just the natural result of Gen X aging into the Moral Majority position. They're not digital natives, which is part of why their approach is largely Boomer 2.0. Remember that a good chunk of them came of age in the peak Pedophile Panic years, so this being one of Their Issues should probably be expected.
Liberals can likely beat them, just like the Boomers were beaten last time (and 1A code-is-speech + most Internet business located in the US + current administration unfriendly to blatant foreign attempts to assert extraterritorial sovereignty helps with this), but the technological conditions may not be as favorable this time around for the freedom side due to (among other things) long-established better alternatives and an increased amount of centralization, especially considering what apps are permitted to run on which devices. And trivial inconveniences aren't.
Maybe you are just genuinely disillusioned and don't want to believe your favourite leaders and intellectuals are evil but, if not child sex trafficking, what will get you to rescind your support for them?
I can accept this form of "abuse" more than the kind of abuse evil women administer, with polite society's permission, daily. At least we can harden targets against this, but nobody would dare cross a teacher transing their kid, let alone give them the Adolescence treatment that behavior actually deserves. (Not that that series was anything other than woman-approved child pornography anyway.)
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.
More options
Context Copy link