@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

The tds allegers are onto something that we find it hard to see past our antipathy.

That's because you're [now] a conservative, and furthermore, Trump has solidified what the reform movement that actually has a chance of damaging your conservatism is going to look like. I am not really a conservative (or rather, what modern conservatism is right now does not advantage me), and as such have had the exact opposite gut level feeling about Trump for the last 10-ish years. If neoreform wins, I'll likely become a conservative then.

I'm not particularly pleased with the Iran situation given that strikes at a rift in the current neoreform coalition- that being the late-'70s people who just have psychological problems with the Parthians vs. the early-'00s people who spent the past 20 years in that exact same low-level Middle Eastern ego trip warfare that seems to be threatened now.

But I would want the slave-importers punished, I want the slave importation (and offshoring) stopped because it undercuts my wages, I want the socially-accepted answer to "but it's social justice to accept that" to stop being "yes dear/ma'am" like [the '70s progressive-sympathetic liberals] currently do, and I want the current crop of conservatives out of power because they're more interested in DIE-ing than actual results (and will punish anyone who delivers results yet refuses to do so in a DIE manner). They also mishandled the common cold and did a Middle Eastern War's level of economic damage simply because they were angry neoreformers had a better conception of the risks (which cost about as much as the 20 year Middle East war did).

Those things are as offensive to me as Trump is to you, and like the so-called progressives before me I tolerate what takes me no effort to tolerate while offloading the emotional turmoil it causes onto you.

they think this reaction is pathological and not based on anything substantial, whereas we think it's soundly justified by a wide range of facts and life experiences

And that's just how conservatives work. I get that the progressives/"liberals" (as they call themselves) have kind of built a strawman around the term for reasons that have a lot to do with the 1960s and 70s (the people that came of age then are currently at the height of their political power, so naturally the lens through which they see the world dominates), but you have to realize that "I don't want to do it because I don't like it aesthetically, and I'm going to dig my heels in no matter what" is not a meme about conservatives for no reason.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree here, provided you have the right (meta) frame of reference.

In this case, witness the results of genetics predicting a higher likelihood of "latching hard onto the dominant counter-cultural-but-actually-not-really social issue of the day and holding onto it throughout the rest of one's life".

In the '70s, that narrative was white supremacy; in the modern day (late '10s), that narrative is gyno/trans supremacy.

and his progressive/lib bias overshadows the history in videos like Reform or Revolution? 1830 to 1832.

I honestly found the last part of that video particularly funny, as it's his side (progressive/the current Establishment) that has been standing in the way and blocking elections from being won/any reform from occurring.

I doubt he'd've condemned it if he understood the full implication, but most progressives are invested in not understanding that, which is why they still call themselves "liberals".

Apparently, it's a shooter game resembling paintball, where squids (or kids, it's ambiguous) battle.

They spray brightly-colored ink at each other until the loser violently explodes. The object of the game is usually to paint the floor, but can be other things.

Wow, those graphs are physically difficult to parse- in fact I'd actually say they're actively harmful to a proper understanding of the data. A "plain reading" (at least to me) of that data suggests 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 12 boys have been sexually penetrated in an unwanted manner before the age of 12, which isn't passing the sniff test given, if I remember correctly, prevalence of sexual contact by 12 is about 5%, or 1 in 20. So I doubt I'm reading the graph correctly, but there's no way to derive the total context or get a scale of the proportions involved relative to all respondents.

Being sexually assaulted causes people to become non-cis

I think this is ignoring the obvious-to-me confounder that becoming non-cis can cause them to become a victim of sexual assault [or reinterpret themselves as such] where they hadn't necessarily considered themselves as such before. This can also happen to cisgendered people, and women more than men for reasons that have to do with an asymmetric biological incentive to claim abuse for social or financial stability or gain (it's very popular to do this and makes headlines when it happens re: #MeToo, also, internal narratives matter to people re: 2rafa's comment below).

If you grow up poor or insecure or to young parents or female you become anxious and depressed, which leads you to be more likely to suffer sexual assault

Well, no, if you grew up poor, 2 things are likely true for kid-you:

  • Your peers, especially the adult ones, are more likely than average to have poorer than average impulse control (or "high time preference", for short)
  • Less stability means less trust in institutions, and less of a chance you try and 'rock the boat' (and give in to something you perhaps don't want to, or let it go further than you'd like)

Which means you're more likely to be "propositioned", and less likely to feel you have the power to pull back before it happens, and apparently this decreases monotonically by wealth level (outside of the 'elite' answers, whose error bars are very large- though I can believe this becomes truer for elite children simply because the chance for catastrophe in that scenario becomes large/taking 'no' for an answer and being driven enough to take risk kind of selects you out of the 'elite' group, obviously).

Also, and perhaps most importantly, we don't actually hear the first question: what's abuse? The analysis buries "indicates that they might be the most enthusiastic participants" in there, which suggests the question of "abuse" wasn't worded properly (i.e. in the legal sense, not the objective 'it was unwanted' sense- and I'd expect a survey designer who claims to value childhood autonomy to know better), which is a massive deal, especially when it comes to drawing conclusions on the last question.


Perhaps the second set of data will be more illuminating, though I'm not holding my breath on this one. If the base question/premise is bad, the analysis won't get better.

normielib friends who seem to have lots of latent violent cruel nationalism suddenly unlocked

Jingoism is the natural state of society. We forget this because it hasn't happened for a long time, but the latent-violent-cruel-nationalism is very much alive in Western countries, typically by the 65+ crowd. It's usually accompanied by some slogan related to a stereotypical national past-time, perhaps "elbows up", and lots of said crowd claiming they'd be more than happy to pick up a weapon.

It was radicalizing to see it happen in real time, even among those who nominally aren't particularly interested in even having a military; should these people get the violent conflict for which they were agitating, it wouldn't be them on the front lines.

Maybe it was a bad breakup. Former boyfriend is now pissed-off and is threatening them that unless they get back together, all their intimate photos and videos will be shared with everyone. Or maybe former boyfriend skips the threats and goes straight to uploading this on porn websites etc.

And this is different than the general blackmail case... how, exactly (especially in the AI context)?

We already have laws to deal with this case (and in the cases where we've chosen not to have them/are prohibited from doing so, we've already made the tradeoff). You don't need another law like that, or at least, you wouldn't if this was actually about protecting people from harm and not just a case of

In other words, invoking "consent" is the one-word fig leaf to cover up the fact women are blatantly abusing privileges meant for the people they claim are the most vulnerable, and to claim that if you're opposed to this abuse it's because you want 7 year olds to be raped. It's quite effective, as you can see.

which is perhaps why you did exactly that in the first edit.

Or would it just be more "women are sluts who need their sexual autonomy removed and to be controlled by fathers and husbands the State" fuel for the fire?

Given my assertion is "that's exactly what women themselves are agitating for here"? Of course, it's not really "controlled"- it's always legal for women to have sex for reasons that have a bunch to do with an echo of '70s sexual liberalism- it's just permanently illegal for men to participate in any way

First it was just sex itself, then it was sex-adjacent activities, now it's pictures (real or otherwise) of it. Salami-slicing.

I have to exert considerable resources to change that.

And yet so far you've failed to do so.

Of course, "maybe try a different approach, here's why" (rather than getting glazed for your efforts) may understandably be offensive to someone used to sending their problems to their room if their first pass doesn't work. But hey, at least I don't have to live with the consequences of that.

He's repeatedly had trouble just sticking to the course

Yeah, I totally can't imagine any other reason, at all, why that would be. How could "boring and pointless bullshit" [from the victim's point of view- if this was interesting, you wouldn't be having this problem] ever lose to some readily-available distraction? This sort of thing has been stumping parents since time immemorial.

Perhaps not setting appropriate metrics is the actual problem? When I tend to procrastinate and go down a YouTube rabbit hole (or, y'know, write comments on the Motte) it's because either the time I have to complete a particular task is far longer than it's actually going to take (especially if I don't want to do it for some reason), or everyone's agreed it doesn't matter and I'm rationally deprioritizing tasks nobody cares about for stuff that's actually important (even if it's just important to me).

This is especially true when it's a parent ordering their kid to do something they really don't have much experience in themselves, so they have no idea how to set goals/metrics, meaningfully check in, or motivate progress (or have no idea that they even need to be doing those things). Which means that the task of figuring that out now falls to the subordinate, and if that subordinate isn't particularly motivated to do it, you're going to get some, uh, interesting answers.

Organically, I notice that others trying to learn songs will tend to set goals based around practice times- have this song/technique memorized in X practices from now- and the timetable imposes itself intrinsically based on how long that process actually takes. Some take a long time, some do not, but the key there is that if it doesn't get done, the next conversation tends to be "well, then what the fuck were you even doing, scrolling through Shorts for 8 hours?". Figuring out how long something's going to take is a skill that needs to be practiced too. (So's justifying it, for that matter.)

Also, here's your obligatory "trying to use tech to solve a people problem". Besides, what do you think's going to happen if you manage to accomplish your goal? I bet your answer isn't "they stare blankly at the wall for most of the allotted practice time", but I have first-hand experience in employing exactly that strategy in the Before Tech times, and they'll likely do it to you.

That's because "consent" actually means "waives Female Privilege to profit from sex after the fact", not "accedes to".

Women cannot legally consent to sex (or any sex-adjacent activity, actually- 'revenge porn' is yet more salami-slicing away of that ability) today in any Western nation (the US is, perhaps ironically, the least far down that path- but it is still criminal). South Park made fun of this with the consent forms, but the fact that wouldn't hold up in court is actually the main issue here.

Sex with them is thus as potentially legally dangerous as it would be with a 7 year old- the group "consent" was made up to initially protect. We can see this by how laws tend to get changed so the man can't protect himself by demonstrating in court the women intended to discharge this and lied after the fact (i.e. the Jian Ghomeshi case). It's also why Western/feminist anti-prostitution laws only criminalize buying sex, not selling it.

In other words, invoking "consent" is the one-word fig leaf to cover up the fact women are blatantly abusing privileges meant for the people they claim are the most vulnerable, and to claim that if you're opposed to this abuse it's because you want 7 year olds to be raped. It's quite effective, as you can see.