ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
2d ago
they'll probably get by without really understanding
Humans are not meant to read; we learn through doing a lot of the time. Most of their education will occur outside the university system because the university system is not meant to teach (which is something nobody will really teach you, and if you're one of those people who do learn this it'll also destroy your patience with it, and that's not something you can afford to lose at that stage of your life: this is why your early twenties should not be spent in education).
I honestly kinda wonder to what extent they get what proportion of their undergrads to really grok it within the four years, or if they still have plenty of clean-up to do in grad school.
Judging by the quality of the instruction I've received from the average university professor, not even the professors actually get it. The ones that do understand it tend not to be academic-types.
These kids have basically just taken ordinary differential equations!
No, what they've taken is a week of differential equations and three months of that being obfuscated by algebra for credential reasons.
doing homeschooling successfully would be much easier than it actually is, and it would be much more common
If the parent's smart enough to educate their kid correctly with homeschool, and the kid inherited enough of that intelligence to get the benefits of having an intelligent teacher, the parent is also more likely to understand the opportunity cost of leaving their 6-figure job to do it and that private school and tutors aren't that expensive (and you can fire them if they do it badly).
So it makes sense that most homeschoolers are going to be average parents (or maybe slightly below average if they're doing it for religious reasons), teaching average children, and getting average results.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
3d ago
'Elites' are more likely to be punished for imaginary crimes (like fucking 16 and 17-year-olds) than real ones.
To a point, they have qualified/sovereign immunity from prosecution when they commit the real crimes, that's why you have to get them hard on the public morals stuff.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
3d ago
meanwhile the amplified message is "don't ever lower your standards girlie, in fact, raise them. If you can't find what you're looking for its just proof that you're too good for this world. You owe nothing to men, and their concerns don't matter."
Of course, this is women sabotaging women.
When do we admit the current advice is insufficient?
We will admit it by means of, or coincident with, a concerted effort from women such that women's tears stop winning in the marketplace of ideas. Men can't do that alone; this is a problem women have to solve for women.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
4d ago
"Leftists don't want to emancipate women because they don't see the necessary connection between biology and womanhood!"
Leftist women don't want to emancipate women because they do see the necessary connection between gender and privilege brought on by scarcity.
Going all the way would remove that, and they have a pretty good thing going (this is why I see this kind of 'leftism' as a fundamentally conservative privilege-preserving movement at society's general expense).
The problem with freeing and protecting women from men is that you must also free and protect women from women. And until the women who want freedom understand the actual threat (and the women worthy of freedom do understand this; the propaganda about men being the real evil exists specifically to confuse these women about this issue, it's not actually intended for men) they'll make no progress in that area.
The more clear-headed I think just don't think that the actions needed to stop the boats, and the fight with the blob that it would require, are worth it.
This requires indigenous young men to go out and shoot the people on the boats. They'll stop coming once they know it's a death sentence.
Europe isn't capable of doing that; its old men, old women, and (to an extent) its young women are all in agreement that indigenous young men should be replaced for [whatever reason]. They'll do anything to avoid raising their station in life because they believe they'll revolt as soon as it does, which is not an unreasonable thing to fear given that's when regime change generally happens.
(Well, Eastern Europe still can, but Eastern Europe is poor enough that the migrants won't stay in the country anyway, so it realistically still falls to the Western Europeans to start stacking bodies if they don't want to be invaded.)
And they may think that they are owed, but that they don't owe. It's exploitation by them.
Which is the ultimate failure of communitarianism and social contract theory: this is inevitable, and there's never any opportunity for redress when (not if) this occurs.
Liberalism attempts/attempted to solve this by placing hard legal limits on what that community is and is not allowed to require- that is why 'Congress shall make no law', and it's why your neighbors aren't allowed to disarm you, and it's why the community can't quarter its army in your house, and it's why the courts must presume innocence and not hold you indefinitely, and it's why you get the benefit of the doubt in questions of search and seizure.
That is why places that are a lot more ossified and conservative- who prefer their communities to be more exploitative because they hate their neighbors' ability to do things that are new and scary (like European and other New World nations) until it's profitable [and now those communities want their cut for "providing the environment in which it can exist" or some nonsense like that]- have pretend constitutions that protect nothing.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
5d ago
basically everyone here was really a progressive?
And my extension to that is that everyone here is a traditionalist, and the only real difference between traditionalists and progressives (in terms of moral foundations and what otherwise motivates them to hold those views) to someone who is neither of those things is "about 50 years". Yes, progressives seem iconoclastic and style themselves on hatred of traditionalists, but in reality they converge on the same solutions via different ideological lenses.
(For example, traditionalists would have seduction punished because it devalues the father's property, progressives would have seduction punished because it devalues the mother [and her ability to attract men]- both see this as bad, both have the same motivations, it's just that one couches it through androsupremacy and the other through gynosupremacy).
The death of the word 'liberal' as a meaningful term had consequences.
Western society has been on a media diet of near-constant agitprop over at least the last 100 years equating 17 year olds with 7 year olds, and most people unironically believe it, including said 17 year olds.
Why on Earth would we start drawing the distinction now, especially when the delightful moral treat of getting to call public figures pedophiles presents itself (or at least, presents itself to a media who knows its audience has been sufficiently mindkilled to parrot it uncritically)?
More options
Context Copy link