ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
10hr ago
I hope we are not reaching a point where anything feminine, cute, or pretty is immediately seen as sexy.
No, you're only seeing the connection drawn here because:
a.) angry women on the Internet want to Problematize it and equate "men getting to interact with the cute/feminine" = "pedophilia [as the most effective proxy for 'offensive to Female Privilege']"
b.) angry men on the Internet actually did see it as sexy and are crimestop-ing, or are just simping/pretending to for the benefit of the aformentioned angry women
But it seems like an unfortunate side effect of internet memes that anything that can be sexualised will be
Well, it sure beats only one gender having the privilege to determine what is sexual and what is not. That way lies your "don't worry we won't tell your folks; when you're at school, you're a girl"s.
Or, to paraphrase:
Sarah Miller: I wasn't attracted to this, and she is kind of homely. I'm not attracted to butch haircuts or neotenous features, so that means nobody else would ever be either. By the way, I did not get along with the girls when I was in elementary school.
Diana: I was attracted to this, and that made me uncomfortable. This means other people will be attracted to this temptress too, and that's a thoughtcrime and bad. This is especially funny because of where I'm posting this opinion. Anyway, I think pedophiles would choose this one, 100%, even though I just got done explaining about how this looks nothing like an actual kid.
(This is mainly because I don't actually think "pedophilia" has anything to do with actual kids, and is more about policing men around young women, which my mind tells me this is; obviously this here is an attempt to get around that.)
This isn't really that difficult to understand.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
14hr ago
robbing it of what is supposed to be attractive to a pedo, come to think of it, defeating the point?
Yes, trivially.
However, adult features (and behaviors) on children are what the average person thinks pedos like (re: Cuties, etc.), so they get set off on child beauty pageantry, etc.
Of course, how would said average person ever encounter someone who would point that out, given the room temperature around the topic is so hysterical it [approves of] calling the cops on men out with their daughters?
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
16hr ago
I'll take "telling on myself" for 500, Alex.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
16hr ago
she's wearing her long hair down, there's this weird contrast between her massive coat and bare legs and feet
Ah yes, she has bare ankles and a coat that's too big for her. How scandalous.
This is just angry women complaining that a young female character doesn't hate the male protagonist, and toxic females wanting to appropriate hobbies and cordon them off for men (everything these types complain about is projection). That's all.
I would have expected more hysteria over the DLC costumes; there's one that's quite a bit more form-fitting (and her hair is tied up and shortened) and as such maps closer to what pedophilia is in the mind of the typical normie.
As for the uoh-posting... the SMM is doing their job well. It's not like that isn't a target audience for the game, and "give people a slightly-edgy meme/emoji to spam in chat and thus annoy streamers on Twitch" is advertising as valuable as any other (perhaps moreso).
But the game isn't really trying to push "you should be sexually attracted to this character", far as I can tell. Of course, I've been busy catching up with my other backlog of games so I haven't had time to sit down and evaluate how cute and/or funny the android actually is yet.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
1d ago
Scattered thoughts:
Their submission fantasies are actually a means of separating themselves from their sexual desires, which they believe they aren't worthy to fulfill. Submission becomes a sublimation of the sexual into the enjoyment of denial.
Oh no, I fully believe I'm worthy to fulfill them. But that statement also disqualifies me from being a sub. Rather than the "I may not be able to please a woman, but I can watch and faciliate as she is pleased by another man" sense, it's the power to know that happening doesn't actually matter, not the pain of knowing that it does (re: the chad 'swinger' vs. the virgin 'cuckold'). Which is why allowing the realization to happen (on either side) destroys relationships if provoked.
But if your schema of the world tells you that you're unlovable and unfuckable, sexually worthless, then being humiliated by a woman is at least something, some kind of involvement with her, and that's better than nothing.
Or the "or you want the release of anxiety from having fucked up and being ‘free’ of that" dynamic is in effect on the male side, but that's just the "had a bad day at work so the woman initiates even though he's not on it today" kind of femdom. Not necessarily a central example of such though.
And of course, the biggest portion of #3 is dominatrixes/'findom' 🙄 where "the thing they want" is simply money, and because there's far more demand for female domination than supply, money is a... workable selection mechanism and it's one that many men are willing to pay.
gold_digger.jpg, and what I describe at the very bottom is part of why people get really mad at [minimum, the appearance of] this
male subs are often desperate and willing to put up with almost anything, and this is a really, really bad posture to have when entering into a power exchange relationship
You do have to be careful when doing this; thinking with your dick here leads to trouble. But that's just more being able to gauge people accurately/keeping a clear head in the discovery process between who is and isn't suitable to have a relationship like that with than anything else, something malesubs might not even be able to pull off given the lack of femdoms (or may "settle" for someone driven more by a quest for D/s than is healthy for either participant).
I tend to do this but that's more a question of seeking people to grow with, so it's not really as one-sided as it otherwise seems, but there's always that risk and I'm probably doing it wrong anyway. Or maybe it's just an unacknowledged mental problem on my end.
I've seen women who really just wanted to be in a mutualistic and affectionate relationship describe it as a "female led relationship", and their conception of this is literally "having a honey-do list" and "being the one who buys the groceries."
Yeah, but of course they're going to call it that given the room temperature is what I describe at the bottom. This is kind of just what healthy relationships are supposed to look like.
and particularly femdom/malesub dynamics are disruptions that speak to fundamental psychological problems
It occurs to me that a command of "you shall not lay with a man as you would a woman" may not technically be limited to men.
It's "all sex is rape" being taken to its ultimate conclusion, formalized and made explicit
The people who invented this believe 2 things:
- Sex is necessary labor, because if you're not paired off you'll die
- They're bad at it and don't want to do it
Which maps 1:1 onto the liberal critique of socialists, mainly because both are true. Which is why people who believe this claim so loudly that it isn't true, and that bleeds into the claim that it's deontologically wrong to see sex as labor. They make those claims of "don't be a slut" and "being sexually available is sinful" because it literally devalues sex to do that, which affects those at the bottom of the market worst of all.
You have the prudes of both feminist and christian denominations, who perhaps no longer think that anything other than procreative missionary is sinful but asymptotically approach that logic as they go.
Well yeah, because it's a power thing.
Could you imagine if men were allowed to think that women liked sex? They'd never be able to extract rent from that resource if that was the case- you'd have a bunch of women trying to have sex with men and men returning the favor, with very few strings attached. Plus, imagine if the woman were able to avoid the risks of pregnancy by taking a pill?
The value of sex would go to basically zero- how's a woman going to secure a man now? They'd have to rely on other stuff, like being a decent human being[1], to ever have a chance at bagging a man where body counts are not just expected, but not having one suggests some defect.
That's why non-missionary sex has to be a sin- so that women have an excuse to never acknowledge it's a thing, and have an excuse to shut other people up who claim that it is, and men aren't allowed to initiate a thing even if somehow they break through that censorship and discover it exists.
But to people who know better than that, it's nothing but virtue Georgism. Yes, BDSM can be an infohazard for imbalanced relationships where the BDSM dynamics are, uh, also happening outside of the bedroom (and not in the good way)- and then the question becomes, as so many questions of this nature do, about forcibly redistributing virtue from those who can handle [the truth] to those who can't, and suppressing [the truth] is part of the way in which that is done.
[1] The feminist and [this type of] Christian here are alike in that they're using their group membership to justify not working against a below-average personality. Being stingy and begrudging are personality flaws, but the [particular versions of these] outlooks are the same in that they define holiness as leaning into those flaws, not away from them.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
1d ago
Are there many laws generally about the acceptable set of arguments you can put in front of a jury?
Some countries bar the admissibility of evidence that says "yes, I'm going to sleep with this guy and then cry rape, it'll be funny" after a famous case where that was indeed an affirmative defense.
It's very crooked.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
2d ago
and what your own kids are forced to do
Ah, but [my kids] are forced to affirm a lie (as in, that a man magically becomes a woman because he donned fake breasts and cut his penis off), in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons, as it is for State religions. The school will punish them for blasphemy misgendering if they do not.
Naturally, for those who believe in that, especially for those who draw a salary from that belief, it's just Common Decency.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
2d ago
Or once they dismantle the Blue-tribe institutions with the help from independents, will they immediately turn on those allies for being sinners and go back to instituting their own class authoritarian ideals, now with an extra helping of zero-sum power politics?
Obviously, which is why the most liberal times in American history come when either Blue is busy destroying Red institutions, or vice versa (or there's an economic boom which distracts everyone; you can't deploy cancel culture lists when people [and in particular cities] are so desperate for workers it doesn't matter at all what their political persuasion is).
Once one side starts consolidating things get bad, which is why 2014-2024 in particular were especially fucked.
This is why independents are the way they are: it's more about Noticing when one side is starting to accumulate enough power to pull this off, and [trying their best] to deal with them. And whether that best is good enough or not generally depends more on economic factors than anything else.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
3d ago
with regards to avoiding unecessary fights with NPCs
So the best strategy to succeed is to avoid playing the fun part of the game at all costs.
That is certainly a gameplay loop.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
3d ago
The game just keeps teaching you that some answers are better than others, and you'd better figure out which is which, fast.
Well, not fast. The game is way too slow for any such learning to reasonably occur; it's not going to be immediately obvious if you lost on turn 1, and if I have to wait for several hours to get back to turn 1, then I'm going to shut the game off and return to browsing YouTube (which, ironically, is full of just the high points of many, many games).
Apex Legends, for a while, had a "problem" with a certain type of player whose strategy would be- and quite reasonably, I might add- "drop, play, die, instantly disconnect". There's zero chance you'll discover any of the winning strategies organically, especially because menuing (which you have to do in fights to win them) is so inherently clunky that doing it quickly is itself its own skill.
They never fixed that, of course, because having a bunch of people who do this is actually good for the game simply because it ensures action happens early.
There's also a gameplay premium on what military types call violence-of-action.
The games I have the most life time spent in are Call of Duty 4 (with 32 or 64 player servers)/Titanfall and Payday 2 for this reason; there's so much of this, or the potential for so much of this, that you actually can reasonably learn by dying a bunch of times to figure out what works and what doesn't, or actually have fun by using meme strategies.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
3d ago
Then you get a payoff in the form of climactic fights
So the payoff of all the waiting around is that you finally get to play the game.
Waiting around to play the game isn't fun. It's barely tolerable with friends, and that's more in the suffering-through-something-someone-else-enjoys sense than the actually-engaging-for-player sense.
The difference between an extraction simulator and similar open world games where there's a similar amount of walking (or waiting) is that, for the latter, playing the game is more of an incidental (as in, there's more to look at/more to gather, because you're building towards something else- there's no building or measure of permanence in any of these other games).
Tarkov is even worse about that, because you spend a limited resource to have a higher chance of surviving/accumulating further resource, and if you die having done that you're now at a further disadvantage when it comes to playing the game. So the chance you'll actually have any fun in a round is now distributed over several rounds/hours, not just one. And that's not counting the cycle resets that do this anyway.
It's not a game; it's boring, tedious, work to have a chance of making it to the fun part.
Watching S5 right after S4 is probably the best way to consume it; I wouldn't Episode 2 yourself just because 3 isn't as good.
The problem with S5 is fundamentally that the script is what it would look like if you had ChatGPT
I would suggest that when watching, the instant you realize you're losing interest in what happens, go straight to the finale and don't watch any of the other episodes. You couldn't do this if you were watching at release and you're not also waiting on S5, which are the 2 dynamics that people who dislike S5 are usually ignoring when they say it ruined the show for them.
Taking things in a more horror inspired direction seemed to be just the right move to reinvigorate things while still developing in an organic way from the original premise
It needed to develop into a "tales of" sort of thing, much like FNAF did (and quite successfully, I might add). S4/S5 would have worked well as a one-shot with a new set of kid actors, and the parts of S5 that involve said actors are still half-decent for that reason. But there wasn't as much required foresight in this case to pull that off, and they were kind of chained to using the old cast far beyond the point it made sense
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
4d ago
The problem with gameification is that games themselves have to be at least a little bit fun, especially if you want people to play them long-term.
This is why I play very few multiplayer games these days. Battle Royale and MOBA games (including Overwatch), or camping simulators like R6S or Counter-Strike, are just straight up not designed to be fun.
At least Fallout, though it's just as much a walking and lootbox simulator as the typical BR game, has a few other things going on with it and encounters that are at least winnable. The MP versions of that idea inherently aren't that way.
If I'm going to be forced to wait around there needs to be a payoff, which incidentally is why the pace of building software or hardware prototypes slows down exponentially the longer the effective iteration/build time is.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
4d ago
Like if a girl was a hardcore socialist, that’s not a turn off, I could totally sleep with her, but relationship-wise It’d probably end up becoming too annoying
The problem comes more from the downstream effects.
If a girl is a hardcore gynosupremacist/progressive, what happens when the rubber meets the road? Is she going to treat other men that happen to be in my life poorly, or denigrate/be actively harmful to anything she identifies as "man things"? And perhaps more importantly, what about any sons? (Is she going to divorce-rape me if I put up resistance to him having his balls cut off because she wanted a daughter instead?)
I get that this is a trope for a reason, but I'm not interested in sharing my life, or my bed, with someone who will just straight up profess I'm fundamentally evil and better off enslaved or dead. So if I can't find someone who is, symmetrically, above that, then I'm objectively better off with the AIs.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
6d ago
I had Dell-Mann Amnesia once. Once I upgraded my laptop the symptoms stopped though.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
7d ago
Because these are only topics a high-decoupler woman would bother discussing (in a way that isn't just naked self-interest), and those are rare.
There's not much more going on than that.
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
7d ago
Plenty of other democracies have been stable without such a system
The average democracy is only about 60 years old at this point. The US has, incredibly, managed to make it to 248.
What the EC does currently is tell minority party voters in every state that they don't matter and shouldn't bother.
That's more a consequence of FPTP (and in Westminster systems, whipping votes) than anything else. Again, other countries have political parties that manage to pull this kind of voter suppression off just fine.
Separation and/or a more confederated system starts to make more sense here simply because it encourages political competition and innovation in the areas that break off. Otherwise you start to run into certain failure modes of democracy, like "intentionally fail to enforce immigration laws, let the illegals vote, then swing elections that way", or letting the cities merge together politically into one globally homogeneous patchwork rather than retaining solutions tailored to/coupled with that area's unique circumstances (perhaps as a reaction to not being able to get their reforms through).
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
7d ago
Far more influence over the country as a whole != far more influence in actual fact, especially on the local level.
The large city/states have more than enough ways to throw their weight around, including the mere fact they're city/states. They don't need the ability to pass the "Loot the Rest of the Country Forever Because Fuck You Act".
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
7d ago
rural voters are relevant too. They're just only as relevant as their actual population size.
Which is just another way of saying "they're irrelevant".
Not true.
Trivially true; look at election maps of my [admittedly newly-added] example over the last 150 years and you'll see exactly what I mean. The cities always only ever vote for themselves with a brief exception perhaps once every 30 years.
More citizens live in the cities therefore doing pro city stuff
This doesn't actually preclude them from doing their city thing in that city. In fact, a significant chunk of power comes from the city people being able to do this- which is balanced against the below.
And the rural country doesn't likewise depend on the cities?
The country needs the city far less than the city needs the country. This is a significant strategic liability for the city, actually- the city needs water and food and raw materials (to convert into finished goods) far beyond subsistence levels by its nature of being a city. Thus the power the city derives from centralization is dependent on the rest of the country, not the other way around.
This is much like how a man's job is to bring home the food and the woman's job is to cook it.
If the woman doesn't do her job, they're unhappy. If the man doesn't do his, they're dead.
So it is for city and country, and why the country outranks the city.
Ah so giving them extra vote power is just a deal so they don't shoot up the democracy.
Yes.
To a large degree, I think this is because the people on the ground have asked for too much. It's not that the people have too little power- that was what the BoR and the Amendments are an attempt at mitigating (and were to a large degree successful)- it's that they have too much.
Regulatory agencies are an instance of this- they employ lots of people and execute a quasi-popular mandate, but that mandate is also extremely conservative (or "safe") and the agencies [have] become self-licking ice cream cones. Thus the central government becomes, by virtue of those employed at these agencies (and those who do business with them, to a lesser degree) having a vote, captured by those special interests, and Congress (being beholden to them) has become too weak to purge them. That is why it is completely ineffective against them- if Congress moved against the agencies, the people employed by them would purge Congress.
The best thing would be to disenfranchise anyone who works for those public agencies simply because it's a massive conflict of interest. The Founders got it right by not permitting DC to vote, but that has to apply to every public employee (and aside from China, no state at that time was powerful enough to have a bureaucracy of that size, so it's natural they overlooked this). In doing that, that the rest of the citizenry has a better chance of keeping them working in the public interest, not just the interest of the agency. In turn, the agencies must keep the citizenry on board with their agendas (which is in part why RFK is in the position that he is).
This is kind of why emperors get into the positions that make them emperors- the citizens wage a [civil] war, put one of them on the throne, and that generally solves the bureaucracy problem (but creates some obvious others). Elections actually do still allow the average citizen to impose some of their will, but for how long that remains the case remains to be seen.
by making someone in California have like 10x less say than the same person in Mississippi in Congress and the presidency
Yes, and that's a good thing.
Let's take a look at where that isn't true: Canada. This country has the politics you say you want, where the only relevant voters reside in one of 3 cities (legislature is de facto unicameral, though on paper it is something else). Naturally, they all vote as a bloc, and their policies are not only alien to the rest of the country, but increasingly oppressive in the sense that they prevent anywhere else from developing.
As a direct result, Canada has had active separation movements since roughly the late 1800s. These weren't as much of a problem between 1910 and 1950 for obvious reasons, but it's been a continual threat since 1970, and the referendum in QC in the mid-'90s had majority support except for the city on the QC/ON border (as in, the vote for QC to secede would have succeeded without Montreal). Even then, it was defeated on a razor thin margin. And the next Provincial election in QC is likely going to the separatists.
Serious attempts at Western separatism are newer. The province is a natural seat of government for a separated West due to where it is and what it sits on, and there's a bigger barrier with respect to the fact it needs to win referenda in 4 provinces to be a viable country- but Ottawa (and Vancouver) become more and more foreign, and grow more and more hostile, to the rest of the nation every single day. The rest of the country won't have the chance to get any political representation for 15 years, the sitting government exists completely contrary to the results of the election, and everyone knows it.
Most of the movement on the issue has been cooler than it would be in the US- Canada is a much poorer country thanks to difficult land and high latitude so there's a lot less to fight over and a lack of social cohesion is therefore costlier. Were this same situation true for the US (even in its original 13-colony form) it just straight up wouldn't have survived.
TL;DR Consent of the governed isn't equally geographically distributed, and the cities depend on the country for raw resources and soldiers- which are two things cities require for continual survival they cannot create on their own. (Not that it's a law of nature for a city to fail to field soldiers; that's a new incapacity revealed over the latter half of the 20th century, and specifically for Western cities.)
It is wise to limit the power of larger states to run roughshod over smaller states to ensure the larger states are limited to mining/colonizing the rest of the country in a sustainable manner, and not one that doesn't just end up with the country folks shooting up the power lines and oil pipelines (or seceding completely -> reserving the right to wage what is technically a civil war at some time in the future).
ThisIsSin
One big family Thanksgiving dinner that never ends
7d ago
[Progressives] confused getting yelled at with actually getting prescribed out of existence; they seem to think that nobody should be allowed to make them feel bad and the power of the state should be deployed to that effect.
Yes, I think this is a perfectly valid characterization of their actions.
Perhaps most Marxists don't want to abolish the family.
But, most people who want to abolish the family are Marxists.
This is generally because they can't get a family for themselves for some reason, and they want [the qualities that make others able to do that] to be taken away from you and given to them. (Or they're academics.)
The way that's accomplished is to maximize the threat each person in the relationship poses to each other. This can range from most of the basic Western stuff that's "only" financially ruinous- no-fault divorce, alimony, child support- to the more extreme stuff like encouraging children to inform on their parents, separating them entirely Residential Schools-style, or mandating them be grown in a lab and punishing all sex as rape (the Demolition Man/1984 approach). Nobody's gone back to this in the modern age yet, but if they did, it'd look more like [1].
In this way, "the capacity to maintain a family" is redistributed by the State, with those that have it paying more of the bill in the form of needless oppression (as spouses and parents lack the moral hazards the State [as an extension of the people demanding redistribution] has in this matter), while at the same time allowing those with less to escape the consequences of lacking it by having the State exert pressure on the other member(s) in legible, pre-defined ways.
[1] The Harrison Bergeron-style handicapping method for functional families, where you're not allowed to talk to each other beyond an AI intermediate that perfectly mimics your [family member] screaming personalized insults at you for X amount of time before you can listen to whatever else they want to talk to you about. Conversations between couples are ranked based on how much you disagree naturally, so it could be several days before you're allowed to speak a single word to each other, in order to level the playing field for couples that can't do that.
(Actually, AI offers so many other possibilities for the virtue-Marxist; this is just one of them. Imagine a system imposed on you whose sole purpose is to cause you unbearable pain until you've abused your spouse or kid comparable to the State average. It's a handicapper general's, or equity commissioner's, wet dream.)
More options
Context Copy link