@dailydogma's banner p

dailydogma

r-rawr...

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2026 March 15 02:45:58 UTC 

				
User ID: 4231


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
dailydogma


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
r-rawr...

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2026 March 15 02:45:58 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 4231


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the idea of repealing the 19th amendment more




You will need to ban them from juries also.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


you also have a broad kind of social middle class, people who enjoy broad warmth and social regard but not all that much compensation; your teachers, professors, media figures who's name alone doesn't sell products.




So low status people that like to imagine they are high on an invisible status hierarchy that has no money. Sounds like psychosis. If these are the socialists it would be more accurate to say that low status people are socialists. Which seems accurate because, you know, they tend to be poor and to want hand outs. And poor people are low status.




attractive and charismatic people.




Sounds like the CEO of a large company. Not socialist. Unless you mean people who only come off as «charismatic» to other poor people. In which case they are not charismatic at all.


So, alternative hypothesis here. Class is real and there are, roughly speaking, within class hierarchies. Since class itself is hierarchical it may be better to be somewhat low on the upper class hierarchy than high on the lower class hierarchy. Each class hierarchy has its own judgement function. Socialists judge everyone by the low class hierarchy so upper class people that entertain the lower classes stay high, then next comes the frumpy «people's community» social work professions like physicians and teachers, as well as the local bum that tells fun stories at the local «people's community» pub but doesn't have a dime to his name because he is stupid and lazy (which have an uncharismatic effect in the upper class but not the lower). Intelligence is genuinely charismatic in the upper class hierarchy but might be anti-charismatic in the lower so the socialists talk about how the obviously high IQ tech adjacent people will be thrown all the way to the bottom of the status hierarchy when they destroy the upper class and make them obey the lower class status function.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Forced on them by who?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But if you're a nerd and you find yourself on the losing side of the Nerd War, can't you just... switch sides?




No. This is a microcosm of left vs right. That's 70% heritable when measured well and one of the two top traits people marry based on, the other being intelligence.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Socialists are often people who are rich in the social hierarchy and poor in the material hierarchy.




Such as who? If they are so popular, why don't they monetize that?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Communism, regardless of what individuals did. But revolutionaries like Lenin seemed to take matters into their own hands, and relied heavily on a few powerful men taking very specific actions, which weren't at all pre-determined!




Communism covered half the globe at one point. How do you know that many men in that many countries consistently choosing it isn't as predetermined as the distribution of car speeds on the highway tomorrow at noon?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I do think there's a bit of a contradiction built into them. The whole premise is that humans, at the large scale, are ultimately predictable: individual decisions don't matter, and there are no great men of history. But the entire plot depends heavily on the actions of Hari Seldon, and a few other great men who think and act just like him. So... what's up with that?




Individual decisions are the mechanism and the balance of them is predictable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I would still think that justice would demand punishment.




Why? Just put her somewhere secure and admit it's because you're scared, not because it's justice when you degrade her life but it's immoral when she does it to you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But i think the gods of the copybook heading win against the “crime is mental issue” argument.




Why? If anything letting women like her kill their kids will eliminate such women from the gene pool.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Trump went the dumb route of demagoguery and name calling while Kamala schmoozed elites until she got what she wanted. I think the latter is more intelligent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Kamala wrested control of the party from the establishment?




Yes ... to the same extent Trump did? Neither literally wrested anything, both won the nominations to run for President through a formal system.




You aren’t operating in the realm of facts and appear to be in bad faith




Bad faith is when you change your entire model of success and intelligence based on a person's party membership, not when you point out someone else is doing this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They just aren’t the same.




Huge dodge.




It wasn’t just that he won the presidency. Instead, he wrested control of a party from its establishment.




Kamala did this too. She also ran for president. She also had control of the party.


Your view on this matter is inconsistent. Trump vibes friendly so he's a genius, Kamala vibes enemy so she's an empty vessel and slept her way to the top. Sad.


I would say they have about the same g-scores.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Is Kamala Harris smarter than you? You say here that she sucked her way to victory. You may say she lost, but objectively, she was the Vice President. She's as successful than JD Vance, and by your own metric, much more than you. Does that make her smarter?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


(ie they couldn’t figure out a way to succeed and thus really aren’t all that smart)




Why is your model of the world like that? What is there to «figure out» in success? It's not a puzzle or a math problem. There are many smart people who are lazy or too autistic to socialize or work in person without pain and therefore they don't become elected officials or other types of popular (most «successful») people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I broadly agree with this analysis with a small caveat. I tend to think that human behavior can't be reduced directly to economic thinking. Rather, economics impact behavior through evolution, both biological and cultural. So ultimately this is a level or two above the question of the immediate cause. Maybe @gattsuru gives the phenomenology of the cause, you give the far-origins of the cause, but ultimately the shift has to be situated into the modern drift towards feminism in and late marriage more generally. Given feminism and late marriage, ideas about the age of consent needing to be high will win out, in large part because of selfish reasoning on the part of women like you detail. @gattsuru documents what those ideas actually feel like. So the final part of the explanation concerns this more general drift, which as been happening for over 200 years.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The norm outlived them, but it's got more grounding than you'd think.




I mean, I wouldn't call this grounding in the same way that the swing towards anti-tobacco has grounding. People thought cigarettes were health-neutral or healthy, then they found out it causes lung damage and cancer. Simple enough. This grounding is a bunch of motivated reasoning (not from you but from the people) that doesn't really make any contact with reality. For example




Both the health risks and the long-term family formation risks were a big matter for Moynihan-and-Reagan-era politicians




There are no causal health risks or family formation risks I can find in the literature that survive close examination. The latter issue sounds like a dog whistle for lower class people being most of the underaged relationships at the time, which makes sense because richer people tend to marry later at the present moment, the former issue is ... I don't know. If you look at the literature closely it seems confounded with class also. Babies from younger mothers tend to be less healthy but then so do young mothers. The causal effect seems approximately 0 after 15. Also the illogic with plentiful tolerance for 30 something birthing and then fretting about health effects of pregancy at 16.


I will say the obnoxious tyranny of the laws do tend to match other laws from the time, like drug laws and computer access laws.




combination of Clayton Cramer bringing up the 1970s introduction and iteration of federal CSAM law really surprising me




Can you link to this? First I've found out about this guy, looks like he exposed some fake scholarship on American gun politics history. I read a bit about that, and I would say most of the academic literature supporting high ages of consent and similar ideas has the same issues he found in gun politics history literature.


Thanks for the detailed discussion. It has strengthened my view that high age of consent laws (meaning ~18) are intellectually and morally standing on a foundation of air. I think when that happens it's usually hiding deeper ugly motivations as Robin Hanson talks about as opposed to a whole society accidentally falling for nonsense while shutting out all of the people who politely try to help them out of it. In this case again I think it's broadly some kind of Hamiltonian spite, that's all I can get out of the gigantic travesty that the Epstein affair has been anyway, as Michael Tracey has documented.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thank you, very interesting. Where did you source all of this? As in, how do you know it?


I had heard of the Lords case but not in the context of age of consent. It doesn't seem to relate. Shooting porn is different from a romantic relationship, and she's obviously not a normal case. On top of that, the Wikipedia article states she lied about her age, and demonstrates more than enough premeditation in her actions for her to be held accountable.


Then there's some looney, Marx-adjacent psychiatry. Mental illness is mostly genetic, and trauma is mostly non-sexual, and sexual-trauma is mostly non-romantic (rape), so it makes no sense to fly past heritability to trauma, and then fly past actual sources of trauma like poverty and low status, to sex, and then conflate young romantic relationships with specifically being raped or forced into sex. Kind of like the Lords scandal, it could only make sense to someone with crazy ideas about human genetics who also already wants to go on a sex crusade.


Finally with the Gutmacher institute ... it's some kind of floppy eugenics or dysgenics to care about teen pregnancies specifically. I'm not for it. I think you do eugenics the right way or not at all. Best case scenario most of those pregnancies were dysgenic so it was crypto-eugenics to oppose them. But this isn't very effective when you also have a welfare state and don't regulate their births after age 18 anyway. So compared to the massive negative externality of criminalizing straight men, it doesn't pass.  But I don't think this was the motive at any rate, it's just a way to evaluate the policy. The motive I believe was closer to the Marxism of the other two example, except this time relating to education. The idea is that the state is entitled to keep a teenage girl as a wife to the school system. That's obviously horrifically wrong morally and doesn't even make sense empirically unless you think that high school education is useful. Which, obviously it is not. It's all signaling. Anyway, «some young women are getting pregnant» is hardly headline news unless you're predetermined to go on a sex crusade, yet again.


None of these really justify or explain the phenomenon. The closest they get to explanation is if you think ideas are causal, then all of these might be downstream from blank slatism generally which could hold Traci Lords to be equal, mental illness to be environmental, high school to be causal in manufacturing good citizens ... but that's too convenient. Blank slate ideas themselves are not consistent, they are merely a tool for something deeper. For example, it's blank slate enough to talk about the trauma of low status and poverty, but psychiatrists like to victim-blame on that dimension and skip to sex talk. Is it blank slate that gays are born this way? How about trans-racialism being a no-no (remember Rachel Dolezal?). It's pick and choose to an uncanny degree, on top of it being very wrong empirically, meaning anyone reasoning in good enough faith should eventually discard blank slatism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Today being a victory for free speech, with Texas Senate Bill 12, the "drag show ban" being ruled unconstitutional by Reagan appointee judge David Hittner for the pretty obvious reason that it violated the first amendment.




It's not obvious that this actually violates the cut up 1st amendment as it stands. For example, a Texas federal jury put Thomas Allen Arthur in prison for 40 years merely for obscene speech. Obviously you can either jail people because they hurt your feelings or you can't. Americans have chosen the former option. There is no firm reason to draw the line at gay pedophile and not just gay.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Several US states raised it from 14 and 15, some raised from 16 to 18, France raised it from 13 to 15, so did several other European countries. It's a global trend and still going on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We have an empirical example that is related: LGBT rights. Considering they could get sodomy legalized, surely normal straight men can get romantic relationships with postpubescent females legalized right? It surely can't be as bad as coming out of the closet in 1960, to come out as straight, right?


My point is your reasons do not explain why there is a force pushing the age of consent up. If there were no such force, you might be able to explain why it doesn't decay instantly with these factors (insofar as there is evidence for them. I agree with the first one, mostly. The second, I don't know where it comes from or how to prove it). But it's not decaying, it's increasing in strength. Only I so far am explaining why that might be.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am guessing you used tor as I was only able to replicate it on there. Try a VPN? Anyway it's a wrapper for this and it fails to serve the add to the tor IP for me for that link.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And the full study does not contain the data that is being cited. @atelier


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That chart is fake. That version has no citation but a different one has a citation but if you read the paper it's about another topic and does not contain that data at all.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes I don't think most hymen fans know what it looks like or what it does. Rather they see what it correlates with by observing teenage girls (being a teenage girl and not an adult woman), decide they want that, say it's about virginity and not about what they example observe (age and not virginity since the latter is latent).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you misread me. I said if 51% of people want something to be legal it will be legal. Not if they ever want something at all they will think it should be legal. However, I am claiming that if most men were primarily attracted to 16 year olds, then they would want sex and marriage with 16 year olds to be fully legal. This is because attraction is strong, and the reasons underpinning high ages of consent are incredibly weak and unjustified. In addition, common man morality is mostly just herd selfishness. I gave examples of this in the other comment chain, and this thought underpins a lot of my recent writing here. I am always revealing how immoral and hypocritical the average person is. They are always declaring their own evil licit because it is common, in every corner of life. This should be expected based on the selfish gene, rational utility man, the elephant in the brain, and so on.