@fuckduck9000's banner p
BANNED USER: /comment/183678




1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:15:52 UTC


User ID: 93

Banned by: @naraburns

BANNED USER: /comment/183678



1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:15:52 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 93

Banned by: @naraburns

Well, they're being destroyed by the Truth, right, so this is good?

Unironically Yes. The Truth will set us free.

In that case, something is deeply rotten in the kingdom, and the Truth has to start desinfecting somewhere. By comparison , the partisan point-scoring about who the truth harms first is of trivial importance.

Let me tell you a story about a helicopter pilot. He had noticed the fuel gauge was systematically under-estimating the fuel left. He learned to live with it, mentally adding dozens of liters to the reported volume every time. One day, he ran out of fuel and crashed. A mechanic had repaired the gauge. The pilot had accepted the lie, and so the lie killed him. And this was a man who had survived being shot down down over the USSR in a U-2 spy plane. Beware of normalizing lies and dysfunction.

I agree with Hlynka’s interpretation. Scott might as well have called it ‘In defense of liars’ – letting lies fester is his thing now.

In Bounded Distrust, he wants us to consider information in a vaccuum, possessing a certain deracinated signal-to-noise ratio. He wants us to ignore the liar status of the speaker, softly whispering that it's not that bad if he is. But there is a bright line here, between the speaker (journalist, sociologist, authority figure) who inadvertently tells a falsehood, and the one who knowingly does so.

The only reason why the latter still sometimes tells the truth, is because he doesn’t think he can get away with bigger lies. Morally, as far as I’m concerned, he’s done. As a source of information, we’re always better off asking another man, since the liar’s statements, at best, merely reflect what others can prove.

I don’t recognize this guy anymore. He thinks people should refrain from searching for the truth because the search is not fair/random enough for him. Who cares? That which can be destroyed by the Truth should be, immediately. Whether you personally dislike Gay or politically oppose Ackman or just want clicks, I am thankful for any skeleton you happen to find in their closets. Scott is willing to let lies fester until such a time when they can all be revealed impartially, or something.

Their objections to content are often explicitly political and coded red-tribe.

But the content they object to is often political in its aims and coded blue-tribe. Being pro-liberty does not require them to support the woke reading list over the maga reading list.

I don’t see how you can position your side as apolitical, when they proudly proclaim political aims for their own changes, endlessly purging curricula on grounds of sexism, racism, hetero-and-cisnormativity, etc .

The way I heard the story, a warlord in the somalian civil war attacked UN troops distributing aid – and so the US obligingly went in because they didn’t have anything else to do that day. But you reckon this was a machiavellian exploitation of the third world that now justifies a somalian revenge ?

To be fair, many US nativists are actually in favor of a less interventionist US foreign policy.

Yeah, and they say: 'I don't care if foreigners kill each other, even if we could prevent it easily'. Are you ready to stand by that statement and policy, or were you just using US interventionism as an excuse for foreigners to not be bound by any standard of decency?

I don’t think the law should be tailored to every group’s capabilities and sensibilities. One law for the tall, one law for the women, one law for the red-haired, one for the stupid… . Waste of time. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This does not require a belief in the blank state.

Books :

Old Books :

  • The Manipulated Man - Esther Vilar
  • The Legal Subjection of Men - Ernest Belfort Bax

Documentary: The Red Pill

Reddit: Haven’t been there in a long time, but /r/mensrights was always decent. They have a huge FAQ with references, more books, etc. Though I must admit, they don't like feminism over there. Neither do I . I think feminism is intellectually very shallow, relying more on people's general goodwill towards women, as well as on accusations of sexism against critics, than on a coherent model on how the world actually works.

A), it's still their responsibility, even if I have a residual advisory duty to help them avoid death.

B), I have no such moral duty to prevent strangers and friends alike from having sex.

Proving they both actually said yes is impossible.

No, that has actually been done here, there’s video, text messages, no one is disputing that she said yes.

‘He said she said ‘ goes : ‘He said she said yes, she said she said no’ – If he’s telling the truth, she said ‘yes’, so he’s innocent of rape. And if she said “no”, he’s guilty.

That’s not the situation here at all: all agree she said yes, but for some cockamamie reason the consent has been declared invalid so - schocker – he’s guilty, yet again.

You and the radfems don’t accept consent as a defense because you don’t accept innocence as a defense. The way you see it, he may be innocent of rape, but he’s still guilty of being a man and having sex.

This evidence was obviously insufficient to protect the men in question, as they were nonetheless accused of rape and were prosecuted, with disastrous results for their careers and their lives.

Right, and that's absurd. They have overshot the standard for innocence by several orders of magnitude. They should be released with the court’s deepest apologies, maybe teach the prosecutor what a real case should look like.

disagree with the above statement, because it seems to me that the problem is in fact an infinite regress. If you have video of them giving consent, they can claim the video is coerced.

No argument there. @orthoxerox is just another guy on the trad-radfem side, he does not recognize women’s consent because there’s always a man hiding in the bushes, coercing them.

The problem is that sex is not, in fact, a safe source of unadulterated, low-stakes, trivial fun.

I get it, you’re not big on sex, like your prophets before you.

We have no rigorous way of measuring intoxication after the alcohol has left the system, and even timestamped breathalyzers suffer from the same problem as the video evidence above.

I don’t give a shit? Drinking does not put the responsibility for your actions on others in any other context (drunk driving, getting into a fistfight, etc).

You can't prove a negative, and nothing less will be accepted because the accumulated harm demands that something be done.

Maybe the ‘accumulated harm’ demands that all Jan 6 protestors be sent to prison. The accumulated harm is not a real thing here.

People generally sympathize with women for solid, well-founded reasons

You can sympathize with women, admire them, fear them, as much as you like. Their legal ability to turn their agency and reasoning faculties on and off at will still won’t make any sense.

If the employee, the student, the woman, cannot be counted on to make one decision because her body is weak and her mind easily influenced, how can she be counted on to make any?

You want fornication with fewer consequences for men and worse consequences for women

No, in the absence of evidence for a crime, I want no consequences at all.

would not willingly live under either of your regimes.

Not only are you living under the radfem one, you’re a pillar of it.

The radfems have no ability to criminalize the sex I have with my wife.

She could easily accuse you, anytime, of getting insufficiently affirmative enthusiastic continual consent, that one time in boca. Marital rape is a common thing, you know. Oh god, she wasn’t drunk, was she?

You, like them, have nothing to offer people like me, other than to leave us alone.

I originally set out to find where the battle lines really are in this triangle. And I think it’s pretty clear that you are in fact allied to radfems, in your shared hatred of ‘fornication’ and in support of modern rape and harassment laws, against classical liberals like me.

that most disputes over consent in intimate relationships are going to devolve into a he-said-she-said situation, and that there is no practical way to prevent this, even in principle.

That's only a small part of the problem. Modern rape laws, and further ‘anti-rape’ lobbying efforts, are attacking consent as a defense, like they attack every defense. It’s not just ambiguity. The schema is not : he-said, she-said, what shall we do? ; but he-said-yes, she-said-yes, – still rape. If you’re drunk – consent invalid. If you’re a student or an employee – consent invalid. You agree the woman's consent does not matter to you in those cases?

I think the story is really a straightforward conspiracy by radfems and trads to impose their sexless tyrrany by classifying all sex as a felony. They haven't achieved it completely yet, but they're getting there.

And yet we still have to pick a norm, and the choice is between favoring accusers or favoring the accused.

For centuries, for all other crimes, it’s the accused . He gets the presumption of innocence. The acccuser has to prove a crime occurred. But we have allowed our justice system to be inverted and perverted in this holy crusade against rape. The rape our culture encourages, according to feminists.

We do not expect the downsides of favoring the accuser to affect us

I don’t think you can contain the damage to your outgroup. Your leaders are constantly being targeted under the absurd rape laws. I don’t think total abstinence or the pence rule can protect you from the sanctification of Woman’s Word. Remember, evidence is no longer required. Evidence Law is an obstacle to victims getting justice.

As you say, “it's not obvious that being falsely accused of rape is significantly more or less traumatic than being raped.”, therefore I’d have to side with any woman accusing you and send you to prison regardless of what actually happened.

Traditionalists do not generally believe that "affirmative consent" will actually work

yeah, because you don’t believe in consent. Sex is bad and consent is irrelevant, just like your radfem sisters.

Germans just don’t care about food like the french do. Even working class french people spend considerable money and time preparing different kinds of meat, on any given day of the week. Middle class germans eat potato salad with sausage on christmas. If they’re feeling adventurous, they’ll spring for some schweinemedaillons – but whatever happens, it’s all pork all the time. I don’t really mind, I enjoy the lack of fuss. I find the french high maintenance, generally. At work, at school, at dinner, germans are more laid back.

Let’s say I support total marijuana legalization. Then I discover the DEA turned a blind eye to the sale of two tons of ganja, which was illegal. They said it was for a sting operation, but the drugs seemingly vanished in a puff of smoke. It would be hypocritical of me to accuse the DEA of knowingly ‘poisoning the youth’, destroying the economy and generally reefer madness roasting the shit out of the DEA for its inadequacy.

My instinctual response was "the laws that have already been passed regarding straw purchases by criminals or for illegal arms trafficking

I would think extensive laws with the goal to prevent arms trafficking and straw purchases would... infringe. But you're telling me you support those laws unequivocally ? Want them strengthened?

I do not see how pleading the ATF's complete innocence is even possible.

All they did was not interfere in a transaction, I don't find it all that reprehensible, they should do that more often.

It's not about trump, it's about the consent discourse on themotte. I thought about posting it on its own, but it was a bit light, and fivehour's prof's quote was the reason I wrote it, so I just plonked it here.

Obviously the massive black hole of the trump culture war angle isn't helpful for delineating the kind of objective doctrinal disagreement that interests me here.

Maybe it’s just the quality of the food. In my experience, the french are more sparing with their dinner invitations than the germans – understandable, when they feel obliged to offer multiple courses of heavenly delights, while the german casually serves you his dreadful slop, ‘come as you are and eat what is left’.

because as my evidence prof put it "Either Rape law is wrong or evidence law is wrong, but they can't both be correct." The standard of evidence demanded in rape law is so far below the standard demanded in virtually every other felony that the result is absurd


I want to highlight a stark ideological divergence on the motte: people here often vaguely criticize the modern ‘framework of consent’. It brings to mind feminist consent-a-outrance ideas, where second-to-second affirmative consent in the presence of a notary is the current_year standard for wholesome sex. Haha, so ridiculous, let’s all bond over another pinkhair joke. Wrong. We are not the same. We’re bitter enemies, laughing from opposite sides.

In one corner, the defenders of the rights of the accused , like your prof. They think the exceptional burden on the accused to prove innocence, and therefore consent, is already far too heavy. That people now routinely record consent on their phones before sex out of fear, is a clear sign that the state is way out of line, taking liberties with people’s liberties.

In the other, radfems and traditionalists, who don’t think women’s consent matters at all. Women may keep the neighbours awake with their enthusiastic consent, but they don’t know what’s good for them (abstinence) , they’ve been brainwashed by the patriarchy or coerced by men’s greater physical force . Any non-lesbian, non-procreative sex is prima facie proof of grave societal failure, all hanky-panky pacts are null and void, all people who had unauthorized fun should be punished period.

So the first group laughs at pinkhair’s onerous consent norms because the accused should long have been acquitted, and the second laughs because the accused should long have been condemned.

I still think your society is uncomfortable with gifts because it implies an unequal relationship and disturbs the law of jante, which also explains the going dutch and the rest of your peculiarities. And it’s just more fun to believe that, rather than your culture being particularly anal about eating times and potatoes.

I’m not scandinavian, but it seems to me there’s more to it than these practical considerations. Of course it’s not a question of a lack of generosity. But regularly feeding another family’s child goes against your aggressively egalitarian ethos, by marking one family as poor and the other as rich.

I don't think people would do it, actually. Murder largely comes from our stupid, psychopathic and irrational parts. The average citizen isn't going to trade comfort for the destruction of his political opponents, especially if they can retaliate.

However if the country was already on the verge of civil war, imo such a light mechanism could defuse the situation more effectively than mass state retaliation, which would likely get hijacked quickly by one side or the other, upping the stakes considerably.

Right, if you have a million haters who are willing to go to prison for a day to get rid of you, you deserve to die, nothing anyone can do, you should be thankful to the state for allowing you to live for as long as you did.

I consider death and life in prison to be equivalent for the purposes of this discussion: So four condamnations to life in prison is a disproportionate punishment for a single victim’s death. The cure is worse than the disease.

By what limiting principle can your and alabama's bloodlust be satiated, if not proportionality? Why not kill people for littering, or draw and quarter them for rudeness?

What about genocide, when a nation comes together to kill a few neighbours? Shouldn't most of the perpetrator group be executed, for being middlemen, part of the cultural substate of genocide, links in the mass murder chain?

You said it was basically impossible to get 100 people executed for one murder because of physical limitations of murder, but you aren't limiting the death penalty to those who commit the physical act, so really all you need to do to get to a hundred is add more links in the chain of transmission of the order, like an email chain.

It’s actually closer to four and not two. There’s the originator of the contract (the spouse), which in similar cases, often gets a heavier sentence than the killer. But he had the good taste to kill himself. And there’s the other guy who transmitted the order to the actual killer, who got life in prison. They did not “beat and stab a woman to death with their own hands“ , but this version of justice would still see them all terminated. So no physical touch required, a simple 'send to all' email and you can have as many opponents as you like executed.

What’s the limit then, a hundred? What if a political party manages to convince a judge that a hundred political rivals conspired to kill one of theirs, so they’re all executed? Disproportionate retaliation encourages the manipulation of state power via the justice system as a weapon against rivals.

If in the course of our crusade against murder, we end up killing more people than actual murderers kill, I’d take it as an ‘are we the baddies?’ moment. There should never be a doubt as to whose hands are cleaner. Through our displays of superior mercy, even the condemned's supporters have to recognize our verdicts as unimpeachable.

What gun control law, that you support, makes this sale illegal?

the stonewalling of all subsequent attempts at investigation, and the punishment of whistleblowers.

You made the conspiratorial claim that this was some attempt to generate support for gun control legislation, but this is contradicted by their burying of the story, which is far more consistent with common incompetence. And as I said, pleading the ATF's complete innocence requires a pro-gun-rights perspective, which is obviously a position the obama administration would be reluctant to take.

It’s the principle of exact retaliation, not three eyes for an eye.

Think of the justice system’s goal as keeping vengeance contained. Let’s say three men kill another. Their family, their clan, reckon they should walk, because the murdered man, was of an unpleasant sort. If you have them all executed to satisfy the murdered man’s family, and they take revenge in the same disproportionate manner by killing nine relatives, it results in total war and the wipeout of one of the clans. Whereas if you just execute one, they can let it go under the win some, lose some principle. Or if they still retaliate, at least it’s a slow-burning vendetta, not a massacre.