fuckduck9000
2yr ago
What? His point was it wasn't cowardice.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I agree that you can't correlate inherent attractiveness to politics, but in this case, the author has that lesbian/feminist look and alexis the traditionnally feminine. One of them is trying to appeal to men visually and the other isn't (if not repel them). Maybe the "male gaze" doesn't even enter into it, they are just straightforwardly signaling their politics through their looks. In any case, given the details, it's not 50/50 at all as to who is likely to be who.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
One study revealed that 25% of college students with hookup experience reported unwanted sex during college, compared to 0% of students without hookup experience (Flack et al., 2007).
It's kind of flimsy honestly. If you don't have a car, you don't get in car accidents usually.
In one study, almost two-thirds of women reported wanting their hookup to become a romantic relationship (Owen & Fincham, 2011); they may experience emotional distress if this transition does not occur.
They took an action hoping it would bring further benefits(who doesn’t), and the lack of this (in some cases) is supposed to invalidate the original decision?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is a pretty weird point to make. For one, if anything, we ended up "untamed".
I’m making a distinction between the antagonism of a mob (which is usually both high and invisible) and the antagonism of a lone opponent (which is far more harshly perceived, monitored and punished, and therefore rare these days. Although I’m pretty sure the mods didn’t intend this). A man will do things as part of the mob he would never do on on his own, so the antagonism of the mob doesn’t require the individuals in them to be anything other than tame. It’s a normal_commenter + overwhelming_majority_support = total dickwad theory.
The quality of being antagonistic to an appropriate degree, especially to the worst parts of a mob, has disappeared from themotte. Our regular progressive posters, with all due respect, are far too kind to the mob, show undue deference to it. They're kind of forced to by the rules and mob rule. If they acted appropriately (ie like darwin, by answering the antagonism of the mob) they would be banned for it (so would mob member #17, but he's replaceable). So the few people who have some ‘contrarian antagonism’ left are relatively close to being banned.
That is why there is almost no ideological diversity here. It's simply not expressed anymore, as soriek said. Guys like darwin protected the expression of their viewpoints, they were guard dogs against the mob.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This is neither here nor there, but I remember one time you argued that it’s not degrading sexist oppression to make your boyfriend breakfast, and it actually moved me, warmed my heart, and not many things do. Anyway, even though we disagree a little further down the line, I value your contributions.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
You could theorize that overt hypoagency is covert hyperagency, but I’m not an agency expert, even the FBI wouldn’t take me.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
For another example where bad faith accusations fly, see the gemmaem thread, of which I said pretty much the same thing:
I honestly think the gemmaem thread is an unfair pile-on, of the kind so prevalent in large subs. Sort-of outsider comes in, gets tons of criticism, if he or she reacts with even a fraction of the hostility shown to them, it's proof of bad faith, moral failings, deliberate refusal to accept the oh-so-clear-and-popular truth, and the gloves come completely off. I mean gemmaem's constantly reiterating that she's here in good faith, basically begging for charity, and she's not even a real outsider for us!
Any human slip from robotic, highest-decoupling arguing is interpreted as 'female shaming tactics' and the like. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth to those things, but people really underestimate how difficult it is to argue cleanly in unfamiliar enemy territory, and with so many hostile judges. Out of charity, we should be the ones to decouple: outside, female shaming tactics exist, but in here, an argument is just right or wrong.
I mean really, what is one-person shaming? Shaming requires a collective. She can't shame anyone, and neither could darwin.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
In a way they are hyper-agentic. A woman and a man make the same decision. Then later the woman detemines it was the wrong decision, and overturns the consensus, alone, and the man bears responsibility for the discrepancy. Her agency trumps all other agencies, even her own.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Kirei. I enjoyed that.
If you had given them your widest american smile, while yelling “Wish me luck!”, what would have happened ? Would they have all been forced to answer out of politeness, or would they have ignored you to maintain order?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This isn't to say that there still aren't problems with this approach, of course- since this still converges on the Pareto distribution of sex that young men complain about today
That’s vastly overstated by redpillers and incels anyway, for example by using that misleading archeological Y-chromosome 17:1 ratio.
I had a guy here literally link me to the wiki pareto distribution article (which said nothing about men and women) to justify his belief that it was four stacies to one alpha.
It does nothing by itself to tackle the fornication-pro-quo problem (the motte of #metoo)
fornication-pro-quo is a minor efficiency loss, not worth the gigantic legal resources expanded to root it out.
You kinda lose me in the last two non-numbered paragraphs. What do you call the ‘present state of corruption’, if it does not include the one-sided divorce laws, one-sided consent laws? Why are those things compromises when they seem straightforwardly pro-woman, and your thesis is that women took back power ? Then you say they lost their reason to compromise, but do it anyway – the obvious conclusion is that they were never compromises.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I will say this idea is the most compatible with maximal freedom and legal equality. I don't think it has been tried and found wanting. It has been found counter-intuitive; and left untried. Very few people believe this. Look at how @hydroacetylene assumed no one was even biting the bullet, or standard feminist discourse like the op.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Yes, unless he gave me his keys specifically so that I would refuse to hand them over if he’s drunk.
If I’m not there, he’s still going to crash the car, so it’s not my responsibility. Now in real life of course I would try to stop him, drive him there myself etc. But ultimately it’s not my decision. Am I supposed to beat him up if he insists?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Yep, only correct answer. Just ask them. “We love death.” That explains a lot. Political program, any sort of plan if you fail at dying? “Islam is the solution”. Okay then.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Is this your job or are you just wise?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
And I reject that view. If you drink and (agree to) do something, it is strictly your responsibility.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
The same way you try to predict how other people will feel about something in any other social situation. Of course sometimes it is possible to make an honest mistake.
It’s bizarre. Why does the man have the responsibility to look into the future and use his good judgment, when the woman couldn’t be bothered/failed to do so? She could have used “the way to predict how other people will feel about something in any other social situation “ to simply say no in the first place, instead of relying on his predictions, his self-control, to say no for her against her expressed wish. Let’s just consider her acquiescence the ‘honest mistake’ that is nobody else’s problem, problem solved. Do better next time.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I think having sex with someone that you know they will later regret carries some moral weight.
and @hydroacetylene
But it’s still a scummy thing to do to sleep with someone who will foreseeably suffer emotional harm from it.
How would you know/foresee this? I guess if you are positive you are an absolutely terrible lay in every circumstance, you could theoretically have a duty to protect the opposite sex from your depradations... but no, it's their business. You don't have a crystal ball, and it's up to them to carry the consequences of their decisions, whether it's drinking, having sex, driving drunk, having sex while driving drunk etc. Who's responsible if she's drunk and runs some kid over in her car while you're having sex with her? You see my point? Being drunk makes women less responsible for the consequences of their actions when they choose to have sex, but ordinary humans more responsible when they choose to drive.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
How do you distinguish between someone who got drunk partly in order to get laid and someone who did not?
I don't. If you consent to sex, whatever your motives, drunk or not, it's done. It's just sex. It's not like jumping off a bridge. No necks get broken. Nothing morally relevant is happening.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I think everyone acknowledges that making a move on a vulnerable woman when she’s a bit drunk is taking advantage of her
I don’t acknowledge that. She probably got drunk partly to get laid. Declining her invitation to jump in the sack because she’s drunk is a grave & insulting violation of her autonomy as an adult, her wishes, and her well-being.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Doesn’t apply to my justification though. You’re a rational voter signaling to other rational actors, and the government, what policies you support more than others. Your opinion on the Voice itself aside, they will correctly infer that Mr No-voter likely isn't a big fan of reparations, wokism, and the Yes leaders.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I’m sorry, my ego got the better of me, I can’t let the accusation stand that the mob was always right and it ‘s just me being an asshole.
So here. I make an argument against the OP ,who presents a popular position. My comment is largely upvoted. Just two comments down, I get this sort of shit:
Are you actually interested in having a conversation and understanding what the other side is trying to claim, or do you want to try and score sick burns instead?
And
Do you really not believe this? How many women do you know?
Further down in a different branch:
I don't have sources on hand and am not putting together stuff for some clown who can't read
(That’s me.)
I don’t think I was antagonistic, no.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
What is your objection? That it’s a sort of lie, because you vote no when you really believe yes?
For me, every referendum has implicit questions baked in, such as ‘do you support the current government’, or here ‘do you support reparations, the woke stuff, the ‘yes’ side generally, etc’, and although it is not official, it is legitimate to vote on those.
My theory is that a lie is only a lie if the counterpart expects the truth, and the more he expects it, the more it is a lie. But in this case, other voters, and the government, expect you to answer based on those other questions too, so it’s not a lie (or rather, any answer would be a lie in some way, so any answer is morally fine).
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I mean it's correct, both in the sense that it's written this way usually, and grammatically, but it's ambigous if you say it, so I don't like it.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I don’t really get your point. Let’s say you think the voice is a mild good thing, but are 100% opposed to reparations. Clearly your Yes vote helps reparations, invites reparations, legitimates reparations to a degree. Imo it’s perfectly acceptable to vote No as a signal, and action, indirectly targeted against the outcome you really care about, reparations.
Often governments will use referenda as a show of support. Is it machiavellian to vote according to your support for the government instead of the relatively unimportant question being asked?
Extreme minimization of the symbolic importance of a mob invading the seat of government. According to this perspective, the march on rome was just a health-conscious bald man taking a stroll with friends. Any state in such a situation is justified in using lethal force, and lots of it, way earlier than the US actually did here. It's a threat to democracy in a way burning the whole city of minneapolis to the ground isn't.
More options
Context Copy link