The russians haven’t made any progress either. When the soviet inheritance is entirely spent, the attritional industrial war will just be western handouts versus the russian economy, and I don’t think russia looks good in this contest. Whether the ukrainians want to keep fighting is their business, but as a western european I’m happy to foot the bill and keep russia busy indefinitely, especially since there is no long-lasting peace on the table, only a provisional ceasefire.
I could lean on zelensky if you offered pre-feb 24 borders, else let’s just keep playing ,who gets uncomfortable first.
No, Ted K.'s true problem with the technological society was that it made people leftist. Since this is immediately obvious when one actually reads the manifesto in even a cursory way
What? No. He thought the tech made people unhappy and destroyed the planet, and leftism to him is just an example of psychological suffering. "What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type".
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.
If bringing them capitalism and the pleasures of modernity does not innoculate against jihadi mind viruses, what would?
Blasphemy. That’s how we got the christians to calm down. Certainly not by respecting their beliefs and community, or by celebrating their historical accomplishments. Islam’s stupidity and failures should be constantly rubbed in the face of its believers. Of course all muslim immigration to the west should be stopped on purely practical grounds, the insult is just a bonus.
Usually free speech can deal with those superstitions. The problem is that Islam has a built-in counter-strategy, death for apostates and critics. As sheikh qaradawi says, if not for the death penalty for apostates, Islam would not have survived to this day. This is the mechanism islamophobes need to target first, because it’s utterly poisonous to free expression. Free speech of muslims should be curtailed on that point, anyone preaching that doctrine should be deported or imprisoned. Apostates and critics should always be protected by the full force of the state, and get into a sort of witness protection program if they so desire.
Israel should bulldoze al-aqsa on live TV while ceremoniously asking Allah to do something about it. Muslims should be given the chance to reflect more often on their impotent rage and impotent god. Spurn the symbol and spare the man.
This is exactly the problem with the whole ‘consent’ framework though, which is an inherently modern thing.
The ancients knew what rape was, women refused suitors all the time.
Widespread consent of the governed is relatively modern. Modern man, and woman, is considered capable of deciding.
I’d like you to assume the full consequences of your critique of consent. Could you develop? I think reactionaries who seemingly criticize consent, really value the consent of the father above the adult daughter’s, which kind of makes sense from a ‘women as overgrown children’ perspective, but I don’t think that’s your position.
Everyone understands that there’s such a thing as getting someone drunk. “I got my friend drunk last night”, or “our boss go us so drunk last night” are statements everyone understands.
Not in the exculpatory sense you’re using it for women. If you’re stopped for drunk driving, “my boss/friend got me drunk” does not work. The responsibility is yours. The fine is for you. You can reproach your friend for bad advice, being a bad influence, but ultimately, it’s all your fault.
I mean you’re surely not denying that social pressure, perhaps the most powerful human communal force, exists?
My parents, like I’m sure, most parents, warned me extensively against social pressure as I was growing up, to prepare me for life as adult. Are you saying women are psychologically too feeble to resist that pressure?
that results in the man’s gain of status and the woman’s loss of it
Well that seems morally entirely fine. Surely you can’t expect a human to privilege the status of another above his? Any contest, any discussion between people has a status component, and usually one’s gain is the other’s loss.
often a clear sense of being exploited or dirtied afterward.
Subjective state of mind contradicted by their actions. Worthless as an objection to the original deal.
If their consent at the time did not matter, then their withdrawal of consent later matters even less.
One reason for the discrepancy is there was some gaslighting on the inflation. First they said it wasn’t happening, then that it was transitory. They were dragged kicking and screaming into raising rates, which they swore would strangle growth and reduce employment. Now they bring these low-ball inflation numbers , which mathematically result in higher real growth, and people have trouble believing it. Understandable, as no one understands what’s happening, but some are still pretending. Mainstream economists are using this baffling economic situation to argue they were right the whole time, as if being wrong twice makes you right.
Aren’t you tired of accusing rationalists of not caring about the things they care the most about? I can’t think of a group less prone to appeals to authority, more aware of the replication crisis .
And again with an anecdote where your counterpart just comes off as obviously wrong. The guy doesn’t understand, then he lies about it. No one is encouraging this behaviour, so what lesson is there to be gained here.
As long as you’re free-associating: the russians are quokkas apparently, while 0HP and co, the edgy panaroid hysterical pessimists, they’re wise. Why then is there such affinity between them?
They’re very similar, and wrong in the same way. They systematically overestimate the likelihood of defection. Cooperation and honesty appear impossible, and lies are all they ever hear. What should the russians have done? Assume everyone up and down the chain of command was lying even harder than previously assumed? You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
Past a certain point of skepticism/assumed lies, you ‘ve sawed off the last epistemological branch you’re sitting on, sink into the conspiracy swamp, and you become a blackpill overdose/russian type, confused and afraid of your own (possibly fish-like) shadow.
It's unmistakeable, Vlad has less hair, and it's almost completely grey, that's sloppy doublesmanship.... Another hypothesis would be that Vlad is merely an older incarnation of the entity previously known as Putin, which itself once appeared as Vova, a cute child full of life. Are you the same person you were yesterday?
Also, a double doesn't make sense. If Putin is alive, he can credibly threaten, as well as lead, his inner circle. A double can't, while still making negotiations with the west much more difficult.
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 .
Uncharitably, they've been horribly mutilated with no way back, and the only way to justify what was done to them is to perpetuate it.
Like circumcision, except they don’t stop at the tip. If you have your daughter’s genitals mutilated because of your weird-ass sexual beliefs, you’re either the worst most cruel backwards reactionary or a brave progressive fighter against that same oppression.
I wish to register a prediction that this is not going to alter our lives in any substantial negative way, or result in a singularity-type event. From the outside view, past predictions of doom and utopia have a terrible track record, and that’s good enough for me. I’m too lazy (or worse) for the inside view and stopping it is impossible anyway, so there you go. Prepare to lose to the most boring heuristic, eggheads.
Your post was high quality. One can always disagree on substance, but their criticism of the form doesn't hold water. Partisan complaints based on impossibly high standards shouldn't be rewarded with edits, let alone apologies and bans.
I don’t see how. As a political group, they’re a status quo anchor with heavy susceptibility to ‘care-based’ arguments and other immature, conventional justifications. You can’t use them as trailblazers and schock troops. They’ll just follow the mass of winners and push them a bit further by inertia. One should always emphasize self-interest, conformity, and good intentions when speaking to large groups of women, but that also applies to large groups of men (where it is referred to as ‘populism’).
The power of women as political actors is overrated. Like black people and other ‘oppressed’ groups, their privileged legal position and the prestige they enjoy in mainstream discourse is not down to anything they did, it has been granted to them by others, and can be taken away.
It's only an open question for those who don't pay attention. Responding to jewdefender in earnest is the 4chan equivalent of taking the bait. Newbies take this one-sided charade at face value, while from a higher vantage point, the hard right only dupes itself. That would be alright with me, if it didn’t lower the quality of discourse in the process. To be fair to oblivious newbies, they probably expect a guy with such a long and unquestionable history of bad faith (just to name one, his deletion of all his old comments to prevent just that discovery) on here to be banned, as he should.
I’d just attack the central point: the average man has *more *agency than in the past, and the leaders are reluctant because the followers are rebellious. Who wants to babysit a hundred Han Solos? In the land where every man is king, who wears a crown?
The forces we are subject to are distant indeed, nothing like the brutal personalized hierarchy of the past. If our literature celebrated a slavish reverence for authority, should we really conclude that all is well with our dear leaders?
Does our fiction say anything about our society?
Obligatory anti-woke rant: I’m not sure we’re going to be able to do art criticism much longer, since so much of recent art is corrupted by the artist’s conscious metadecision to ask that same question ‘what is this piece saying about our society?’ . What can a soviet or nazi morality tale tell us about their societies? Not much more than what they wanted us to think. It would be ludicrous to claim that soviet realist movies reflect the reality that soviet man felt oppressed by capitalism. In that vein, perhaps the iliad is nothing more than the condemnation/exhortation of a mirage, rather than a reflection of something real.
You can get a view of the late 19th century from reading zola, but that was already ‘committed literature’, so it’s hard for me to take it at face value. It’s only on the edges, far from an author’s central message, that there is truth. The more ideologically cleaned up works of fiction are, the least can be gathered from their study. They told me the role of art was to change the world, but I wanted it described, and perhaps embellished.
Jesus, just because you lose a few battles here and there doesn’t mean you hand over the keys to the castle. Let them come for all of history, it’ll be more honest.
I doubt your version of events, christianity in the beginning was hardly this unstoppable force, the priest probably threw in the winter solstice celebrations as a sweetener in the conversion of a pagan king. And I doubt he would have gotten anything had he lied down preemptively as you advise, if he was indeed threatened with more than hellfire.
When I see ‘deals’ like that, essentially bottomless blackmail, I hear a loud voice inside telling me the blackmailer should go fuck himself. I’m pretty sure for people in the past, or in an honor culture, it’s even louder. I have problems with those cultures, we are civilized, domesticated animals now, but this is handing the knife to your butcher .
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.
Our east asian and european immigrants are also doing great. Don't need any advice for them, they took to the forceful assimilation well. I know a son of vietnamese immigrants, he was almost too patriotic. Funny, smart kid, but when he asked for the french flag to be flown on bastille day at the school, people rolled their eyes. He's a tank officer in the french army now (he's short). The french do not have a problem with this kind of frenchman, they love him. Whatever 'ethnic french racism' there is has never made him burn a school.
Maybe increase welfare, since the root cause for senseless destruction must be poverty and lack of chances? It's already higher than yours.
Furthermore, this in fact doesn't really contradict my original point. Groups that are treated as the US treated voluntary immigrants do fine and assimilate great. Groups that aren't don't.
Are you sure you didn't reverse your reasoning process here? You first look at which groups do badly, and then assume their treatment must be terrible.
Consider the possibility that they were treated the same - they had access to free school and university, generous welfare, a passably functioning job market - , and yet still behaved in a dramatically opposite manner as the vietnamese and europeans.
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.
Ah yes they must have sensed it. It’s the old vaginatron morality detector versus women like assholes theory. I will say that nastyness towards social inferiors is not disqualifying men as sexual partners. I think both sides overrate morality as a factor in sexual success.
It comes with a lot more social cachet, but revealed preferences tell another story. The substitute doesn’t need to be superior in every way to displace the original, it starts on the margins. And the margin is some costly, impractical, subpar sexual encounter versus a costless, unbounded, coolidge-effect boosted masturbation fantasy. But there will always be a niche for real sex purists, like the people who weave their own clothes.
The gore is a feature, a token of our respect for life. We’re not “putting people to sleep” here. Each juror should get a splash when the blade falls. They shouldn’t eat meat if they can’t kill the animal.
I usually stay out of trans threads, and I don’t consider myself a blind partisan (oh really), but I think reed’s account is completely credible, no need to hedge. I don’t see how the articles and pmmeclassicmemes’ post constitute debunkings. Why is it absurd that kids say weird shit, or that most patients at the clinic have mental health problems? Just ask if you have a problem, and medical science will find one (very affirming).
So on one side, plausible allegations by an old bolshevik, on the other, the 50 stalins crowd. They are incapable of reigning in their excesses internally, so obviously the criticism will come from a disgraced party member or an enemy.
You have a more naive view of social relationships than I do (or rafa : see ‘crocodile tears’) . It’s all about incentives. Boys are not rewarded for crying, so they learn not to cry. We’d be bawling our eyes out right now if there was status in it. It’s funny, even on the internet, in communities unlike this one, people will signal that they are upset to "win an argument".
More options
Context Copy link