haroldbkny
2yr ago
I may be wrong, and others may contradict me, but I feel like the predominent view in society is that once a girl is 18, it's not wrong to have sex with her if she so chooses. I generally subscribe to that view. My issue is primarily with the high school teacher student relationship
haroldbkny
5mo ago
I don't strictly mean this in particular was a bluff. But it's all a part of these types of big business tactics.
Would he try this on other more dangerous countries? I don't really know, but it is worrisome. He went further with North Korea than most others have, but that was probably overall a win. Still though, it's a much bigger risk than most presidents would be willing to take.
haroldbkny
10mo ago
That's a tough question. The short answer is, nothing I can't handle, though I get irritated with feminism saying EVERYTHING is female oppression, so I'd be annoyed if my hypothesis is right.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
While I don't know the history of "ask" vs "aks", I do also tend to find a lot of stuff like this in descriptive linguistic spaces, which is something that annoys me that I did not include in my original post.
Often when I see someone committing a prescriptive faux pas by questioning certain misuses of language, I see many people rush in to tell that person they're wrong.
Don't you know that use of the singular "they" in English is correct and ancient? Shakespeare used to use the singular "they". The same goes for use of "literally" as an emphasis. And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
I'm not personally equipped to argue back at these people, because I don't know enough of linguistic history, but something just feels like it could be wrong, like they may be misrepresenting history. But I have no way of knowing.
Maybe it was used, but was it "proper"? Must we defend any language simply because it was used at some point in history?
haroldbkny
1yr ago
What did NYT say? I really doubt they'd make factual claims that go beyond reporting what other people say.
What did Joe Scarborough say? Once again, individuals actors or outlets would not be enough to fully falsify Scott's claim. There would be to be many, and then it'd end up being a judgement call about how you define "rarely"
haroldbkny
1yr ago
I hope you're right. But where I am, in tech, promised salaries increased for like a year, then dropped right back down once the companies started laying people off. They knew they could get away with it.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
The hard left voices that are withholding their votes from Biden took the position that sure, Trump was horrible, but he was just saying openly what Republicans always believed.
That sentiment does not match up with anyone I know personally. Even if they felt Trump was saying things many Republicans believed, they still all thought Trump was a megomaniac who would seize power for himself, ruin our institutions, and start an apartheid state, and that's something I never heard anyone worry about from Mitt Romney.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
For me, for example, leftist seething is a plus. I enjoy it. I don't care about national unity. It is not one of my preferences. I like the political tensions and the rage. For me it's a plus of Trump. I like right-wing seething too
If that's the case, is this really the best forum for you to be participating in? It sounds like your values and the values of this forum are fundamentally at odds.
Infantile seething is not just a leftist thing.
No arguments from me here. But for whatever reason, I expect more from the left, and the fact that they've devolved in this way from previously having the moral high ground (in my previous estimation), taking everyone around me, and no one around me seems to be willing to acknowledge this, really drives me nuts.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
Yeah, I've never heard of Jews getting offended about acknowledging Christmas
I kinda disagree. I, for example, used to date a Jewish girl who kinda hated Christmas and objected to institutions she was in from doing things like putting up Christmas trees. It's not every Jew, but a lot of them do seem to have a stick up their ass about Christmas, as if it were some personal offense to them.
I've bounced between a few SSRIs and SNRIs in my life, but haven't seen much difference other than the fucked-up sex drive.
Are you certain they didn't make things better? I had to go on and off of SSRIs and SNRIs like 4 times before I finally accepted that it wasn't coincidence that better things seem to happen to me when I'm on them, and worse things seem to happen when I'm off them. I really thought it was coincidence at first, but eventually realized that I notice and accept the better things when I'm on these drugs.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
Governments love to restrict supply and subsidize demand
Why is that?
I agree with everything you just said. But I also wonder, is there a genetic hotness/beauty component to the trend as well? I will admit that when I was in college, I actually kind of thought that there was not such a thing as an attractive black woman (or rather that they were exceedingly rare, like only Halle Berry and other movie stars). I since have come to know black women in everyday life that I think are legit attractive. But I do wonder where my previous belief came from and if there's any truth to it. Is it nature, nurture, or was I just completely wrong in my belief? Does the black female face structure more commonly have more masculine components to it? That's what I used to think. Or is it obesity like you say, or ghetto dress culture of wearing baggy ugly clothes, or even is it that our culture really just doesn't prefer African American features like frizzy hair?
Also, I think that another trend for low dating appeal is personality, as well. This is easier to believe as just being "nurture". You'll hear this from black men all the time, about how black women are unpleasant to be around for being nagging, abusive, and even violent. The causes for this could be many things, from just confirmation bias, to black women being bitchy because they've been told by intersectional progressives that they have the shortest end of the stick, to maybe even them actually having the shortest end of the stick, and getting a raw deal, stuck with the unwanted kids, etc.
haroldbkny
1yr ago
If muting ads and sitting there works for your lifestyle, good for you
haroldbkny
1yr ago
Those people aren't on my side. That's a separate party, the group of people who hate fat people. I'm not a part of that group of people, and I dislike and disavow that group of people. Whereas my wife would say that she does feel that the fat acceptance movement is a fundamentally good thing, that she does like, and she would not disavow them. There's the big difference.
You're entirely putting words and thoughts into their mouths when you say this. You seem obsessed with the notion that pedophilia is wrong specifically because it's very impactful on the child's future, and you always talk about that. That could make sense. But maybe other people think pedophilia is wrong for other reasons. Leftists think pedophilia is wrong because it's an unfair power dynamic, and takes advantage of children, who are weak and need our protection. That reason could make sense too. But it's not okay for you to wave that away and say "sure, they say they're against pedophilia, but what they really mean is something else, because of <roundabout justification regarding how underage sex is impactful just like trans surgeries>".
No value system is bulletproof, and all are subject to people finding edge cases and random gotchas. But when you do that, you're not really listening to them, you're just attacking them because you want to attack them. Your values aren't theirs. That doesn't mean they are okay with pedophilia any more than you are. This all just comes off as you trying to find any random justification to believe that your outgroup is a bunch of monsters. You're specifically focusing on pedophilia being wrong because it has impacts on the child's future because it allows you to attack the left for not seeing it quite that way.
Thanks, I agree with this largely, just one minor nitpick:
I have to act in line with the modern progressive ethos of women being just as Strong and Powerful and Capable as men in contexts where it would benefit them, then accept "But women are so weak and incapable and afraid, and are uniquely capable of being made to do things they don't want" in contexts where this reasoning could be used to justify special favours for women.
On more traditionalist, or traditionalist-friendly places like the Motte, they may say "But women are so weak and incapable and afraid, and are uniquely capable of being made to do things they don't want". But when it comes to actually dealing with progressives and feminists, it's even more insidious. For 100 years, people were pushing towards women having more rights along with responsibilities like men. Then the 3rd wave feminists came along and started to push back on this. They started insisting on special privileges for women. They claim that this is not because "women are so weak and scared" but because "men are evil and privileged" or "society uniquely hates women". I cannot abide this explanation, because I still see so many privileges for women, where women are already elevated over men.
So for this example, they'd claim that men need to be constantly cognizant of not making women uncomfortable, not because women deserve special consideration, but because women have historically been oppressed, and men and society don't care about women's feelings, and men need to correct this.
haroldbkny
2yr ago
Wouldn't you get the same feeling volunteering in or contributing to a local soup kitchen? Or mentoring through Big Brothers/Sisters? Coaching Little League/Pop Warner/AYSO (team activities cut suicide risk!)? Filling in potholes in the road to cut traffic accidents? Are local people any less "real?"
No, those are good activities, too, and I did some of them as well. But that doesn't say anything about my main point in that paragraph, which is bang for the buck. The price of my time is generally considerably high, so really, I was contributing potentially a lot more than just a few dollars when I was volunteering my time. And still, even when I would give time or money to those places, I doubt I was really saving lives, the way paying for malaria nets would be.
Why wouldn't you think that far-away cases would have their own complex social politics? Why would you think that "aid" parachuted in from strangers would be any less likely to fall afoul of these problems than you, working in an area you're presumably at least a little familiar with, among people you presumably share at least a few things in common with?
Because they don't know the person who's giving it, and also they probably understand how life and death things are. If my life were at stake, I'd take aid from anyone.
And that I seems like a moral superstimulus to me, which substitutes the sugar-water of depersonalized "effectiveness" for the hard, hard work of improving ourselves and the uncomfortable things close to us.
I mean, maybe. I personally mostly thought about it as the QALYs-per-dollar thing. I wanted to try to help in the most efficient way possible. Save the most people with as little money as possible. I just think that some far away places probably need that kind of help more than the northeastern US.
haroldbkny
2yr ago
I agree it was terrible. I don't necessarily think either is worse, but I personally can't stand social shaming used to enforce policies, which is the MO of the left.
haroldbkny
7d ago
Ah, I see. Well, that makes more sense, then.
haroldbkny
19d ago
For almost a decade I have worked two days a week and I have never been happier or ironically more successful.
What do you do?
haroldbkny
5mo ago
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but truly, I have had so many experiences where I go to meet people on some conservative or libertarian meetup, and I'm excited to meet them, but then I find they're just extremely confrontational mindless drones who will jump on board any conspiracy theory, parrot anything they heard no matter how little sense it makes or how likely it is, or champion anyone who likewise wants to own the libs. Whatever it takes to convince themselves just a little more that leftists totally suck. That's not the sort of person I want to be or care to be around anymore.
haroldbkny
5mo ago
Yes, that's my assessment based on my company. It's a big company, but I know that at least one other big company totally differs from mine in how hiring is done (it's more central, less team-owned). I don't know which is closer to the norm for others companies.
Despite all of my company's flaws, I've always been proud of the fact that I really don't know any diversity hires. The team owned and data driven process to assess candidate skills have been very effective at keeping DEI's influence on hiring almost non-existent.
haroldbkny
6mo ago
Imagination is dead, for men anyway. I don't really know if imagination was ever a consistent way for men to get off, or if people kept records on that, but it probably is less used today than ever before.
Also https://youtube.com/watch?v=fQTOAWCpe44?si=eDG7ebQXX_kDQunV
For women, I think imagination is still alive and well. It's all about thinking up scenarios for them. Although I could imagine it's possible to get hooked on erotica to stimulate your mind's eye, I've never heard of any cases.
haroldbkny
11mo ago
That's good to know. I still may not risk it, though, I have pretty low threshold for stuff like this getting to me.
That's an interesting perspective. I would add as an addendum that I don't necessarily think men's anatomy makes more sense for how they make themselves cum (though it's possible that's the case). But I think the biggest factor is that at a certain age, men start to experience crippling, debiltating urges to cum. So they undergo the self exploration of how to make themselves orgasm by necessity, whereas for most women it's an optional thing.
More options
Context Copy link