@magic9mushroom's banner p

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1103

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1103

Verified Email

I will confess to skimming your post. Mea culpa. I also didn't particularly mean to call you an SJer - I was more gesturing at their influence over academia and thus the "default view".

Can you not hear yourselves? Do you think any decent woman would want to go within a mile of a man who thinks she should be literal chattel? Do you understand why such comments and attitudes drive feminism, and indeed drive it to the extremes which are bad for everyone? Is anyone really surprised Chinese or Japanese or Korean women would prefer to be spinsters?

It is extremely clear from his links that he does understand this; much of the point of his (or, well, Jim's) proposal to make women chattel is so that feminists attempting to become spinsters could be chained up and raped.

(And that's terrible.)

the Opium Wars are generally hard to defend

Not all that hard - well, hard for SJers, but not so hard for others. The fundamental problem was that "China did not want to be equal"; the Qing government did not recognise the existence of foreign nations, only tributary subjects (who could beg for favours, but not negotiate) and rebels (to be crushed). That attitude wasn't compatible with having functional international relations in a period in which the so-called Central Kingdom was not, in fact, the global or even regional hegemon. And, well, the usual result of nonfunctional international relations between countries with interests in the same region is war.

The precise causes of the Opium Wars were not amazingly sympathetic, but ultimately they, or something very much like them, were inevitable; the only way the Qing were ever going to start taking international relations seriously was to have their teeth kicked in.

(An obvious parallel in the West, if less bloody, was Pope Boniface VIII. He essentially declared himself feudal overlord of the world in the infamous papal bull Unam sanctam; the French king proved otherwise by sending an army to kidnap Boniface, resulting in the Pope's death and the Avignon Papacy.)

I will note that social media algorithms could conceivably be bad for developing brains the same way drugs tend to be.

Of course, "social participation de-facto relies on you taking drugs" is a horror for adults too, and so I'm leaning heavily toward "destroy Web 2.5" and/or "heavily-regulate algorithmic social media so that it stops being addictive".