omw_68
17hr ago
However if this were an earlier time when false allegations of homosexuality was considered defamation per se, might 'Licc'em Low Lisa' have been defamatory?
I haven't listened to the song, but I would guess that yes, in an earlier time, implying that someone is a homosexual would be considered defamatory.
The trend in the United States is towards free speech, which I basically agree with but obviously this is not without costs.
omw_68
17hr ago
Because it is usually not "grooming" in the sense that they are intentionally preying on these women from the start. Rather, it is usually more that the women become infatuated and initiate the sexual interest (eg, through flirting), they eventually catch feelings and lose the will to maintain appropriate boundaries, and the women discover their infatuation didn't lead to the (unrealistic) desired relationship so they blame him for their original behavior rather than accepting responsibility themselves.
I basically agree with this, but I would add the following:
If you are a man, it's pretty nice to have desirable women approaching you. And that's what typically happens if (1) you are a man; (2) you are in a high status position in an organization or institution; (3) you have regular contact with desirable women in the organization or institution; and (4) you are at least mediocre in terms of physical attractiveness.
The alternative to having desirable women approaching you is to seek them out yourself. Which consumes time and energy and more often than not leads to the unpleasant experience of being rejected.
The entire situation boils down to society refusing to treat women as adults with agency.
I think that's not entirely true. Rather, women pivot back and forth between "helpless child" and "adult with agency" depending on what's convenient. A society that truly refused to treat women as adults with agency would put substantial limits on their autonomy. As a small example, it used to be common for girls' college dormitories to have curfews and to not permit male visitors after a certain hour.
omw_68
1d ago
The distinction you make between the sort of coercive vs. non-coercive wokeness sounds good, but it hasn't held up in practice.
I suspect part of the issue is that a lot of the time, wokeness is more about the tactics than the actual beliefs. In other words, for example, a large number of wokies (perhaps most of them) don't start from the premise that they desire racial equality and then start thinking about ways to work for racial equality. Rather, these wokies really like the idea of terrorizing other people with ever-changing language rules; taking over buildings on college campuses; blocking traffic; getting laws passed to punish and humiliate their out-group; and so on. Wokeness gives them a means to pursue these activities while feeling righteous in doing so.
omw_68
1d ago
I'm kind of skeptical about this, because the Left can easily just lie about what Chavez stood for. There are plenty of examples of the Left inverting reality when necessary.
My guess is that someone just decided to come forward with a story for whatever reason, which motivated other people to come forward with stories. Either because they were genuinely abused by Chavez or just wanted attention.
omw_68
1d ago
however, these norms are eroding at an alarming rate.
I'm extremely skeptical of this claim. What's your evidence?
Jim Crow was far more harmful to Black people than any of the attempts to remedy it have been to others.
Acknowledging the truth about racial differences is unlikely to result in a return of Jim Crow laws. The only evidence you have offered (so far) is a claim that racial differences were used to justify Jim Crow laws.
Meanwhile, harm to non-blacks from affirmative action and such is real and unquestionably happening.
I have considered many potential explanations for the continuing poor outcomes among Black people, both orthodox and heretical; all of them seem to, ultimately, trace back to discrimination against them, although that discrimination is not always done by human beings.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly if one were to apply your standard to the position that black underperformance is primarily the result of past discrimination by non-blacks, there's nowhere near sufficient proof.
In any event, I take it that in your view, it's reasonable for society to refuse to acknowledge truths solely because doing so might possibly result in harm. Is that correct? And this applies universally, not just in connection with policymaking. Correct?
omw_68
1d ago
No. It would not necessarily lead to such; however, defenders of Jim Crow often cited the alleged mental deficits and supposed inherent criminal tendencies of the Black population; thus, it is not as far from possibility as I would prefer.
Ok, I think I understand your position now. I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, in my view, societal recognition of truth should not depend on the likelihood of harm resulting from that recognition. Either something is true or it isn't and the standard for truth seeking is logically irrelevant to the consequences of such truth.
Moreover, if there is a principle in place that the possibility of harm is ground to reject something which would otherwise be accepted as true, it opens the door to the worst kind of abuses.
Second, even if there were such a principle in place, truths should not be rejected on the mere possibility of harm. Rather, for much the same reason, a compelling case needs to be made of a strong likelihood of harm.
Here, there are plenty of laws and Supreme Court decisions in place guaranteeing equality. Thus, it is pretty unlikely that recognition of the truth about blacks would change this.
Indeed, it is worth drawing a distinction between (1) lower black intelligence and higher criminality; and (2) the genetic cause of the same. There is no serious dispute that on average, blacks have lower IQs than non blacks and are more likely to commit crime. And yet this hasn't resulted in reenactment of Jim Crow laws. Given that, it's difficult to see how recognition of a genetic component in this discrepancy would bring about a return of Jim Crow laws.
It is also worth distinguishing between (1) the level of proof necessary for societal acceptance of some truth; and (2) the level of proof necessary for laws to be enacted on the basis of the same.
We already have laws and policies in place which were enacted on the assumption that black underperformance is the result of past discrimination. I'm perfectly fine with a principle which says that until there is super-duper proof that this assumption is correct, then such laws and policies are unacceptable.
In other words, if -- for purposes of policymaking -- we are going to have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of genetics, in whole or in part -- it follows logically we should have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of past discrimination.
If the resulting logic is "we just don't know why blacks score lower on intelligence tests and commit more crime, and until that is known definitively, we won't have Jim Crow laws; we wont' have affirmative action; all races will be treated equally; etc." that's fine with me. To put it another way, if the conclusion that black underperformance is in part the result of genetics is possibly harmful to blacks, then we should also consider that the reverse conclusion is harmful to non-blacks.
omw_68
1d ago
I don’t think Nazis had a lot of sexual abuses.
I don't know about that. Of course I despise Nazis, so it's difficult for me to concede that they may have had any redeeming qualities. In any event, they surely had their share of sadists and psychopaths. And it's pretty common for men in positions of power to leverage that power for sexual access to women (or other men). So I would have to guess that there was quite a lot. Especially given that they were in a position to conceal much of the evidence.
omw_68
1d ago
But it is notable that the ideology that claims to be about liberation, smashing of oppression and coercion, removal of hiearchies, etc. etc. has such poor antibodies against abusers achieving power.
I would need to think about that one. Of course part of the issue here is that I absolutely despise Leftists so of course I am naturally biased towards any argument that they are more prone to be sexual abusers and such.
That being said, perhaps a factor is that -- in large part -- Leftist ideology is about reforming traditional norms. So perhaps the provides more of an opening for sexual opportunists and such. Certainly if I were looking to get laid, I would prefer to the head of the local PETA chapter, as opposed to being the head of the local chapter of Operation Rescue.
omw_68
1d ago
It says something about the psychology of this particular ideology that so many prominent lefty leaders turn out to be rapists and/or pedophiles.
FWIW I think that modern Leftism is a magnet for various types of bad people (grifters, sadists, sexual abusers, etc.) who want (1) a shield against accusations of misbehavior; and (2) the opportunity to feel good and righteous and just as they inflict harm on others.
If I were a sociopath and I were mainly concerned about self-aggrandizement; sexual opportunities; and/or outlets for sadism, then 100% I would get involved in some Leftist cause.
As far as Nazis go, I would guess that it's the same principle in play. Perhaps not Hitler himself, but I think it's very likely that the ranks of Nazi leadership were full of sexual abusers, it's just that there isn't evidence available in the form of victim testimony, photographs, etc. But if you are a sociopath in 1930s Germany, of course you are going to join the Nazi party if you can.
omw_68
1d ago
Ok, so in your view, societal recognition that blacks are less intelligent and more criminal would necessarily lead to the reinstatement of racial segregation in the South.
Do I understand you correctly?
omw_68
1d ago
If a society believes that Black people are less intelligent and more criminal, and they are wrong, millions of innocent people go through their lives with a boot stamping on their faces.
Are you able to be a little more specific about how public policy would necessarily look if society believed that "[b]lack people are less intelligent and more criminal"?
To put it another way, what exactly do you mean by "millions of innocent people go through their lives with a boot stamping on their faces"? What exactly would happen to these people which is equivalent to having a boot [stomping] on their faces"?
omw_68
1d ago
I'm perfectly open to the idea that black people might genetically be predisposed to low IQ and personality traits that lead to higher criminality, but I think this is far from proven
The evidence is so overwhelming that a scientific study is not even necessary. It's like observing that men are genetically predisposed to being taller than women.
I don't think we can be 100 percent sure until we have computers that can simulate the physics of our biological processes to a high degree of accuracy
This strikes me as an isolated demand for rigor. Would you apply the same standards to the claim that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer?
However, that does not meant that feminists whose primary concern is legal equality have just vanished.
Ok, please identify three prominent feminists in the United States whose primary concern is legal equality.
Edit: My mental model based on years of observations is that (1) feminists -- generally speaking -- are man-haters, grifters, and generally bad people; and (2) the idea that feminism just wants legal equality is a fantasy used by feminists to deflect attention from this.
But I am open to be proven wrong. At a minimum, if "we just want legal equality" is a significant part of the feminist movement and not just a motte, it should be pretty easy to identify 3 prominent feminists whose primary concern is legal equality. But I doubt you will be able to do it. I'm pretty confident that if you identify these individuals, it will be apparent that in reality (1) they spend little or no effort pursuing legal equality; and (2) most of their effort is spent man-bashing, grifting, and/or demanding special treatment for women.
Admittedly, demands for special treatment for women are often disguised as demands for equality. For example, demands that more women be put on the boards of directors of big companies. But what gives the game away is that (1) these demands are not for legal equality but rather demands for equality in results; and (2) inevitably, these demands are very selective -- there is little or no complaint about the fact that the vast majority of coal mining deaths are male or the fact that the vast majority of homeless people are male.
There are kinds of feminism that revolve around hating men and there are also kinds of feminism that just support legal equality between men and women.
In other words, there's bailey feminism and motte feminism. "we just want equality" is simply a Trojan horse used by feminists to deflect and distract.
Supporting legal equality for women is not a hate ideology.
If the support is being made in good faith. In practice, it almost never is.
But perhaps I'm missing something important or misunderstanding you. Would you care to identify (1) three important ways in the United States where men and women don't have legal equality; and (2) three significant feminists who are working primarily to end these inequalities?
omw_68
2d ago
Social pressure was one of the ways women were coerced into marrying nice guys, along with religious indoctrination, the threat of economic privation, and physical force as a last resort. But you really need all of them.
Based on my observations, I would say that physical force is unnecessary. In the sense that 99% of women will respond just fine to social pressure and economic incentive. Yes, you might need physical force for that last 1%, but in terms of preserving the numbers and cohesiveness of a group, letting that 1% go isn't a big deal.
omw_68
2d ago
You can't change girls. What you can do is force them to be with non-assholes. Which we did, for a very long time. Until we suddenly decided that we are too good for that. And now we are going extinct.
There's no need for anything extreme. There are plenty of subcultures in the West where social norms (1) strongly discourage women from having sex outside of marriage; and (2) require that potential marriage partners be approved by the parents. This does a reasonably good job of filtering out the sort of men who are best avoided (and encouraging a lot of men who would otherwise be players to behave more constructively).
omw_68
2d ago
Most important for what? For getting casual sex, sure. For developing a soul-deep bond with someone you'd enjoy talking to every day for the rest of your life… jury's still out. Or, rather, Manosphere types don't even try to make such an argument, because they don't believe in romance.
Well, I think the steelman of the argument is that to have the soul-deep bond with a woman as a romantic/sexual partner, there needs to be primal attraction on her part. So that if she has short term flings with attractive men who won't commit to her; and then settles for a less attractive man who is otherwise a good relationship partner, but doesn't excite her in the same way, the relationship will be poisoned from the start and she will always resent him for not living up to her past partners.
I do think there is some degree of validity of this argument. If society is willing to agree that men can be spoiled by frequent use of pornography and frequent viewing of women who meet "unrealistic beauty standards," why is it so difficult to accept that women can be spoiled by casual sex with extremely desirable men?
omw_68
2d ago
There's also a large element that in the current dating environment, if the average male and female singleton swapped bodies, the male-in-female-body would likely be able to secure a reasonable boyfriend within a week or two. The woman piloting a male body would be absolutely unfucked.
I think that this is a separate but related issue. Ultimately, man is a tournament species, i.e. in the absence of laws, rules, or norms, there would be a minority of males with harems while the majority of males get very little in the way of mating opportunities. Over the last 20-40 years, there has (1) been a relaxation in social norms around sex and reproduction; and (2) technologies have emerged which allow people to circumvent some of these norms.
So to me, in hindsight, it seems pretty much inevitable that a greater and greater percentage of men will encounter difficulty in getting into sexual/romantic relationships.
omw_68
2d ago
I agree in part. I think it is generally (although not exclusive) appealing to women who hate men (almost always their dad). But if the claims were even close to true, maybe they’d have a reason to hate men!
Well that's another common feature of hate ideologies -- the blood libel.
omw_68
2d ago
Of course, here you could have simply used basic reading skills to analyze the sources and, if I were making untrue claims, refute them using said sources.
Actually, I was did. As mentioned above, I "looked at those links and saw NOTHING supporting your claim." Not much else can be done except to give you a chance to identify the passages which you believe support your position.
You are using what is sometimes called the "thick book strategy." i.e. you make a false claim and when asked for backup, you point at a lengthy article and insist that the backup is contained somewhere within. But refuse to say where.
omw_68
2d ago
As a side note, I think it's worth pointing out that manosphere types can only exist to the extent feminism also exists. So for example, one can imagine a traditional society where (1) women are not free to have sex outside of marriage; and (2) any proposed marriage must be approved by a woman's father or other male guardian. In such a society, a pick-up artist type is not going to get anywhere. No amount of cold approaching, negging, etc. is going to get a man into a woman's pants.
On the other hand, in a society where women are free to have sex on a whim with whomever they want, then it's kind of inevitable that (1) some men will experiment with different techniques for seducing women; (2) men will exchange ideas on these issues; and (3) those men will discover things about female sexuality which are unflattering (because women are human and in general the truth about human nature is unflattering at times). i.e. some kind of manosphere will develop.
So really, as usual, this is about women wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
omw_68
2d ago
I loathe feminism. I think it is largely based on bad social science, bad economics, and bad evolution
I agree, but I think the bad science, economics, etc. are secondary -- primarily, feminism is a hate ideology. In the same way that neo-Nazis blame all the world's problems on Jews; and BLM types blame all the world's problems on white people, feminists blame all the world's problems on men. In practice, the goal of feminism is to transfer goodies (money, social status, power) from men to women to the greatest extent possible. Bad social science and such are one technique used in service of this goal.
omw_68
2d ago
But are we allowed to question what message women's questionable dating choices (made of their free will with no external pressure) send to young boys and girls? We have a clip of an (allegedly) attached woman melting for a high value male on camera, yet the discourse pivots to “protect boys from the manosphere”.
I think this is a good point. It's helpful to tell girls and young women (1) they shouldn't dress like that; (2) the shouldn't jump into anyone's lap; (3) when it comes to dating, they should look for a solid guy who isn't a player. This is good both for the woman herself and for society in general. It's like telling people they should choose fresh fruit over soda.
And there's a nice secondary benefit: The more girls who start behaving this way, the fewer boys who will be tempted by red-pill manosphere types.
Of course the main problem with this is that our society is uncomfortable doing anything that shames or otherwise attempts to control female sexuality.
omw_68
3d ago
80% of 2024 Trump voters apparently support the Iran bombing, so "MAGA is Trump" is pretty spot on. The Iran bombing, Epstein files (which I'm incredibly skeptical of) and Trump's undying love for Israel don't seem to put a dent on his popularity with MAGA.
FWIW I'm a Trump supporter and it would take quite a lot for him to lose my support. The reason is very simple: I can sense that the Left has a great deal of hostility and contempt towards, men, white people, and especially white men. And these wokies on the Left have a lot of sway over the Democratic party. Trump is anti-woke, or at least about as anti-woke as one could reasonably hope for.
Occam's razor.
I'm rather skeptical of this. Can you point to three instances in which (1) the Left has cancelled someone; and (2) doing so was a genuine and significant setback for the Left?
I don't think it makes much of a difference. Probably 95% of Americans have no idea who he was or what he stood for. I myself had completely forgotten him until now and I went to college in an agricultural area in the American West during the boycott grapes era.
More options
Context Copy link