@sun_the_second's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC


User ID: 2725



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2725

That was more or less my impression. The most charitable reading would be that her college was heavily female-skewed and focused on social status over STEM, so she literally couldn't find a guy who wasn't swimming in pussy and had his incentives shaped accordingly.

From the point of view of an average progressive normie playing as a black samurai is awesome and fun, and you're the one who is injecting politics.

The message I took out of that was more like "no one can be truly completely satisfied", which just feels like common sense unless you're too stuck in a romantic's mentality.

I'd be tempted to answer with "first_time?.png" if I were Jewish.

Aside from the fact that it appeals to the doomers, why?

What's the gag?

Why do you think is it called "pimping her out" as opposed to "pimping for her" or something?

I assume the "parasite" sentiment comes from the fact that pimps don't always allow their services to be refused. Do you think it'd be a good libertarian world if enforcers showed up uninvited at your office and let you know that either you hire them for the price they set, or something might happen?

Restating your opinion in the form of a wojak picture doesn't make it more true.

Visiting brothels sounds like failing at the social role of a husband to me.

And if it's fine because husbands weren't expected to be as faithful as wives, then this is again evidence of inequality.

patriarchal societies enact slut-shaming, which is more or less true. What is left unsaid is that there existed the parallel practice of cad-shaming.

If being a john was seen as (relatively) normal yet prostitutes were pariahs, then this parallel practice of cad-shaming wasn't as prevalent as slut-shaming, and the feminists are justified in leaving it unsaid.

Rape is an extreme. I'm not about to revive the debate of whether it's about lust or about power, but it's clearly an opportunistic act. You don't pick whoever's most attractive, you pick whoever's most vulnerable/available.

The poster above is talking about weirdness, which is a more tame and regular thing that doesn't need to factor vulnerability in as much (it is less heavily prosecuted and the men have fewer reasons to believe they're committing an immoral act in the first place). Safe to assume that weirdness would be more correlated to attractiveness than rape.

People play roguelikes, including the ones that take dozens of hours per run, and it is my impression that most of them don't rewind (if only because it's inconvenient to constantly backup the savefile).

I'd expect players who don't like irreversible consequences to simply not play the game.

If you call "briefly acted against my interests" "be my enemy", sure.

This kind of mindset looks like it either leads to finding out what it really is like to have everyone surrounding you turn on you (once you schiz out on Stacy for trying to "assassinate" you), or eventually landing in the madhouse because the cognitive dissonance between thinking Bob wants to kill you yet not acting like he wants to kill you can't be easy on the mind.

As the Putin meme goes, "if the fight is imminent, strike first. How to determine if a fight is imminent? Once you've struck first, it is."

How does "more choice in a videogame" map to "wheels come off"???

I do want to drive my car wherever I want.

You say that like jumping into a long-term relationship is trivial. It looks like the first stage of that plan still involves finding a woman willing to go on a date with you and have it go beyond treating her to dates ad infinitum.

What kind of rituals do you think were there for confirming "eligibility", and what was the cutoff point? Are we talking "bullet ant mittens"?

It is my impression that many obviously "ineligible" (by modern and premodern standards) men successfully reproduced in the premodern era, because opportunities for women to be anyone but a wife were either incredibly scarce or worse than a subpar husband.

It's not random. It's a popular phrase being shifted.

You can treat them as if they'd made an overly spicy joke, and they'll wear it as a mark of pride. Or you can put them through the wringer so they'll think better next time. I don't think the second option is more laughable.

  • -13

Calling a specific subsection of women unrapeable is a pretty clear implication that you consider other subsections acceptable to rape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Proving_the_existence_of_the_rule

It's not rocket science. Sure, it would't hold up in a decent court, but "acktchyually I said I wouldn't even rape her, why are you upset" isn't fooling anyone.

  • -13

By that logic the serfs were the most prestigious caste of medieval society, because food, unlike swords and castles, is actually necessary for society.

That was not so and isn't so still. Neither was motherhood.

Grandpas typically don't live as long. That's a larger factor towards why grandmas represent the covid-endangered family member than increased respect towards grandmas, I think.


This makes zero sense.

What do you honestly think is the "function" of Mohammad pictures? I say it's "antagonizing Muslims and rallying anti-Islamists". There's no such thing as "technically isn't a picture of Mohammad" that magically makes a Muslim think it's okay.

In contrast, sticking it to the vegans is clearly not the only, or even the primary function of eating real meat.

I don't believe you don't see the difference, so spill the real point you're trying to make.