thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
fails to explain the FAANG people
A lot of them probably expect to be on the receiving end of transfers of social status rather than economic status.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
7d ago
Isn't it amazing how "happy" people can be when they do what their abuser wants rather than defying them?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
18d ago
No, it has everything to do with this scenario. Right now the default is single motherhood and the father has to fight in court to change this default. This would make it so that the default is shared parenthood and the mother has to fight in court to change it. She still could be a single mother if she convinces the court that his behavior is bad enough to warrant divorce, but that requires actually demonstrating his bad behavior rather than simply her not wanting to cooperate with him.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
25d ago
Idk maybe I'm not cynical enough but it seems genuine to me? Then again some people do seem to think she's a sort of master manipulator.
These aren't mutually exclusive. If anything I'd argue the best manipulators are often those who don't consciously recognize their behavior as manipulative.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
If a lot of women/girls are so fragile that they can't handle the mere sight of a penis without being traumatized, then we should stop pretending that they are in any way the equal of men and consign them to the home where they won't have to suffer such trauma. I don't think most women are actually that fragile (though some often pretend to be to exploit people's protectiveness...), but maybe I'm just wrong and they really aren't capable of one of the most basic parts of participating in public society: not sexualizing everyone around you.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
But it was renamed and set to private immediately after all her content was apparently removed by a mod (according to both the moderation log and the message displayed if you try to look at any of it).
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
I know the general tendency but haven't seen specific examples (about specifically AI CSAM, at least).
@SteveAgain is likely referring to legal changes like this, which seem to be based on sentiments like these.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
6mo ago
Dealing with enemies: Pre-expansion game, there were multiple viable approaches - a belt of ammo going to a bunch of turrets, a couple layers of laser turrets, a pipe to flamethrowers, or some mix thereof were all viable strategies with advantages and disadvantages. In the expansion on Gleba, though, the 80% laser / 50% physical resistance on the stompers makes the "laser turret / gun turret perimeter" approach a lot less viable. This is clearly intended to push players towards using rocket turrets in the places they're needed, but it feels like they encouraged rocket turrets by making the other options worse rather than making rocket turrets better
I think you being a bit too critical of Wube's design here. The basic gun/laser turrets will handle the initial enemies easily enough. Rockets, tesla turrets, flamethrowers, or some mix thereof (railguns too, but those are overkill...) are all viable to handle Gleba's enemies once evolution starts kicking in. Rockets can be researched and sourced entirely locally. Tesla turrets require the player to go to Fulgora, but trivialize Gleba's enemies. Flamethrowers are held back by the lack of oil production on Gleba, but Vulcanus's coal liquefaction combined with Gleba's coal synthesis make it viable. Or you can just ship the fuel in from another planet since flamethrowers are so frugal and enemy attacks so sporadic. And if you really want to keep using the basic laser/gun turrets, the infinite damage research for both keeps it viable though expensive. You can get sufficiently far into them to handle Gleba's enemies without ever leaving Nauvis since they don't require any other planet's science.
On top of that, Gleba's design encourages a different defensive strategy. On Nauvis, nearly everything produces pollution that aggros the biters, which expand aggressively and attack in large waves. This encourages players to build a defensive wall around the entire factory for the constant biter attacks to break against. In contrast, only harvesting produces pollen on Gleba, so most of your factory doesn't need to worry about attacks if you ensure enemies don't need to path through it to get to your farms. Your defenses can thus be focused around your farms with almost no defense needed for the rest of the factory beyond some artillery turrets to keep expansions from popping up too close.
Wube's design is thus pushing people to try something different, with multiple options unlocked or enhanced by visiting the other planets. You can still use the same defensive strategies you used on Nauvis, but there are better ones and the design rewards you for trying something new.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
8mo ago
It also helped me to calibrate on your sense of proportionality
How do you get anything about proportionality out of that comparison? Isn't it common to use extreme examples in comparisons because extreme examples are usually more black and white and thus illustrate the point the comparison is trying to make more clearly rather than to imply they are proportionate?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I'm still not sure why penises are uniquely traumatizing to teenage girls, but have no harmful effect on teenage boys. I'm still not sure why only penises have this uniquely traumatizing effect, but men can handle vaginas just fine. Again, there's plenty of cultures where nudity is common, and everyone seems to do just fine seeing a penis there. But if you think seeing a penis is this horrifying traumatizing event, why do you keep inflicting it on little boys?
I don't think the concern is trauma. Exposing a male sex organ to a girl/woman is seen as defiling her due to women being traditionally considered sexually "pure". There's no need to worry about defiling boys as they are inherently defiled.
I really don't think you want to establish a precedent of labeling message t-shirts "harassment" because you think they are meant to annoy you.
That's already the precedent for men with message t-shirts. EDIT: Or rather, the harassment isn't in the message itself, it's in the fact that simply looking at where the message is written is a social faux pas.
And how exactly would you like women who wear it to be "punished"?
I already said above, they shouldn't be granted the additional protections against "sexual" harassment that women are typically given. They are giving shit, they should expect to deal with it given in return. EDIT: Importantly in this case, if you don't want people staring at your chest, don't put words there.
First, it is possible to offer things other than the opportunity for sex, particularly in the case of pedophilia where the social stigma is extreme. For instance, I would very likely lose my job were I to be doxxed and my employer made aware of my being attracted to kids despite my work not involving any interactions with children. I would not particularly like to lose my job, so making it illegal to fire me just because of that attraction is a nice carrot. Various other forms of de-stigmatization are similarly effective.
Second, some of the methods they currently use to exploit straight male sexuality are very compatible with pedophiles, perhaps even more effectively than with straight men generally. Back on reddit /u/FPHthrowawayB noted
3. This is just my theory, but in addition to pedos being sexually attracted to children, I do think their sexuality is also more child-like. I'm sure you can remember a time when you would have been more interested in seeing up a girl's skirt than seeing her have sex, if you even knew what that was. I think many pedos are still partially stuck in that developmental phase sexually.
I base this on the notion that pedos' interest in NN content is still more than you'd expect even given the complications in acquiring the alternative. Compare it to, for example, zoophiles, who also face similar complications but almost always still share exclusively sexually explicit content as opposed to simply softcore (since animals are rarely pictured "non-nude" of course).
Why crack down on sexualized imagery in media, but not on women and girls behaving that way IRL? Because the former serves men and the latter exploits them.
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
Meanwhile, I could look over at the high school boys team and say, "They are going through the exact same training regimen as myself, I'm even practicing in the same lane as some of them, but their race times are still faster than mine. Sexual dimorphism is weird."
Sure. Now think of how boys who have physical development issues feel when they put in more effort than said girls, get less results because of their development issues, and are then told "tough luck, you lost the genetic lottery" while they see the girls who didn't work as hard as them celebrated. I have no problems with the existence of women's leagues. I only take issue with the lack of humility some people exhibit in demanding to be considered the equal of people who they have explicitly excluded from competing with them while sneering at those with other types of disadvantage.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
18d ago
No. Shared parenthood without marriage too easily degrades into single parenthood as the parents are incentivized to sabotage each other to go about their lives independently. Even if it doesn't, being "shared" by two independent households is harmful to children. The default needs to be at least cohabitation and a binding relationship, with the possibility for the courts to adjudicate abnormal situations.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
25d ago
I am not. And this question was quite serious. I've long struggled with keeping up exercise routines because I find it hard to keep motivated due to the lack of noticeable rewards, even ones so minor as "a feeling of accomplishment" after finishing.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
I was really thinking about more gender neutral signifiers of conventional attractiveness--eg, facial symmetry, straight teeth, etc--than specifically masculine or feminine ones. For example, consider the three stereotypically "gay-looking" burglars from Survive Style 5+. I don't think it is very controversial to say that the pretty boys you linked are more conventionally attractive than Yoshiyuki's character, even when judging by masculine standards. As for feminine mannerisms, I think some kinds of performative femininity in men should be considered masculine because it is puffery that signals confidence and fitness rather than signaling weakness or true vulnerability.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
Yeah, it's not the works themselves but the surrounding culture which the works are an escape from.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
If you have a {SUBALTERN_QUALITY} and want a security clearance, you pretty much have one option: nonchalant openness when confronted about it without normally drawing attention to it otherwise. Hiding it is evidence you can be blackmailed into revealing secrets. "Out and proud" is an indication that you can't keep your mouth shut and can be tricked into revealing secrets to protect your pride. The latter is just as big (if not bigger) a problem as the former.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
The way he said it is guaranteed to upset both sides (which is why it's so hilarious), but the basic truth behind it is undeniable.
Huh? Why is it guaranteed to upset both sides? It seems obviously directionally correct to me (I'd nitpick that femininity is more prominent than masculinity rather than being hyper-feminine, which implies the near absence of masculinity to me) from the lolicon side and I have pointed to research supporting much the same conclusion in the past:
Recall Kinsella's suggestion that lolicon be understood as men performing the shōjo to come to terms with an unstable gender identity (Kinsella 2006: 81-83). If being a man ceases to promise power, potency and pleasure, it is no longer the privileged subject position. Akagi explains that lolicon is a form of self-expression for those oppressed by the principles of masculine competitive society (Akagi 1993: 232).32 Lolicon is a rejection of the need to establish oneself as masculine and an identification with the "kindness and love" of the shōjo (Akagi 1993: 233). This interpretation reverses the standard understanding of lolicon as an expression of masculinity to one of femininity. This is, of course, not the only way to approach the wide range of lolicon images, but it certainly highlights the complexity of "pornographic content" and its uses.
What's there to be upset over?
The problem is only solved when we stop treating men like that. Can you give a plausible path to that? I don't see one--one side wants both men and women to be held to the same shitty standard while the other only wants to fix it for women. I refuse to support either. I tolerated the status quo under Roe, and now I tolerate the status quo under Dobbs.
EDIT: Rewrote last sentence for clarity.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I mostly agree with this and would say that both extremes here are bad, but I believe that in the West women are getting away with more than men in this case. For instance, women who wear shirts like this should be recognized as doing so to harass men and such harassment should be punished to a greater extent than it currently is.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
7d ago
I think I'd distinguish between being able to prepare a meal and being able to cook. I can prepare simple meals without a recipe and moderately more complicated ones with, but I would still describe myself as not being able to cook. I don't have the knowledge nor inclination to stray far from known recipes, and while I enjoy the results I very rarely enjoy the process. My wife on the other hand can take pretty much anything lying around in the kitchen and make an at least palatable meal out of it and almost never follows recipes even when it is her first time making a dish. She both has the knowledge and experience to make things up on the fly and enjoys the process nearly as much as the end result. I don't know exactly where the boundary between being able to cook and not being able to lies, but I'd put it somewhere between us.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10d ago
It is a privacy violation with the purpose of deterring adults pretending to be an age verification law. "Think of the children" is as usual nothing more than a cover story. As Kagan notes, if it were just an "age verification law" and the impact on adults was as minimal as possible while still achieving the goal of deterring youths then the law would survive strict scrutiny and the majority wouldn't have had to twist itself to support lower scrutiny.
How much of the "forced motherhood" narrative revolves around the idea that she didn't take the action--her male partner did and she was just a passive participant who now has to deal with the consequences?
More options
Context Copy link