thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
For a close to home example, I don't think anyone at The Schism "hates" white people in the way, say, Hannah Nikole-Jones or Tema Okun does, but I think many of them would engage in a lot of hemming, hawing, and sanewashing why those attitudes make sense in context, or why they should be tolerated (but the opposite equivalent wouldn't be, a la the fiasco last month with Impassionata- I strongly doubt the mods would've tolerated a right-wing rant half as long), etc etc. Or why slurs are so much worse at certain targets, but basically don't matter towards others.
Do you have any evidence to support these claims? I find that the mods there are very hesitant to give out bans at all or even warnings for that matter, and as @drmanhattan16 notes, there's been plenty of right-wing or at least anti-progressive ranting in the sub over its lifetime. I vaguely recall @gemmaem discussing this hesitancy in a comment early on, though I'm having trouble finding a link to it with the reddit api fiasco making searching for old comments a bit troublesome at the moment.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I agree TheSchism is a place with a viewpoint and that that viewpoint leans to the left. I think it's the culture of the sub that enforces that far more than the moderation though. The only bans I can recall for things other than personal attacks were given to left-leaning posters, which makes me wonder if I'm just overlooking instances where right-leaning posters actually got less leniency or if it is the culture of the sub biasing the expectation of how right-leaning posters would be modded.
a mod whose name I don't remember and is no longer on the mod team list
I'd guess mcjunker, since I don't recall any of the other early mods having been particularly active.
or crossed the "no violence" line
The rules prohibit "glorifying violence", which isn't the same as "no violence". TW clarified that pretty early on.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
And this is a problem why exactly? They expect me to similarly repress myself if I'm to live and participate in society, so why should I care if other people expect it of them?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I'm pretty confident most people expect me to avoid relationships, if not interactions altogether, with people I'm attracted to.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
No, it is exactly the same thing. You just don't want to admit it because doing so would require either admitting that such repression can be expected of some groups in a tolerant society (and thus it is on the table for gays) or admitting that the LGBT community is not actually a tolerant one (and thus must cede the moral high ground).
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I don't begrudge you that position. But similarly, I see no reason to care about people being intolerant of you--supporting your group is not something I can afford. Hence my original comment.
And there are ways that pedophilia is terrible that don't extend to being homosexual—acting out of pedophilic desires tends to involve power dynamics and large differences in maturity and judgment that wouldn't necessarily be present in a homosexual relationship.
None of the people who sexually abused me when I was younger were sexually attracted to me. None of them saw me as a sexual partner, and in some cases probably didn't even see what they were doing as sexual. I was just a doll they could poke and prod and tease to get funny reactions out of. There's a widespread misconception that not being motivated by sexual attraction makes behavior okay, or at least not sexual, while being motivated by sexual attraction makes behavior not okay, and the LGBT movement (and they are by far not the only ones, EDIT: but they are the topic of this chain) can burn for all I care for their contributions toward reinforcing that misconception in an effort to push all the blame for the harms they cause solely onto my demographic rather than facing their own contributions to harming kids.
It's also possible to read his comments as saying that he would prefer no such thing, in which case I have a lot less sympathy with his argument.
I don't think prefer is the best word to use here. I'm sexually attracted to children, so by definition I'd prefer to be able to act on that. I'm also extremely risk-averse and terrified of inadvertently hurting them (or less sympathetically, terrified of them hating me for it) to the point I'd rather avoid getting involved in such relationships at all than risk having to experience that, so I have few qualms with some level of repression. I resent repression that just amounts to hiding who I am attracted to because people are disgusted by it rather than because it risks harming kids (eg, banning pedophilic fiction, discrimination in activities that don't involve interacting with children). And I have very little patience for other groups openly engaging in more risky behavior that I avoid, while claiming it's okay specifically because they aren't pedophiles and ignoring, downplaying, and/or blaming pedophiles for the fallout when that risk plays out.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
My guess is - if the symbol is really a pedophile symbol - it was poorly thought out edginess. And I am highly suspicious of the symbol's veracity, because I've spent most of my life on the dark side of the internet (and am fluent in hobo code) and never saw it before.
I expect it probably was a symbol used by a group of pedophiles at some point, but it's almost certainly not a common or universal one since there is no single pedophile community and instead lots of small groups and individuals that don't associate with or even know about each other.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I think it would be more accurate to say that wokeists are responsible for the age of consent increasing over time but simultaneously want activities traditionally seen as sexual that they believe shouldn't be considered sexual to be free from that restriction.
I would characterize 'wokeists' as a recent evolution of progressives that is distinct from those who tolerated NAMBLA in the '70s and other groups that did in fact argue against the AoC including for hetero pairings featuring older men and younger women (famously Foucault et al in France). I think they do care about the AoC when the younger of the two is a man, but this is counter-acted by their (charitably) unrecognized biases in recognizing behaviors toward men as being sexual.
EDIT:
if restated as "want activities traditionally seen as sexual to enjoy the plausible deniability of being sexual when it suits them", is an accurate description for how that demographic functions in the sexual marketplace.
I think that's a fair restatement. To build on that, I'd say a key difference between 'wokeists' and other branches of progressives is how they approach the intersection of power and sex. The woke from my perspective see sex as a tool for power, and their policies reflect a desire to control and wield that power while denying it to their opponents whereas other progressive groups have been more focused on freeing sex from such power plays.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Given the context of being on a train, I'm a bit surprised you put most of the blame on your American background. I recall a fair bit of emphasis on cracking down on men groping/molesting women on trains (eg, with signage reminding men not to do so and encouraging women to report it) when I was there a few decades ago. Has that died down, or is my memory or impression of how seriously it was taken faulty in this case?
Has it died down? I am not sure.
To be clear, I wasn't asking if such behavior had died down, but rather if the apparent furor over it had.
This suggests to me that it has not gone away. At the same time, the world here is different. Japanese women don't step up or protest, or they don't in the same way that say, an American, might imagine that they should. I don't even want to get into it, but they don't.
While this is true and I wouldn't expect her to cause a scene, I would be worried about her later reporting it to the station attendants. Being a foreigner sometimes excuses such things, but sometimes makes it worse. It'd certainly make it much easier to be identified if she were to, and I had perhaps the incorrect impression that the cultural norms against stirring the pot that typically make Japanese women reluctant to report such behavior weren't as big an obstacle if the perpetrator wasn't Japanese.
At the same time, touching a girl on the shoulder, well, I didn't think I'd be seen as a chikan in the Japanese sense, but a creep in the American sense. And as any man who isn't already a criminal pariah can attest, no appellation has quite the same sting.
Hmm...maybe I was the one projecting then. The impression I got while I was there was that there wasn't much of a distinction. EDIT: Or rather, that there wouldn't be much of a distinction in this situation--moving to touch a dozing girl on the shoulder looks a lot like testing the waters before actually molesting her.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
From this description, it sounds more like a problem of excess energy than lack of training. How much exercise does he get beyond the "train him 10 minutes every day"?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
That'd probably be a good thing to try. May also need more hands on play time to stave off boredom.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
There's always room for another stripe on the Progress Pride flag, and if the LGBT community don't want that right now, give it a couple of years until the softhearted and softheaded sociologists work on normalising such attractions.
It amuses me how many people still think there's support in the LGBT community to normalize pedophilia, given that community used to be significantly more supportive of pedophilia and has been backpedaling on it for decades. What they want to normalize is child sexuality, not creepy adults exploiting it. It's no different than the feminist argument against modesty: women [children] should be free to do what they want without men [pedophiles] sexualizing them for it. Hence Cuties.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
That is the status quo they are fighting against though. In their ideal world, "flaunting sexuality" wouldn't make you appear as a sexual object to other people unless you intend it to. The fact that it does today is seen as a problem and rather than putting the onus on women/children to not flaunt their sexuality, they prefer to put the onus on the men/pedophiles to not perceive them doing so as sexual.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
It's strange how different people can be. My thin wrists are the only part of my body I actually like. I'll often focus on them to the exclusion of anything else to calm down when I'm feeling bad about myself.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
Yes I'm a guy, as much as I may wish otherwise.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or misunderstanding me, so I'll clarify why I said 'Hence Cuties'. The behavior of the girls in the movie is intended as part of an exploration and critique of women's experiences. Critics of the film argue that the movie is morally bad because of how the girls are portrayed while supporters argue there is nothing wrong with the movie itself and that it is instead viewers (eg, "pedophiles") who interpret it in a titillating context who are morally in the wrong. That is, women should be free to make a movie about their experiences without men coming along and sexualizing it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
For training our dog (a lab/pointer mix) not to bark at or attack our cats when we first got it, we first put the dog in a fold-up portable kennel in living room and then let the cats roam the room freely while we were elsewhere for a bit (1-2 hours at a time usually). After a few days of this, she mostly stopped barking at them and largely ignored them unless they showed interest in her, and they became comfortable being around her. After that, it was a gradual process of closely supervised interactions between them where we showered all of them with attention. Any time she'd bark or lunge at them though, she'd get immediately smacked firmly but not hard on the nozzle and locked up in the kennel for a time out while we kept playing with the cats. After a few weeks doing this and a steady reduction in aggression, we deemed it safe enough to let her be around them unsupervised and now (5+ years later) they're cuddle buddies. I don't know if this would work for small dogs though.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
Her dog has often spent the better part of a day up on the cupboard or wardrobe, with my dogs roaming freely at the bottom. Even if they stop barking at him when he's quietly dwelling on top, any attempt to bring him down or take him elsewhere just causes mayhem.
One aspect of this is that dogs are very territorial. You need to show the bigger dogs that the smaller one is free to roam what they consider their territory. Letting them roam while the smaller one is isolated reinforces that this is not the case. Also, accept that there will be mayhem until the desired pecking order is established.
Given the sizes of my dogs, I don't think I can really safely keep them at the same level, at least not without a cage which I don't have.
I'd recommend getting a foldable one for each, but locking them in a separate room (eg, the bathroom) while letting the small dog roam might also work.
I've tried scolding and yelling, feeding all the dogs at the same time, some weird ultrasonic training tool, and yet I'm at an impasse.
We've found an immediate firm (but gentle, just enough to get the dog's attention) smack on the nozzle or butt and isolation is much more reliable than any of these.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
This was probably in reference to their unconditional surrender in WWII and the coerced political changes that followed rather than to Perry's gunboats.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
How the heck do you people program all day without pulling your hair out?
How kind of you to assume that I still have hair to pull out...
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
and I guess anyone else who checks my comment page, hi there!
Or usually browses the global comments feed (www.themotte.org/comments) rather than specific posts...
This rule is going to be applied with delicacy; if I can find not-low-effort comments about three different subjects within your last two weeks or two pages of comments, you're fine.
How would this work with something that strongly influence your thoughts on a wide variety of subjects? Would commonly referencing it in your comments make you a single-issue-poster even where you are commenting on different subjects?
Lola Rennt and Die Welle come to mind.
More options
Context Copy link