Tintin
8hr ago
Individually, yes. By comparison to other humans. Not for society. We'd all be better off if humans were half as tall.
Tintin
8hr ago
I think covfefe anon was covfefe anon.
Tintin
12hr ago
Which is not the way, as a tall guy. There‘s no advantage to greater height on a societal scale. We have to nip this red queen gigantism in the womb before we grow to monstrous heights like the dinosaurs, and collapse under our own weight like their broiler chicken sons. The easy and practical solution would be to sterilize the women who come to the fertility clinic and select tall embryos. That way, by selecting for preferences, selection squared so to speak, we can multiply our effect on the genome.
I wouldn‘t do that, of course. But I find the battle lines drawn around eugenicism funny. The ‚ethical‘ crowd, as well as the religious, oppose eugenicism for ‚artificial‘ ‚messing with nature/god‘s plan‘. The eugenicists claimed nature‘s plan was being messed with by ‚unnatural‘ welfare, and so wanted to ‚help evolution along‘, the way it was before modernity and medicine fucked up nature‘s plan. In other words, they‘re in a naturalistic fallacy competition. I don‘t care about nature‘s plan, it‘s blind and indifferent to human flourishing.
Tintin
3d ago
I'm just saying - you don't need to feel guilty about your maleness, desire, or sexual escapades, and then pretending the radfems have a point to compensate. It's okay. So, that is my emotional-psychological read of the situation. You can stick a mental flag on that.
Tintin
3d ago
No, I don't deny the impulse. Of course I want to fuck interns. But I'm not catholic, so I don't feel bad about it. It's morally fine to want that. It's even morally fine to do that.
I don't like the fuzziness of your argument, the lack of conceptual boundaries. Yes, I am more capable of violence than women, physically and psychologically. "The human body" does not make me residually responsible for the violence of others. If I murder someone, hang me. If someone else does, I am zero amount responsible . And if something I do is morally permissible - sleeping with interns, for example - then there is no residual guilt. I am as pure as the driven snow. And so ; desire is not 'a little bit' sex, sex is not 'a little bit' rape. Clean boundaries.
Tintin
4d ago
I’m not sure they’re that crafty, man. My theory is really that they are emotionally little girls, and they just don’t want boy’s pee-pees in their waa-waas. ‘that’s disgusting, how could my friends agree to that?‘ And so it’s all rape. Even among non-radfems, there is a substantial minority of women who just do not like sex at all.
Tintin
4d ago
lol I don't understand what you're talking about - or why (you're a man who fucks interns ffs - this is a jews for hitler situation. Do you realize these broads want you castrated? Don't sleep in.).
I should give radfems credit for recognizing something obvious? That the common man, along with most of the right, discusses openly?
So you think radfems are educating women about the biological preferences of men? Because presumably women know life only from romance novels about princesses and horses. Maybe that's how a radfem is born: she steps out of rainbowland for the first time.
I don't think desire is sex is rape. Like at all. Radfems sound like crazy people to me.
Tintin
4d ago
Ok, that’s pretty much what I suggested. I don’t think there’s value in that. Older women are just less attractive. It may be sad, but there’s nothing to be done. It is a peculiarly sad feeling when you see a woman who used to be hot and capable of inspiring great passion in most men, instant fantasies of love even, relegated to invisibility. Somehow, I feel less for the originally plain, even though they probably have it much worse. There’s nothing to be done for them, either.
I don’t consider that misogyny, or some preference implanted into us by films like this one. They tried these last years to make fat, old, and ugly, the new beautiful. I don’t think that campaign has been a rousing success. It was a futile battle against reality.
Tintin
4d ago
They'll go on welfare though. Lacking the need to provide, they don't have much motivation already. Just video games all day, TV for the women, fooling around in between. They'll be like the blessed teenagers of Omelas.
Tintin
4d ago
I’m not watching that again (if I’m rewatching any family christmas movies where the matriarch has cancer this year, it’s going to be A Christmas Tale (2008)), but what’s the radfem angle? That men prefer pretty women? That they want to fuck them? If the two sisters were equally plain or equally lighted, would the cause of feminism have been advanced?
Tintin
4d ago
Tintin
4d ago
Do you have anything besides blaming men for everything and women for nothing, based on your personal feeling? You're not even presenting some solution, you're just gloating about things being shit. For everyone. Haha I burned the house down.
Tintin
4d ago
I do, if they are of sufficient quality. You heard the hubbub about chinese millionaires paying dozens of american models to give birth to their kids? Those smart, rich, handsome kids have great net expected value to the state and to existing americans.
The problem with single moms is not that they're single moms; it's that they're poor and stupid, and their kids will be poor and stupid. The single mom who takes care of a millionaire's kid is fine.
Women who have less kids than they claim to want say the thing stopping them reproducing is a lack of male investment.
Yes, obviously they want more money, like the lawyer in Idiocracy. We have given them an awful lot already (legal and economic protections up the wazoo, free pointless education so they can have fun, free sinecures that look like prestigious jobs, 24/7 cultural programming blasting their awesomeness, etc), more than anyone ever had, and in return they have produced less and less children. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
But to do so is very low status, just as it always has been.
Right, it's more of a psychological problem that women have to overcome, nothing to do with resources. Certainly, giving women in general more status, like we've been doing, is not going to help, since status is relative. I am fine with raising the status of single moms who produce quality citizens, and its corollary, diminishing the status of voluntarily barren women. Although I'm not a big believer in 'changing status' solutions. I want laws changed, to be less (unfairly!) favourable to women.
If the single professional woman gets less goodies, the married and single mom will get more (relatively), creating an incentive to pair-up, because it's still easier to do the mom thing with dad help. I know the pro-fertility position gets caricatured as 'forcing women to breed' or something, but all I want is to take our hand off the scale favouring women, and let women freely choose from the fallen chips.
Let's try to make it simple: Women have three choices:
-
professional childless woman
-
single mother
-
married mother
There are easy, cheap and fair ways to encourage option 3.
Cut off AA, scholarships, anti-discrimination law, free college, that encourage 1.
Make divorce fairer to the working partner by making the default 50/50 custody, no alimony etc , to encourage women to stay married.
You could limit welfare to single moms more, to get them from 2 to 3 - That's the idea of conservatives you criticize, although I personally I prefer outcome 2 to 1, so I'm not really on board.
Tintin
5d ago
-
You're all making it too complicated. Do you agree that the status of young women relative to young men is higher than it ever was? How's the fertility? I'm not saying correlation is causation, but it's certainly worth a shot.
-
Men's 'domesticity' (ie, money they give women, some help) is not actually necessary for reproduction in our age of abundance. Not that it matters, because
-
What men want is irrelevant, since women control the reproductive bottleneck both legally and biologically. So the whole TFR debate is just a woman-convincing enterprise. And I think it would help fertility to convince them they are not God's gift to humanity, and no, the teacher's praise, and the AA spots they snag are not actual proof they are as wonderful as they think they are. It seems obvious to me. What's the alternative? I don't know how much more praise we can heap onto women, and contempt onto men. Have you looked at Hollywood lately? But does anyone believe that more of this effusive praise will make them reproduce?
Tintin
6d ago
Maybe when you don't have many muslims in your country. They move into pole position quickly. Bondi beach, definitely muslims; Brown U, main suspect is muslim. If you get a deadly antisemitic attack in western europe, it's a 90% chance it was muslims. I was just checking incidents to confirm this; and apparently just 2 months ago a syrian -british citizen killed 2 jews in manchester; I didn't even hear about that.
Tintin
6d ago
Ah yes, the classic cafeteria tray argument that if they refuse to do the evil thing, the next guy would do it (or girl in this instance). I gotta say, I've always been schocked by the near-complete refusal of people here or in /r/slatestarcodex to sacrifice a single dollar for morality ( 'cultural reasons', lmao) . Maybe they deserved to crawl for their DEI masters. Yes, I expect them to turn it down.
Tintin
6d ago
Our conception of deep evil was some grainy photo of 'no blacks or irish need apply' while our job portals said 'no white men need apply'. People will soon forget, like they always do. "It was just a few seminars, and I was largely against it". If they let you have a job at all, they demanded these professions of faith where you had to confess to being a worm. No humiliation was seemingly enough. I'll remember how brazen they were.
I hold women responsible for this. Even those who did not actively support it. It's not morally neutral to accept a promotion someone else was blatantly, unfairly shut out of. Part of my disagreement with the far right on female promiscuity, aside that I fundamentally don't care about it, is that it enshrines a woman's sex life as the only expression of her morality. The far right/trad right is completely helpless because women have all this power now, and rightists have no way to acknowledge it and hold them accountable. "they're ..they're.. sluts.. and the perverted men make them do things.. they're having sex and..." I'm sure that's it, buddy.
Tintin
7d ago
I much prefer an ukrainian victory. The most likely scenario for that is simply that putin dies. I don't think his replacement will make anything resembling putin's demands for a ceasefire. I think his demands are literally insane and this isn't discussed enough.
Forget the ukrainians, the europeans, the americans, morality, who did the thing first, the day-to-day osint chatter, saint Olga, and everything else. Bird's eye view, long term. It's been years. Hundreds of thousands dead, economy cut off and re-tooled. Every month thousands more dead. The russians are fighting a war on the scale of world war I for ... some benefit most Russians, I'm sure, couldn't articulate.
You really have to discard the value of russian lives to almost nothing, and think you're in an existential war with the west, to continue this.
Tintin
19d ago
He sounded like he was referring to a real, specific incident ("some German politician telling Trump that": "Germans were the first victims of national socialism"), not some vague disculpatory vibes ("it wasn't really us") in another country. This strongly reinforces my priors of polish hallucinations.
I do think these old legal cases about reparations, still hanging around, are poisoning the discourse. It's like listening to lawyers arguing about a plane crash. Neither side has a primary interest in the truth. The cases should be either chucked or settled for all time, now. Flip a coin if you have to, I don't care, but get it over with.
Tintin
25d ago
Well, yeah of course morality aside. I actually think people were too easy on the germans of the time, my grandparents. We let them get away with their lies; that they didn’t believe, or profit, that they didn’t know, that they were threatened, that the war just happened to them, and that it was hard.
One reason they wanted lebensraum was to prepare for an autarkic economy because they knew their activities were going to lock them out of international markets
I think that’s more true of japan; they thought that without the resources of an empire, they could never fight and win a long war, therefore they could not threaten one, therefore they’d be relegated to the third rank of powers.
Hitler had a more dramatic, crazier theory: as more nations became industrialized and more populous, they would find it increasingly difficult to exchange their competing industrial goods for the limited food surplus from more agrarian countries, who themselves were industrializing and therefore there was less and less food surplus to trade. So he needed lebensraum to avoid the inevitable Malthusian starvation of his people. Not such a bad guy after all. Well, other people would still all starve. Anyway, it’s not that he loved autarky, it's that he thought all international trade would soon break down naturally. And then he planned to ‘keep a balance’ between the lebensraum-agrarian part (farms in the east)and the industrialized part(german factories) of his empire so that there would be no reduction of the agrarian food surplus and no starvation.
Tintin
25d ago
If you look at Nazi society it didn’t work very well for the people who were in it.
What do you mean? Morality aside, it appeared to be working great. As you say, Hitler was remarkably popular, even after the extremely costly war was lost, and all the evil was revealed to those who pretended not to see.
First, like FDR, he presided over the recovery for the worst economic crisis of the century, which by itself confers Saviour status, even though it’s likely just mean reversion. In foreign policy, he was a gambler who repeatedly won big. At first the western allies kept flinching, giving him everything for nothing, and then when push came to shove he even easily beat what was in theory the best army in the world, partly because of his own tactical input.
In domestic policy, he understood himself as both of and as a ‘friend of the people’ – as a lower middle class guy, a corporal, he disliked both the liberal elites which ran weimar and the old conservatives elites, the ‘vons’. Aside from the economic recovery/rearmament boom, he was also transferring to poor germans the wealth stolen from jews, and later, other people’s jews’, and other people’s. Because of all his achievements and popularity (which he and his regime cared very much about), for the first years there was little repression.
I would say he bribed the germans far more than he threatened them, but bribe implies that they didn’t intrinsically want to follow him in the first place. The truth is, as vile as he was, he genuinely cared about and improved the life of the common man (in peacetime at least, and with increasingly evil means), and they always loved him back.
Tintin
26d ago
It’s clear they did not expect them to fight back much. It would be the same mistake to assume that of UK-FR-DE in case of russian invasion of estonia, say. The 20th century has shown that seemingly placid people can get quite excited about war, quickly. Okay, maybe the italians wouldn't fight. Then again, that may be for the best.
Tintin
26d ago
Still buys into a hyper-agentic view of lecherous men and women as true sexual objects without desire or agency. If some top men plotted to give sexually inert women sexual freedom to satisfy their perverted male urges, it stands to reason that they also gave them the vote earlier, the right to vote and work, anti-harassment laws etc. If vague dissatisfaction with the current situation is evidence of failure, those things and more were all poison pills.
Tintin
27d ago
Should we increase aid to Ukraine? I think so, but I'm not in charge. So based on current realities, I can… still not do anything. Again, what are you suggesting I do, concretely? That I ‘advise’ ukraine? Fine, I will tell them that based on the august opinion of russian and american commenters, a total collapse of their frontline would be bad for them.
And having been so informed, what am I supposed to do if they prefer continuing the war to accepting russia’s terms? Force them against their will, ‘for their own good’, to accept the terms? Withdraw support, threaten war maybe? How much am I supposed to sacrifice to harm my own ally so that my enemy can get good terms?
we'll try and get Russia to accept the smallest amount of concessions possible.
I'm all for that. But this is achieved by increasing pressure on Russia, not Ukraine. For example, we could be far more open to threatening putin with war, like sending 'peacekeepers' to lviv, for 'security purposes'.
But I appreciate the chutzpah of a russian trying to reframe europe’s unconditional support for ukraine as somehow morally responsible for ukrainian deaths at the hand of russia.
Maybe after we threaten to withdraw support and zelensky tells us to go fuck ourselves, putin will decide he wants all of ukraine anyway, which is far easier now that ukraine has less equipment. I don’t believe putin wants peace. I don’t even believe he wants peace on the terms he just proposed. It’s all a charade for trump’s benefit, putin and zelensky playing hot potato.
We have machines for that. Breeding ourselves into a giant troll that can beat up a gorilla is not an efficient use of our resources. We need to get to the stars. Carrying around all that muscle consumes far too many precious calories here on earth, so imagine trying to lift that deadweight out of earth's gravity. Plus it's unhealthy, mass causes cancer.
More options
Context Copy link