ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
Has cancel culture blown up in the woke's face yet?
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
People afraid of anti-immigrant or white supremacist or anti-LGBT violence are far more reasonable in their fear than people afraid of anti-conservative violence
No, they're [objectively] not. There was that year where anti-conservatives (or at least, those marching under the banner of anti-conservatism) set fire to basically every major city, caused billions in property damage, and murdered a bunch of people for shits and giggles.
If [violence the left likes] and [violence the left doesn't like] is a ledger that should balance then [the left] have vastly overspent, and have no right to complain when the standard they set turns 'round on them.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
3d ago
That's part of it, but not all of it.
See, the thing about [the sum of the factions that currently call themselves the modern left]'s violence is that, inextricable to its nature, it's done by proxy. They work by convincing people, overwhelmingly men, to do things on their behalf and otherwise uphold their interests.
This is the whole "people power" thing. When a leftist pulls their phone, what they're really doing is pulling a gun by proxy, which is why they think they can face down actual guns when they do it (warning: murder footage, but there's no other way to get this point across). The guns actually firing- their social power in the situation being ignored- is their nightmare scenario.
Leftists want gun control specifically so that what is shown in the video never happens to them. Or their [morality] pets[0]. Or innocent bystanders (children in school or postal workers being the most salient example; most of these incidents start out at least vaguely targeted then spill over into "well, my life's over now, what's the worst that could happen to me?").
And naturally, it's hard to defend that as a rightist: what, you want to maintain the veto of violence so you can blow away couples that argue with you? If there was gun control, maybe that argument wouldn't have boiled over and they'd still be alive, and [leftists] may well be objectively correct in that assessment. (Is "well, he could have run them down with his car instead or burned their house down" convincing to you? Because it isn't to me. And before you argue "knives/clubs/fists are everywhere", leftists want those gone too by extension.)
The rightist counter to this is "an armed society is a polite society"- just assume everyone has a gun, don't feud with them unnecessarily, and you won't get killed (or "FAFO" for short). But for a political force that inherently depends on nagging to get its way that's a non-starter- it severely curtails their power, and cripples the ability of the leftists not blessed with subtlety to get their way while making their job [who to petition/criticize/call out such that their objectives get accomplished] much harder. After all, they could just decide to start shooting, right?
So it's basically a version of "just trust us bro".
But the problem is that their own side is, objectively, very much not trustworthy with the gun-by-proxy (we've had 60 years of abuse, and cellphones and the Internet have severely worsened the problem), and now that untrustworthiness has graduated to murder of a person trustworthy Rightists might consider an excuse to impose a compromise upon them (and not just the fake ones).
[0] When a leftist complains about officer-involved shootings of people who aren't rightists by default, that video is what they see. This can be out of ignorance ("why didn't they shoot the weapon out of his hand?") or because they see their totems as "speaking truth to power" by existing through adversity. Which is the origin story for all the groups that comprise the [modern left] today.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
3d ago
I’m not sure I entirely buy her thesis
I do. Gynosupremacist thought (erroneously called "feminism" here) is legitimately terrified of straight men doing this to women. "Kill all men"... before men kill all women. This is existential, instinctual, foundational, horrible anxiety.
Some humans are more driven by raw instinct than others.
the dynamics I’m talking about manifest at timescales larger than a generation.
The dynamics I'm talking about manifest at more immediate timescales. Men are strong enough to do the heavy lifting that is required to secure better sources of food; women are not, thus women die without men. I believe 'helper' was the term used in Genesis.
Interestingly, in places where you can't take two steps without literally tripping over food and game animals, women rule precisely because they have little existential need for men. Their cities consisted of these long houses: the earliest arcologies. This typifies certain civilizations historically native to North America because, prior to 1800 or so, those were the conditions on the continent.
I don’t think one can reasonably call a gender relationship “parasitic” in any biological sense.
Sure you can. The problem comes when you turn "parasitic" from description to prescription, and it's not acceptable to do this for the same reason it's not acceptable to cheer murder of your political enemies. It's a fundamentally symbiotic relationship where one part needs to not be [seen to be] exploiting the relationship, either in reality or in the eyes of the other.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
Also, note that 'left-wing ideology' forms the 'traditional female' role in society (creates secondary goods, thrive/idealistic mindset, sets morality/cultural aesthetics), where 'right-wing ideology' forms the 'traditional male' role (creates primary goods, survive/realistic mindset, executes on morality/cultural aesthetics).
Remember that
Men can survive just fine without women; women cannot survive without men.
is the state of nature, and what humans have spent the last 200,000 years evolving alongside, and that
Men and women can both survive just fine without either parasitizing off of the other.
has only been true in Western nations for only about the last hundred years. We're still in the evolutionary transition period from the former to the latter, and most left-wing actions are perfectly sane if you view them as "women getting revenge on men for the crime of being utterly dependent on them" (and "the unproductive getting revenge on the productive for being utterly dependent on them" is an excellent explanation for why there are still communists in Western countries).
The problem, and the growing pains now, are that women/leftists perceive (and they are correct) that the Nazis were the last male/rightist attempt at a State. So anything that grants men more power is, in a very literal sense, Naziism to a leftist. [The fact this definition is self-serving, and exists as a conservative force to avoid a more equitable distribution of moral power in society, is by definition irrelevant to leftists.]
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
You make left-wingers sound like retarded children who can't grasp the basics of cause and effect.
That's the mistake theory explanation, yes. People think this because the conflict theory explanation- where when pressed, they pretend it's a game, then pretend they weren't serious, then attempt to remind you their inherent moral worth deserves your leniency, then make it clear they know exactly what they're doing and proceed with the destructive thing anyway- is just not something humans have evolved to deal with.
We don't accept explanations of just following orders "actually, I'm just retarded" from the right[0] for deep-seated biological reasons. That we accept them from the left[1] (also for deep-seated biological reasons) is actually a big deal.
"Oh, no! She's going to be insufferable after this. She's going to ride the sympathy and milk it for the next 50 years. She might get to be president now. This is a disaster."
Not that "involuntarily attending a school shooting" isn't a viable way to political power (David Hogg), but I very much doubt that if you get shot like Kirk was, you'll be enjoying anything after that (much less political power).
[0, 1] For rightists, being retarded is never believed because, as human doings [or in modern times, people more aligned with human doings], it's strictly an evolutionary malus (stupidity is a detriment to executing your will) so any assertions you were retarded accidentally are naturally looked upon with extreme skepticism. For leftists it's always believed because, as human beings [or in modern times, people more aligned with human beings], being able to convince human doings to take pity on you while manipulating them when their back is turned is an evolutionary bonus (feigning childishness is an enhancement).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
State-sanctioned killing is just vigilante killing by proxy, much like how elections are wars by proxy.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
Which country successfully put reformers in office
US. (Rs are Reform, Ds are Conservative, since about 2020.)
which other country elected a hard-Blue government as a result?
Canada. Technically across the water too, though nobody generally thinks about that.
I'm not sure that will work any better for them than it will for local blues
Unlike every other part of the Empire you actually managed to put reformers in office (and the reaction to that has resulted in at least one hard-Blue government being elected in another nation- one whose Blue-aligned voters have also been cheering this murder). Across the water, increasingly blue (as in, establishment/conservative) candidates are elected and potential reformers are jailed.
They have other things they need to deal with, too; I think it will be worse for European countries in particular due to their having imported a ton of foreign fighting-age males over the last 10 years. Not that these are the most violent specimens (those ones stayed home), but the capability is likely there for more mayhem.
Australia or new zealand
Those places are under more Blue control than the US is (concentration camps for the uncommon cold, etc.). Singapore's probably the best option mostly due to their monarchy and being outside of the traditional first-world orbit while still being vital to its operations in Asia.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
is to leave the country
No, it isn't. If civil war breaks out Blue vs. Red in the US, it's going to be an excuse for every other [Blue-aligned] province of the American empire to descend into the despotism whose agenda they are even today ahead of the US in implementing.
The US is, and due to demographics is likely to remain, the least authoritarian Western nation (and any assertions to the contrary are made by Blues, who intentionally mislabel authoritarianism as freedom).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
As far as other shootings go, most stuff like that stays local.
As they should. Targeted workplace violence is targeted (schools are workplaces).
Even some shootings that make national news tend to follow the same pattern- "shoot the people you have a grudge on, then pick off targets of opportunity because your life was forfeit with the first murder". Lockdowns are only effective insofar as they manage the number of targets of opportunity the criminal will encounter.
Perhaps we should be questioning why workplaces are so violent in a time when the average worker can't just mail-order a gun, but the answer to that question forms part of a serious refutation to the politics and ethics of those paid to manage those workplaces. (So naturally, it's the outgroup's fault.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
Yes, but the cultural lie that "people legitimately cannot tell an ex-man from an actual woman" only strengthens that argument.
it was only out of safety to avoid pedophiles trying to use single mothers to gain access to children
Much like war, grown women have always been the primary victims of pedophilia.
Not the daughters functionally pimped out to get a man to commit to mom- they're mom's sexual competition, so mom has no vested interest in keeping them unmolested. (Sons, as surplus male(s) in the 'tribe', either get beaten hard enough they drive off or are simply killed in this case.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
An Aeropress made of other materials might be interesting though
They offer one made out of glass. It's 10x the price of the normal one.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
Or more generally,
That said, white [conservatives] are the one group that shifted towards Harris in 2024, and [conservative] boomers seem to be the most intensely focused on norm-violations by the [liberals] and have a particular contempt for Trump. Younger [progressive-conservative] are more in the camp of "yes of course [liberals] are [trying to destroy conservative social privilege], older ones show this feeling of [the youth are about to run this country off a cliff, think that is bad, and may be more willing to sacrifice their own lives in service of conservative privilege as a consequence].
I expect to see more attacks like this as the future of conservatism crystallizes into progressive-conservatism. What Boomers know as traditional conservatism (i.e. what conservatism was to them in their youth) is dead and gone, and what few remaining tradcons remain cheated them out of the inheritance they thought they were going to get by throwing their support behind the [true] classical liberals, not the progressive-conservatives [who were deceived into thinking they were classical liberals].
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
7d ago
In theory, yes.
In practice, look at how many votes are strictly on party lines. The US is better than most in this regard for avoiding these but it still happens; there are some countries whose systems only ever vote party line, which means who you actually voted for is completely irrelevant.
I'm surprised there haven't been more attempts to freeze a society as a given technological level.
You're in one right now, and you don't notice it because it's imposed by a loosely co-ordinated compact in each of the most technologically-advanced nations.
The massively capital-intensive nature of manufacturing the highest technologies doesn't help either, of course, nor did our outsourcing of low-cost manufacturing to another nation help that either.
This is one of the things the modern regulatory/bureaucratic state actively exists to do, as it's in its interest not to let technology develop that would make it more difficult to govern. Companies also co-ordinate to do this, particularly technology ones (this is the main reason hardware and software manufacturers intentionally frustrate attempts to run arbitrary code on their systems).
Modern reform governments, like the one in the US right now, tend to degrade the bureaucracy's ability to do this as its first order of business. Progressive-conservatives would rather make sure the seals aren't emotionally affected by your rocket launches.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
8d ago
I don’t think “right-wing” is quite adequate.
If by "right-wing" one means "here is my ironclad justification to prefer cheap, raw base instincts over [more expensive] co-operation, and I want to bias towards current survival and risk-adversity rather than spend time and calories thinking about longer-term re-investment and optimization", then yes, it's right-wing.
I normally expect this process to take a few shots at trans issues first.
That's because most people who write right-wing apologia are writing 'is' with some predefined 'ought' in mind. While there are minor issues with this in the sidebars (and am most critical of the one in this entry, both because it's kind of skipping a step, and because the answer to why that would occur is already covered in chapters 3, 4, and [to a point] 5 so its rhetorical presence appears to undermine itself) I'm not convinced 'ought' is the intent here, especially considering the replies to certain comments are done in the same way I'd make them for the same reasons I make them when I'm discussing social dynamics in this way.
I think you can derive why basically every social-issue-du-jour exists, and why the distribution of people who instinctively take a side is predictable from the information that has already been presented (especially when you consider the actors' moral hazards), but that derivation remains so far (and, to a degree, I hope it remains) an exercise for the reader.
pop sexism
I don't think this is the case here provided you're not reading it with an intent to find an excuse to justify being lazy and retarded (which is what pop sexism by and large is, and which the condemnation of that sexism, much like every other -ism, exists to combat).
Not that this pop psych look at things isn't self-justifying, since I can just claim at that point that your efforts to deduct my social credit for being OK with the existence of literature that describes a model that's less wrong than the one it's to your evolutionary advantage I accept are your base instinctual behavior. Which then serves as base instinctual behavior on my part, and the cycle completes.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
8d ago
This is a basic axiom of English common law.
Of course, it's trivial to cheat at that simply by declaring the entire nation in violation of that law, then proceeding to selectively enforce it only against those that improved the place.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
Biden didn't wake up one day and go out of his way to coax ten million people into coming to the US.
No, but the people whose organization Biden also belongs to actively did this.
These people want to come, therefore what right have we to infringe on their freedom by stopping them?
Why do we enforce laws against and obsess over human trafficking, but not illegal immigration, even though they're literally the same thing?
It's because one of them negatively affects the average left-wing voter (since when we say "human trafficking", we usually mean "for sex purposes", which means the average domestic woman's ability to demand a price for sex is adversely affected), and one is neutral to positive for that voter (since when we say "illegal immigration", we usually mean "for labor purposes", which means the average domestic man's ability to demand a fair price for labor is adversely affected).
and it is a fundamentally moral, compassionate one.
No, it's concern trolling laundered through a "moral, compassionate" lens.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
10d ago
Indeed- the 20s and 30s were a massive expansion in progressive thought to the point that the Americans installed a dictator and underwent a socialist revolution in the mid-1930s.
Modern feminism might be potent, but not "two Constitutional Amendments" potent or Civil Rights Act potent.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
10d ago
Are the gays truly the most corrosive element in society that deserves uniquely lethal treatment?
No- for DreadJim, that would be women, and the reason they don't get lethal treatment (though they may be beaten into submission) is simply that they're more useful alive.
He's literally just a feminist with the valence switched (that's what "kill all men" means- when they tell you who they are, believe them). It's not intellectually sophisticated. The fact we permit and encourage unironic expressions of one but not the other is the underlying problem of the modern age, yes (and the fact that it's useful to certain power structures to maintain this state of affairs is as disgusting as slavery), but this is the "peepee poopoo" version of criticizing it.
Making babies is not optional for civilization.
Raising new workers is more expensive than it was in the past and the current markets thus can't support the production of more people. This is to some degree artificial (enclosure is not an elite thing this time, as it's currently perpetrated by slightly over half the demos), but every single human being in Western society is selected for based on how well they can boss slaves around more than anything else, and some of our solution is simply to increase society's reliance on slavery.
That the slaves in the modern era are powered by lightning and fossil fuel is not particularly material when you're comparing across other civilizations, whose unpaid labor was generally of the human variety.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
10d ago
1920s/1930s moral values = 1920s/1930s TFR
I'm not convinced that returning to the moral standards of the one time in US history that the urban birthrate was lower than it is today is a good way to fix low TFR.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
11d ago
He, like many others, lacks the necessary coldness of heart to effectively prosecute the culture war.
Or in other words, he's too busy thinking with his dick.
The feminists are correct when they point this out, especially when discussing those sorts of people who can't really handle modernity; it's just that instead of fixing the problem, they simply replaced one set of destructive fetishes with a different set of destructive fetishes (they get off on the oppression narratives just as men get off on the possession ones).
Humanity in general has a hard time dealing with that, given the destructiveness of those fetishes never had to be dealt with before (as it evolved alongside the state of nature) by either gender. Hence we see a lot more DreadJilling (eliminating political power for the vast majority of "normies" and all men, executing straight people, conscripting wallets).
I hesitate to even call DreadJim right-wing, for he is not. That label belongs to whatever the "entrench corruption harder/50 Stalins" faction is in society, and that faction is the feminist one. His faction has simply fallen completely off of the reform -> conserve -> ossify/tradition political treadmill.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
13d ago
Consider any ideological cause leftists and liberals are interested in: creedal citizenship
If leftists and progressives were that interested in that cause they would have freed their slaves legalized their illegals when they had the power to do so. They have had it several times in the past.
They did not, and because of that inaction- that inability to make a deal with the rest of the country and get it Done- now their cause suffers. Perhaps it was because they'd be destroyed as a party for making legible that flagrant and absurd violation of the laws and norms of the country? Perhaps it was because they believed that holding "they'll be deported otherwise" hostage would curry greater electoral success by driving turnout? Perhaps it was because they could do the county-level equivalent of court-packing by counting them in the census and redistricting accordingly? Perhaps it was because they were of a demographic that (socially, politically, economically) profited most from being able to undercut domestic labor, being of the class that most often buys it? It's difficult to say.
Now, we can talk about corruption in the sense that some slaves are getting rounded up faster than others, or who it's being done to first/who's getting exempted. And I have sympathy for your material conditions; economic instability is, naturally, bad for business as finance for it depends in large degree to a now-frustrated economic forecast (and of all the criticisms of Trump this is the greatest and most grounded, and affects both the capital of the Empire and all of its provinces).
But a side doesn't get to claim it's some unique badness because it [mistake theory] never made the sacrifices and compromises necessary to fix the issue and in so doing revealed that side didn't care, or [conflict theory] where it intentionally made the problem worse.
Well, about that...
You're proving too much.
While a young woman whose chest inflates to an absurd size while she laughs maniacally is a really funny mental image (compare that one Wojak where the guy is sitting on his brain), it's also kind of silly.
The root of the matter is that sexual dimorphism [and hence division of labor] is, from an evolutionary standpoint, superior to the alternative. That's why it persists in most creatures, to some degree, including humans.
We could go down the modern academic route of "well, then obviously evolution was intentionally sexist", and that said dimorphism was established and imposed by a genetically-inbuilt plot by men, but you will notice that women were (and are) emancipated [from men] relatively quickly after a particular society's technology level makes that feasible, a tipping point the modern West crossed around 1910 (and completed that project around 1970; though note that 2 world wars, a famine, and [so far] the depression may have slowed that down some).
That's a remarkably quick turnaround for a gender inherently programmed to oppress women. What's going on there?
More options
Context Copy link