ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
15hr ago
and in service of a cause that they were clearly not in service of
...is Cain not serving himself here? (And inb4 "well, he was serving/from the evil one", how would he have even known to do that? "The evil one" doesn't even appear in the Pentateuch, so that wouldn't make any sense to the target audience.)
but I think that trying to read the early chapters of Genesis while removing God from the narrative is absurd
Not what I meant. And I think you know that. The reason I'm doing that specifically for that chapter is to establish [3].
Likewise there is no sense whatsoever in which Abel's life, or his righteousness and favour with God, disadvantaged Cain
I mean, it pissed him off; maybe that's disadvantage enough.
But then, I think it's completely natural for Cain to be pissed off; I explained why I think that is already. [I'm also making the assumption that being without God's favor is actively bad news, which is something I failed to state originally.]
It seems that there's a distinction between 'gift' and 'sacrifice', where Cain's is the latter- but come on, you put the money in the vending machine[1] and not only does it not give you your chips, but it insults you too? You did what you were supposed to do.
But then, that's also why I think this generalizes.
The fact someone else [generic: "your brother"][2] does something better than you does something to you. You invested for no reward. You feel robbed and you feel angry[3].
So you reach out and erase what created that problem. You don't necessarily understand in that moment that it didn't actually matter what the actual material difference in the gift/sacrifice was (the text doesn't say, perhaps for that exact reason).
The specific thing I'm targeting, and what I claim is being said here, is the murder is in the class of "because you can't fucking leave it alone that someone did something better than you, in a way you can't fully describe, and with a quality you do not currently possess"[4]. You took the easy [sinful] way of "neutering anything that was better than you", because according to you[r human nature] you are supreme, not God.
Which you'll recall is the comment that I was originally responding to. That's why I said Cain was "the first socialist, his first act to redistribute Abel all over the ground". Which extends to intangibles like righteousness- the thing Cain lacks, and as such could not even begin to align with what God said to him first.
And I'm stuck pondering precisely why it's completely natural [and by extension, sinful] to be like that, where that comes from. In other words, I think the "sin" described is not even envy or greed or hatred against Abel, it's [self]-idolatry against God, and perhaps the "paradox" of the method of your own creation is that you are incentivized in every way to believe that nothing comes before you. (I maintain my assertion that human nature makes it a liability to not assume you are supreme in this way.)
And Cain's motivation and action is to intentionally hinder anyone else's efforts to do that. If he can't "possess" [4], why should anyone else?
[1] So the heart is once again being prosecuted (and yeah, Hebrews later confirms this). Also probably important for any ancient peoples that tended to view gods as magic vending machines, which if the Romans are indicative was probably true.
[2] His name, Abel, means "not important" ("meaninglessness" or "vapor"). Not really sure why a mother would ever actually name her son that, so either Eve's ahead of the curve on designer names, or this isn't describing literal history.
[3] For a bunch of human nature reasons. We were just arguing over what those might be, where they came from, and why. Cain's reaction doesn't make any sense otherwise. (And before you say "well, that's because he was evil"... if he was evil, why would he even bother bringing the sacrifice, or care about God's favor in the first place? So yeah, I think examining that is necessary- his actions doesn't make sense otherwise.)
[4] Later asserted to be "righteousness".
Oh yeah, and just to be clear:
The story of Genesis deliberately interweaves historical events with human righteousness or unrighteousness and corresponding divine action.
I wouldn't even be arguing this if I didn't believe that. But by the same token, I don't think Cain and Abel are necessarily meant to be taken as if they actually existed any more than a worldwide flood persisting for precisely 150 days or a 7-day creation are; the theological messages are the point, couched in the language people around them understand.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
18hr ago
However, the fact remains that this was, fundamentally, the question asked of the jurors.
Moreover joking about 'redistribution' here seems like just a bad interpretation of the text?
I'm not really being rhetorical. (Hence why I think it actually is redistribution even though no physical resources were exchanged.)
Is not one of the problems with sin that human nature vindicates it as the right thing to do? If you completely ignore God in this story, Cain did the objectively right thing- he took out a competitor that was better [assuming God liked Abel's offering better because it was better] than he was.[1]
Merely being worse than someone else is an inherent threat per human evolution- at any moment, they might plant their flag over you, and demand you serve them instead. Evolutionarily-speaking, they'll reproduce, not you.
And even more interestingly, God doesn't take away his life for doing this (the effect of the punishment- one might say the wages of sin- is exile/separation)- rather, he finds a wife[2], and his descendants become very powerful (maybe polemic, but you get the picture). Indeed, he does reproduce successfully.
But here, the message is essentially saying that these natural impulses- you have "envy, hatred, and pride" to keep you alive and reproducing- are in conflict with God's will?
As Cain points out to God, what the fuck? How could self-preservation be the wrong answer here (with his excuse that it's Abel fault Abel failed at that -> why should Cain be responsible for Abel's self-preservation keeping)? How could, and why should, God care more about convergence/alignment with His will than the desires of the flesh human self-preservation, and why would He label putting the latter above the former here "sin"? (Furthermore, why the generic? Why is "sin" singular?)
(What would God have to do to conclusively prove that's what His values are? Maybe come to Earth as a human being, fully loaded up with that instinct, and then at every turn forced to intentionally violate that... to the point of a particularly humiliating death? Yeah, I can't see why I, a creature of human instinct sin, should be impressed by that either.)
[1] It wasn't just having the resources, it was leveraging them to gain an advantage that Cain has a problem with. The effort was perhaps equal but the outcome was not, because Abel had something Cain didn't that made God favor Abel more, and used resources [that were ultimately God's, hence the offering] to do that- ignoring God willing this to be so, why should it only be Abel that gets the advantage?
[2] I find it rather humorous how the first part of the passage reads a lot like a concrete "these 2 humans", but then dumps this framing at the end such that it only makes any sense in the abstract "spherical cow in a vacuum" way (re: "if there are 3 humans on Earth, and in the very next chapter we see Eve give birth to Abel's replacement, then where did Cain get his wife?").
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
21hr ago
Bring back exile as form of punishment. This is to a point what Scandinavian prisons are. Importantly, you don't need to refrain from calling mass murderers or gang members (those who intended to wage civil war on their community) "evil"- you can still have PMITA prisons for them.
What trials are meant to do is therefore to determine "evil" (in the Before Times this was prosecuted with death; now it's life in prison, which is a death that you can be partially revived from if we determine later we fucked up- even El Salvador treats people who outright wage war on the community that mercifully). This is why you separate first and second degree murder (and manslaughter), too- so we see that "evil" is not even that they killed, but because they lay in wait to do it.
You don't need to be penned in like cattle in these [cities of] asylum. But the trust was broken, so you can't live around everyone else, and now you have to go to that reserve (and if you leave you will be killed, obviously).
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
21hr ago
But they ignore the social hierarchy.
If you believe in mistake theory, sure.
If you don't, you'll find a lot of this is on purpose- because at the limit, the fact that they even exist in the first place (once nobody can create, or when all who may create are enslaved) will become their sole source of value. The value of actually doing anything is rightfully redistributed.
"Enslave any who creates, for a safe human existence- never threatened, never changed- is end unto itself."
Sounds like Hell to me.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
Then what distinguishes her 'psychosis' from any other criminal's desire to do evil?
Your question answers itself (emphasis mine).
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
Women want more status as mothers
No, they want more privilege. "Status as mothers" is a strange excuse considering most of them aren't, but it fools people who think women are acting in good faith here (or "conservatives" for short).
In this case, we see they want the privilege to back out of being a mother at any time, not just before birth.
It's literally just the abortion debate, but post-partum this time. The male analog here is "I could never be a deadbeat dad, so I'll just kill everyone here because [insert Clancy's defenses here]".
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
The cultural correlations between homosexual conduct and child abuse are sufficiently strong that even in the mid-20th century it was common to use the word "pederast" to describe a gay man as such.
As opposed to the 21st, where the cultural correlations between heterosexual conduct and child abuse are sufficiently strong that it's common to use the word "pedophile" to describe a straight man as such.
(previously, the "age of consent" was different in part based on sexuality)
It's still that way. It's normal for all sexualities that are outside the sphere of concern for feminists (who worked very hard for the above swap), and infinite for the one inside of it. (On paper, the laws are the same; in practice, courts are functionally mandated to treat retroactive revocation of consent as legitimate and still hold men who are statutorily raped responsible for any resulting child, so we see it only ever privileges women.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
[Waiting until college to have their sexual awakening...] but this typically results in or requires [characters] that have an unhealthy relationship with their sexuality... and kinda dodges the matter rather than resolving it.
Oh, so exactly like real life then.
but there's a pretty large faction of Red Tribers that do recognize 16-17 age sexuality as something that happens
So basically, the culture that takes a more complimentary posture towards men- in contrast to the one that's built upon maximal exploitation "minimizing men's evil desires"- has a healthier and more constructive picture of how sexuality works.
Perhaps moving in that direction is superior to moving in the opposite direction- but of course, any hint of that would mean more stuff for your blocklists. The amount of un-consensual and un-good in the world would increase.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
I'm kind of surprised it's not a bigger deal among the AI-hating crowd.
Well, I wouldn't want to share a demographic with a mass shooter either, especially not one whose victims were perfectly sympathetic.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
Eventually an AI will do something that can sort-of somehow plausibly be linked to something like killing children
This has already happened a bunch of times. I think Tumbler Ridge was the first mass murder where those conditions were true; there were a few scattered suicides before that, but nobody really cared about those guys.
(One imagines much jealousy by state organizations responsible for fighting this sort of thing; they at least have to make house calls to convince some retard from $group to do it. At least the AI hasn't gone full Eagle Eye... that we know of, at least.)
It's not just some demand that people near and far must all conform.
Indeed, it's also the murder of those people if they won't.
Well, socialists believe those rich people are absconding with resources that don't belong to them.
The earliest recorded socialist was Cain, who believed (trivially, correctly) that Abel was obtaining God's favor with resources that don't belong to him.
The first act of socialism ever practiced by humanity was redistributing Abel all over the ground.
From Cain's perspective, Abel obtaining God's favor that way was stealing (and purposefully ignores "obtaining God's favor" is the entire reason those resources were put there in the first place: "obtaining God's favor" and "being better than Cain" were one and the same for Cain, though).
Interestingly, the punishment for that was not death, but exile and divine protection from anyone else murdering him. (And the even more interesting implication is that Cain having done this doesn't seem to be stated as categorically/unequivocally evil, either.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
2d ago
I don’t think I would want mass migration from Europe today
I don't think Americans (in the immigration case) would tolerate the 19th/20th-century-style policy you'd need, which is this, so that would almost certainly be bad.
Musk easily fit in
Musk fits into the American civil religion very well; he is the most financially successful African-American in history. One imagines opposition to the kind of power he has to be the fault of mere racism.
Once the majority of people's safety is threatened it will fall from grace.
No. You have fundamentally misunderstood what progressivism is.
Progressivism is the reification of female political power. Everything a progressive does is downstream of that.
Female political power is not reduced when immigrants devalue the youngest (or future) women by raping or murdering them. Indeed, it actually increases- less intra-gender competition means more power for the average woman (socialize gains, privatize losses). Hence, women will aid and abet those crimes, and use their power to force men to do the same.
When the wages of women drop relative to those of men, progressivism recedes, like it did in the 1950s. Women now have to compete with each other more for access to men, so their political power drops. Society thus becomes more aligned with what men want.
When the wages of women rise relative to those of men, progressivism accelerates, like it did in the early 1900s. Men now have to compete with each other more for access to women, so their political power drops. Society thus becomes more aligned with what women want.
How does that alignment happen, and what does it affect? Basic commoditization of the compliment predicts it. Each gender will instinctively use their power to erase the distinction between members of the other gender and enhances the distinction between members of their own gender. So, women will want mass male immigration and men will want mass female immigration- women prioritize safety, emphasize feelings, and prioritize capital to protect their source of worth (and that denies the worth/framing of the mechanisms upon which men compete with men, rendering men interchangeable); men prioritize freedom, emphasize rules, and prioritize labor as ways to protect their source of worth (and that denies the worth/framing of the mechanisms upon which women compete with women, rendering women interchangeable).
If AI devalues female labor more than male labor, the future will be less progressive.
If it does not, the future will be more progressive.
Simple as.
If AI companies manage to send the US into the next Great Depression society will (as a response) change just as much as it did in the 1930s, but it is the effects on the relative power of the average man and woman at that time (and not their absolute power) that will determine how things actually go.
The kind of shit that would get your whole country and people unprsoned in the west
Yes, we're aware the West is doing the "pulling the ladder up behind you" thing.
I'm talking wholesale ethnic replacement of vilages with military support, civilians fired at freely by the military with full support of the command chain
That's a perfect description of Western immigration and law enforcement policy for the last ~15ish years. And sure, let's call those things "crimes"[1]. Sure, the rapists aren't actually killing the women into whom they shoot, but their right to do that is very much backed by the military and command chain of those nations- voice disagreement, and the State's guns show up to suppress you.
Noticing this, somewhat humorously, demonstrates that both the main Western schools of thought about Israel are completely hypocritical:
- The pro-Israel faction tends to be the most opposed to Western governments committing the [crimes] listed above against them, but also believe that all national governments are fully in the right when they perpetrate those [crimes] against those under that government's monopoly of violence
- The anti-Israel faction tends to be the most opposed to Israel committing the [crimes] listed above, and claim that all national governments do not have the right to do it, yet they themselves perpetrate those [crimes] against everyone else in the geographic area the instant they gain control of their own government's monopoly of violence
In other words, the people who say the [crimes] should happen seem to dislike it when they're the victims, and the people who say it shouldn't happen anywhere directly perpetrate the [crimes] against their own neighbors.
Neither has a moral inch to stand on; both bear isolated demands for rigor.
Ironically, "forcibly rebuild Gaza into rich Trump resort" was arguably superior simply because the use of force was limited to pushing massive material wealth upon the colonized side- forcing the enemy's material standards of life to improve (and killing everyone who wanted their neighbor's life to remain so economically worthless that throwing it against enemy guns was the only luxury) such that any future chimp-outs would be moderated by the inherent desire not to gamble so forcefully you lose the creature comforts you now take for granted. One notes that this is more or less just how empires are stabilized (well, the successful ones, anyway- the Americans vs. the Germans/Japanese/Soviets, the Han Communists of Beijing vs. the rest of China, etc.).
[1] The framing is smuggling in both the assumption both that these things are "crimes", and that "crimes" are bad. Though, the accusation of rank hypocrisy doesn't change if they are not "crimes", or if these "crimes" are actually good.
consenting to treatment is taking responsibility. Agreeing
The set of possible sentences for her alleged actions is {exile, death}, so one "consents" only to abide by the terms of their sentence. (The sentence for violating an exile is death, of course.)
What we call the "insanity/mental health defense" is in truth pleading a death sentence [or one that takes away X years of your life] down to exile. What exile looks like is different in the modern day: all land is claimed, so we must create cities of refuge, or "asylums", for those we punish with that exile. It also protects her from the logical consequence of simply being declared an outlaw- if her husband is sufficiently aggrieved, she's physically protected from being killed by him so long as she remains there (a jury might not convict him if he did otherwise, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that is also justice).
Which is why "sane or not?" is the only real question here. Sane = intentional = death; insane = unintentional = exile.
And I do believe it reasonable to think that "a woman who murdered her own children" is strong evidence of insanity, because a brain that violates literally every possible fiber of maternal instinct is probably malfunctioning.
But that's only a "probably", and that is why she's on trial. And the women in society who dare voice anger with men for daring to point that out- when they know in their hearts they would never consider men who kill their children to be insane with the same measure- all do evil themselves.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
5d ago
Stephen Pinker makes a pretty convincing case that female politicians at least are slightly less warmongering than their male counterparts.
I don't care about female politicians, I care about female voters.
What policy and politicians do female voters prefer?
The one that was actively facilitating a massive invasion of military-aged men?
That one whose party apparatus directly supported burning down a bunch of cities in the US?
"Gender of peace", my ass. Civil warmongering is still warmongering.
There's no realistic path of mass hysteria leading to millions of Canadian youth being machine gunned in the mud by the Germans
The Germans ain't who the Boomer's elbows are raised against in jingoistic yawp. There is a reason that every 20th century anti-war piece blames those who have no skin in the game [at that time, mainly the old] for this shit: because it's true.
They knew a time of war that I do not; I therefore heed their warnings.
I find the idea that Canadian men will be subjected to a mass draft to die in a war started by women who don't understand the cost
The female (and the old) do understand the cost; they simply believe themselves worth that cost. So great is the society they create(d) that men should compete to bow down to them, they believe.
Serious question would you support a 50 50 gender ratio quota in combat arms to get rid of that moral hazard?
Yes, actually. Sure, we could do division of labor beyond that- a woman driving truck or doing supply work is another man that can be spared to the front- but the thing is they're just as conscripted as the men are to do that, and they know that. It's more mechanized, but trucks and supply depots and arms factories are legitimate military targets just as much if not even more so than the grunts on the line are.
If men aren't permitted to flee the country on the belief they might be drafted, neither are the women. The draft should be just as existentially terrible to anyone who has a vote on it.
The ultimate problem I'm trying to point out here is that man's life and woman's life don't carry the same moral weight any more (and that's something detrimental to any society where this is true).
They used to- which is why, due to the division of labor ['assigned to' human beings through inherent sexual dimorphism], the disposable gender had special privileges over the non-disposable one in return for their sacrifice upon "women and children first" (and the like). The duty is still there, but the privileges are not, and there's only the one answer to that.
the existential risk to most westerners is functionally zero
Yeah, I slept through 2020 and 2021, too. The ability of the public to be absolutely hysterical and jump straight into a war (foreign or domestic, 2020 being the latter re: BLM) a lot of stuff is and remains very real; I have that in my own country right now, that's where my examples are pulled from.
These people will vote for much evil if they're permitted to do so; exhibit A being the immigrant situation, and that's just the economic war, not a truly kinetic one. No risk to them, just like getting drafted into Vietnam was. And I absolutely believe those people would try to draft every other Canadian to throw their lives away just to make a point- that's literally what they voted for.
So no, I don't think I'll be forgetting that any time soon.
All the political leaders and electorates in WWI were entirely male.
If it was that bad then, how much the worse now that half the electorate is under moral hazard conditions to pull the trigger? And as we see in Ukraine, the minute the fighting starts it is exclusively the women who [are permitted to and as such immediately] make a run for it, which is absolutely crooked- that whole "be worth it" thing evidently won't matter when it counts.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
If you are pretending seeing a hairy man's ass in a dress with a red thong is as good as seeing Ursula Andress ascend from the water of the Bahamas
You misunderstand. Ursula Andress's socioeconomic interest is the reason why I must pretend seeing a hairy man's ass in a dress is good, and why I must pretend desiring a younger, hotter version of her is bad.
In your original statement, you conflated the two by saying
They are obviously bad, like child obscenity is obviously bad.
And the answer I had for you is that you should stop conflating the two, for your concept of "child obscenity" is both trivially gamed and unequally enforced (by women who fear their own ugliness/inevitable devaluation that they ban anything more beautiful than them [with that excuse] and equate ugliness to beauty) with the ultimate intention to compromise your proper exercise of political power.
So the fact you even have it as a category has resulted in your kids being forced to see the drag shows in the first place, whether or not you're simping respecting your (present or future) wife's power by equating them as equally bad.
I brought receipts to back up my claims, but here's one more thought for you: the places that produce the highest amount of child obscene content has the lowest problem with drag shows (and, though they may have many cross-dressers- even an above-average amount at times, especially in their media- they aren't shoving themselves in your face or behaving anything like a Western woman-approved-drag-queen does).
So I assert that the men and women there, for a variety of reasons, appear to respect each other's interests more. I hope that intentionally hampering your ability to understand why that is- because you're afraid or offended, because it's against your religion, or because you're just plain lazy- has few consequences for your future children, for your ideas of how you must protect them are incoherent.
"The bunch of exceptions that were invented contrary to 1A worked 100 years ago" was literally what paved the way for your modern problems in the first place. A mere retvrning to those exceptions won't solve anything.
Sure, but to what degree can a selfish employer solve that issue? If a black man has a higher than mean IQ for his race, that means that now his time can now be bought, at a bargain price, and so I can get away with paying him less with the same amount of profit, which is what I want. I do better, my competition does worse because they were all "poopoo peepee, it's too much trouble for me" (which is how racism does its damage, and the crime-of-the-heart against which we want to convict). Yes, this doesn't last- because as he gains experience and credibility my ability to maintain the arbitrage decreases- but I can still find them and exploit it because I'm unwilling to listen if and when my moral compass tells me black men are inherently bad. That is itself labor and risk, as the normie sees it; should I not be justly rewarded for my effort [as compared to theirs]?
In this way we see that sufficiently-advanced mercantilism mitigates racism: indeed, these societies tend to converge on being less racist than others for this reason. (They're the least sexist, too, for similar reasons.)
I believe IBM is on the record, verbatim, as explaining that this is why they were willing to hire gay men in the '90s.
You are correct that it fails to solve racism. In your example, the fact that the reason the black man's labor was worth less remains caused by- and not even himself- but by the existence of other people that share his skin color being inherently worse than the median man of another color. One could make the eugenic argument that his success permits him to make more of himself, diluting the pool of 'people who look like him sucks ass' over time, but that doesn't happen for free (he's actually liable to reproduce less, not more, and you still have regression to the mean to worry about- which is an underrated benefit to affirmative action re: society offers, as part of his pension, that his "failsons" won't be left behind).
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
Instead, they are regarded with increased scrutiny by coworkers, as there is no longer a guarantee that they were hired based on their skills.
How the co-worker men feel doesn't matter: they have no power to do anything about it, and they know it.
And you can't measure "the degree to which the State induces quiet quitting" in anything outside of a vibes-based manner- you can't go to your boss, or do a risk assessment about it, because even if you did selfish women would [ab]use the current law to throw you in jail for strike-breaking!
The differences in crime rates would be caused by nature or nurture, neither of which the law is capable of controlling directly.
This is why I don't believe for a second that the "crime rate" is actually more of a man thing. Women are just as destructive; assuming equality, we should expect them to be responsible for half of all [anti-social behavior which merits prosecution, or 'crime' for short]. But the ways in which women crime are a lot less identifiable, a lot less cut and dry, than the ways in which men commit them.
So a legal system- one based on evidence and precedent- is the wrong tool to hold women to account for that.
In the same way that 90% of schoolchildren convicted for fighting are male. You can't prosecute bullying or exclusion, which are the ways women destroy each other, with a zero-tolerance policy based on who convinces who to throw the first punch.
And if you want to tell me "well, women destroying each other isn't as big a deal as it is when men do it"... well, that's not equality now, is it?
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
it is in my best interests that the (generally) less belligerent half of mankind has the franchise
How did you think the men got the idea to go to Verdun in the first place? The female of the species is deadlier precisely because it orders you to death on its behalf, and so you have the basic principal-agent problem.
The biological imperative for men is to go to war and die; the biological imperative for women is to be worth it. If we want to disarm that, and I think it is a net good to disarm it, both sides need to stand down. Right now, only men have [fallen into economic hardship and been forced to].
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
Wouldn't it be a contradiction for any woman to become a thought leader as an anti-feminist?
But come on, that's like asking why there are no black men in the KKK, or why an Ashkenazi does not place emphasis on the latter part of their name. With the added dimension that, if you're asking why tomboys don't do this... men don't really like doing this either, so why would a woman who is closer to understanding to how men think -> "complaining is just a you problem, get good" embrace this either? I guess you could ask the same question of ex-women, but they're too small of a group to do that.
It doesn't make socioeconomic sense for an average woman to publicly do that. Privately, sure, but it's simply unhealthy to be a Uncle Tom strike-breaker in public for the same reasons it was unhealthy for mid-20th century men. The best you're going to get is how Charlie Kirk's widow acts.
I mean, there's no retreat; that's what I meant in the first place, and why I opened with it.
While that's to a point the kind of socialism we were talking about, I notice there's something a bit more subtle in there that 'mere' envy doesn't match.
(There is specifically a "this exact attitude" in here that doesn't quite cleanly fit your buckets.)
Sure they are, from the human-only perspective.
But I'm not going to waste more time trying to explain that concept to you since, well, you clearly stopped reading about halfway through.
More options
Context Copy link