ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
13m ago
You should consider how productive it is to argue with / try to own something that is not sentient in any way.
Yeah, but people argue with the average human being all the time. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.
At least I can appreciate self-gratification as a step up, however minor, from doing that.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
28m ago
But not to shit on their faces, surely?
If South Park's assertion of German porn having a stereotype has any validity to it...
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
31m ago
And perhaps more saliently, if they banned depictions of cousin marriage they'd have to redact the entire royal family tree.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
33m ago
I don't think you'd be paying any mind to it if the language was the exact same but wasn't a hobby horse of autistic trans people.
Autistic trans people cause Rust, which is why the meme is "pleading to the borrow checker".
It's a more modern Ada, with all that that implies. I think it's the wrong language for something that should be used generally, other than using AI to transpose code you've already written into a language where speed seems to have been more of a priority (which is probably why the secondary meme is "pushing it everywhere, including places it doesn't belong", which is also emblematic of its creating demographic).
we're going to call programming languages ideologically captured based on whether they mandate a semicolon at the end of a line or not?
Languages that use ':=' (the penis operator) for variable assignment tends to be less useful for actual programming than those that just use =. This is because those languages were designed by human beings for actual work, whereas the ones that prefer := Do not put any effort into understanding how human beings write code.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
1hr ago
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
2hr ago
And indeed one of the videos features the arrest of a teenage boy.
Yes, it's intended to be sexual humiliation for failing to play the market in the way old men approve of. Did you learn nothing from Adolescence (and the public's response thereto)?
It is directionally harmful to themselves, whoever is depicted in the material, and anybody exposed to it.
Point out specifically, on this doll, where the dangerous XXX-rays emanating from the material touched you.
There are serious privacy and moral issues with these techniques
Why's that? Society has investigated its own base instincts and found no evidence of wrongdoing. There's only really one way to hold them to account, and it's coup-complete.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
2hr ago
No amount of business transactions are going to solve that.
Ironic that a business transaction is the best way to model their actions.
The market clearing price is too high for those men to be {willing, able} to afford a woman of the same station. That's it. That's all it is.
Risk aversion is defensible if there is no directly observable benefit to taking that risk. Both that and safetyism (to name the symmetric female impulse) are parasitic at their core, but they both exist for a reason. Human instinct is often maladaptive.
{Pornography, prostitution, masturbation} are basically an AI simulation of this, which is why they're rejected in the same family of 'goonslop' (and why old men would want them restricted- especially those that showcase any "cheating" of that market dynamics- as a way to lock young men out of any other alternatives and encourage them to be appealing to women).
Yet these foolish old men, who have no other intelligence outside of instinct, don't understand that this won't fix the fact there are no women who are willing or able to afford the men either. Selfish old women approve of this posture, naturally.
So with respect to the original prompt of "why are F/m, 'help me step-bro', etc. being banned?", this is the answer to that question. Social conservatives were always feminist. One notes that the cultural Enemy of the Boomers was the last cultural movement that made young men great (and actively encouraged them to be with women) and I don't believe that to be a coincidence.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
4hr ago
The evidence available to me (including what the site claims) suggests that to the majority of men, they appear to be women, and very attractive women at that.
But I assess that whatever they are, it's hammering the 'uncanny valley' instinct incredibly hard (and it can stay as far away from me as possible). The ones with really squared-off/aggressive faces (and square eyebrows) legitimately look like they're trans, and 'if a hominid is bearing its teeth, it's warning you it's about to attack' also applies.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
14hr ago
I found this exercise confusing, discomforting, and... weirdly insulting, to a point. I ran out of steam a bit past 75 iterations (1.5/12 faces on average, relatively high uniqueness). I began to suspect it was all AI 20 iterations in and was somewhat disappointed to discover on the results screen that judgment was correct.
There were a strangely large number of pictures, particularly white women, that were very obviously men in wigs. I ended up skipping enough full iterations of them that it decided to ask me if I wanted to switch to men (lol wtf?); yet, if I was matching with said men in wigs, it would have never asked me that question.
It did manage to assess my type somewhat correctly (turns out I prefer cute women, but I already knew that), though I believe it overfit some of the categories somewhat due to lack of data- there would be ones I'd pick simply to avoid the 'you don't like crossdressing men or women who are very obviously in their sixties? what are you, gay?' question again, which would be highlighted in the output to a much greater degree than they arguably should be.
Humorously, the system thinks I rate white women worse than any other group despite not ever having selected any of those in the other groups.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
23hr ago
There really isn't a easy explanation. Proper understanding on this specific topic is best gathered through digital means.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
23hr ago
In the Netherlands, to get a weapons permit you need a good reason, which will be hunting or sport. [Also, other stuff.]
Yes, the other countries I mentioned all have similar licensing laws (and provisions to do those things), and yes, I'd expect Western Europe to be far more despotic in this regard since the State capacity is generally higher.
Yet I will also point out that Europe tends to have more mistake theory in its lawmaking than the US does, which means that Anglosphere countries adopt conflict theory gun laws in place of ones that were ostensibly based on mistake theory regional compromises. Some of that is caused by gynosupremacy, but not all of it.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
1d ago
Japan also managed to find a fun way to cripple itself via demographics
I don't think they've crippled themselves- judging by how wasteful their education system is, they're still overpopulated, and the more automation advances the worse that problem gets. They're many years ahead of the curve on the automation-induced wind-down.
At least it's not South Korea, who missed the economic boom [back when automation was unsophisticated enough to create a labor shortage- now it creates a surplus] and are as a result suffering from an overpopulation problem that's drastically worse.
Guns haven't been banned yet, unlike in most of Europe.
The closer to the [American] Anglosphere you are, the worse the gun laws get.
This is because the illiberal/progressive faction in those countries takes their marching orders wholesale from American media and turn them loose on countries that have far less rule of law (NZ -> AUS -> UK -> CAN from least to most restrictive, if you were curious. For the UK, Northern Ireland is a notable exception; I don't think Oranges would tolerate London demanding them disarm.)
Continental Europe is generally more liberal than Anglo countries are; the most liberal countries in Europe were part of the Soviet Union (and arguably because they were part of the Soviet Union).
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
2d ago
the US and Canada do not possess any "settler movement" of white kids moving onto Indian Reservations to steal their houses
Sure they do- the 'white kids' are the 'commie protestors', and the Indians are 'everyone who lives outside of the areas with the greatest concentration of commie protestors'.
They even have these nice residential schools they'll send your kid to if you fail to adopt their religion (the trans-substantiation of men in dresses) and pass laws that just let them seize property with the Indians as an excuse. (The land seizures are starting to result in 'commie protestor' governments losing their power, but not quite at the level it probably should be.)
The Indians are just an excuse.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
2d ago
Yeah- it's honestly really strange to notice that sure, I could buy a can of decent soup for 3 bucks... or I could buy hot dogs and buns instead, which are 4 bucks a meal assuming you eat two at a time (and commit to eating them for 3 days).
But then, that's just the general case of "if you couldn't afford the more expensive goods, you can't afford the ones that used to be cheap either". Yes, the quality is technically better, but I'm really not sure what I gain by noticing that given that everything's relatively tasteless to me anyway. (Which is part of the reason I bought the cheaper stuff in the first place.)
Then again, 'penny-wise, pound-foolish' means I don't really pay much attention to it because it will never be worth my while to do so. Food doesn't actually take up that much of the budget and, had I a family to cook for, the cost amortized over multiple diners is still better than an industrial kitchen, with the exception of fried chicken, sushi, or Chinese food.
Rising expectations are most of the affordability crisis.
I could believe K-shaped economies are exacerbated by "just put literally everything on credit".
People who were leveraged to the hilt in 2020 are now in a wildly better position than everyone else simply because the debt has in large part inflated away- so really, why not budget like the government does? Indeed, if you don't (or don't have the credit because you're out of work, or in school), you're just getting wrecked by everyone else who does.
It's just like student loans: a loan with an interest rate under inflation means the effective interest you pay is negative, so if you don't do that, you're just leaving money on the table- just make sure your credit's good enough and don't lose your job (and even if you do, unemployment will still cover you for quite a while provided you were making the appropriate amount of money before), and you can take advantage of all that free money too.
And, if you do keep it for 15 years (or longer- both because it's a luxury vehicle, and now that manufacturers have figured out how to rust-proof that's realistic), it'll still sell for what a new base model at that time will cost.
Well, that and the 'this used to be a cheap staple, now it's just as expensive as avocado toast' thing. For instance, you want lunch meat for your sandwich? You can buy corned beef for 4 bucks per standard unit, or higher quality salami for 5 bucks per standard unit.
Used to be 1.50 and 4- so sure, you might not necessarily like it, but at least it'd be 40% the cost of the tastier alternative. So at that point, if you can afford the cheaper product, you can afford the upgraded version; if you can't afford that, you can't afford anything.
my only response is going to be to look at them and say, “Who the fuck are you dude?”
My response to that is slightly different and delivered slightly under the speed of sound.
Obviously outright murdering people or forcibly sterilizing them is just out of the question
Well, let's assume you're out of room for all of your population to be economically viable, so you go across the border and kill the people currently occupying that space who don't decide to answer the eugenics question the way I would. That's still outright murdering people, it's just that it's not your people you're murdering.
I also take the slightly more aggressive view that 'forcibly sterilizing' can also be accomplished by intentionally destroying the social systems/commons that made reproduction possible in the first place, especially if the people doing that are past breeding age and just want to prop up their retirement (or avoid having to ever engage productively with the opposite sex if not) at the expense of others being able to afford families. So yeah, I legitimately do think we've forcibly sterilized more than a few people, and it's kind of a small wonder that they don't answer the eugenics question in the above way given that's the norm for humanity.
but I don’t know how to clear the board mentally with those people to have a level headed discussion about it.
Well, that's kind of why you have the kind of secret society bullshit that tends to go along with discussion of eugenics. My answer tends to be "don't- if population control has to happen, then it'll happen naturally at a socioeconomic inflection point no matter what anyone else does; we can and arguably should sort it out then, and not before or after". (Of course, that also tends to mean that any martial virtue is selected out of your society, like what happened in Europe in the two Great Mass Suicides around 1915 and 1940.)
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
3d ago
That isn’t what most people mean by the term though.
I mean it at the systems-level, much as everyone else who uses the term does.
While I disagree that the current financial barrier to reproduction was an intentional design choice (and rather the inevitable outcome of an aging population trying desperately to keep an asset price bubble inflated until they're dead), I don't think it necessarily holds for other eugenics systems either. It is not the fault of the retarded that reality is biased against them, but the fact remains that it is, and in a zero-sum system [where paying for them to exist ostensibly comes at the cost of fertility for everyone who isn't retarded] that has consequences.
Eugenics simply asks "how many more fingers do you want on that scale?", and I contend that even an answer of "none" is still doing eugenics, at least from the perspective of those who would be on the low side of it.
It's probably important to note that genetic improvement is the private-est property you could ever have, which creates a huge liability for communists because that is (or quickly becomes, for capital begets capital) impossible to redistribute. Even the most milquetoast socialist would bristle far more at the thought of "trickle-down genetics" than they do its economic counterpart, which is arguably the root of why others are correct to worry about permitting that in excess of the current reality-dictated base rate.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
3d ago
What if you reject the humility of the masses, and the social norms that are holding you back, and you do the good thing and you win?
Or more generally, what if it's objectively correct for you to dominate others?
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
3d ago
If the economics of it are ever improved and brought down, there’s no reason positive eugenics can’t be on offer to all segments of society
In the First World, eugenics is currently alive and well- you have men and women who get along with each other sufficiently to actually have children, and then you have those who do not. (This correlates with education, but that should be expected thanks to the conscientiousness requirement. Dual incomes are the only way to become landed gentry with the markets as they are.)
To some degree, progressivism is raging against the dying of the night in the sense that most of them won't have had kids by menopause. The future might belong to those whose genetics predict pro-social behavior- the present, not so much.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
4d ago
The US is effectively insulated from this because it's literally on the other side of the world but the rest of us all have to suffer
If you consider paying back taxes for failure to reinvest in your own defense/sovereignty "suffering", sure. You either pay for a modern military up front, or you pay for it through the increased price of goods and services after the US decides to start yet another war in your backyard.
You'd think the Eurozone would have learned that the first time, back in '73. But no, they decided to not only throw away their military power, but their financial power, too. An Iran actively allied with Europe (perhaps harder now, too many of the wrong type of Muslim [from Iran's perspective] moved there), or at least dealt with under a European-controlled financial system (rather than an American one), has no incentive to start doing this. Yet, the opposite has happened.
So, woe to the vanquished. The EU and/or Britain are more than capable of building and operating a swarm of drones or CIWS systems themselves. Or, they could get so mad about being [Euro]poor that they go to war and pacify the Silk Road that way. European countries have a lot of excess population to burn through, last I checked that surplus ain't exactly too fond of the Iranians either, and they have nowhere to run if the conscription vans come for them anyway (other than "back from whence they came", which... well, mission accomplished).
Just throw professional-athlete money at the smart twentysomethings [to not take that better job offer in the US] and get out of their way. You don't even have to make cuts to benefits- just print money and inflate the currency. Most people are too stupid to figure that out given they still haven't figured out that's the reason they're poor post-Covid.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
5d ago
Bloomberg reported that its market value was likely lower, about US$100–125 million.
I haven't checked Craigslist for used 747s- is that really how much they usually sell for? I've been feeling like trading up from my MiG-15 for something with a little more horsepower- I'm a little hesitant to go with the Learjet 60 lately because I'm expecting to use this year-round rather than just in the summer and I hear they have trouble with ice.
Though I will point out 'received a small loan gift of a hundred million dollars' isn't exactly selling the anti-corruption angle; politicians routinely get hauled in for stupid personal expenses far less than that all the time. Which is the root of why I'm willing to reflexively believe it's a nothingburger, but I don't have an irrational dislike of the guy so I actually can do that.
Honestly, should have immediately re-donated it for conversion to firefighting use (in the kind of livery I'd expect Trump to have). A 747 painted like that would be hilarious.
ThisIsSin
value cannot be null
5d ago
Two years before they IPO all the big founders move to Florida with 0% capital gains tax.
Sounds like a job for a sovereign wealth fund to me. Loan to pay off the deferred taxes and set a time of jubilee commensurate with when IPOs need to occur (such that, if sufficiently late, there's a reasonable chance of them being outcompeted).
It does occur to me that most of the states that have these kinds of funds are states where resource development physically takes place; the same is technically true of California provided it remains capable of attracting tech startups. (Arguably, it's so incapable of this that the "inability to attract new talent" capital of the world has followed the talent after it all moved to Texas.)
A majority should govern
I love mob rule as much as the next guy with the torches and pitchforks. I've yet to be on that side, thus I clothe myself in the veil of ignorance.
A stable system restrains weak majorities. The stronger a weak majority is allowed to be politically, the more unstable the system gets, for it incentives maximum and immediate culture war wins because the only thing they can actually accomplish is creating a more durable/disciplined majority from the 50/50 axis.
(Which is why "immediate disarmament of my enemies' strongest arguments" is priority #1, thus the censorship, gun control, and institutional discrimination are day 1 objectives. Politically, the enemy's coalition [relative to your own coalition that won you the election] will never be stronger than it is the day after election day.)
I continually hear claims of this but what's the actual mechanism of action?
Far as I'm aware this is just getting bolder/more honest about what one actually always liked rather than the feminist canard of "oh no how horrible, look at these domination scenes, man bad woman good".
At the end of the day, superstimulus gonna superstimulus.
If you're getting off on domination, you'll look at stuff that's more degrading than usual. This isn't that weird provided you're ignoring the complaints of those who share the submissive's gender.
If you're getting off on submission, you'll disappear into the Omegaverse. This isn't that weird provided you're ignoring the complaints of those who share the dominant's gender.
If you're getting off on inflation, DeviantArt has been there for like 20 years. This isn't that weird provided you're ignoring the complaints of those whose weight in pounds begins with the number 1.
If you're getting off on co-operation, there's always hentai. This isn't that weird provided you're ignoring the complaints of women and men who are incapable of anything resembling a healthy relationship, but it's hard to unpack at times because responses to criticism now needs to be gendered.
And so on and so forth.
More options
Context Copy link