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
19hr ago
who would sooner die than blemish their own ego
Hence the ultimate problem with the concept of the "middle class".
If they refuse the duty to lead, perhaps because they're too busy making money (or because they just aren't fit to lead in the "eww, that's icky" way), then the status and productivity that makes them middle class will eventually be redistributed away from them. Fools and their money, etc.
And that's the thing, it's emotions they have. If they had at any point decided to kill their own babies, they believe they should not be punished for it. Their emotions aren't just valid, they're reality.
Funny, I was kind of having this same argument with another guy yesterday.
Failure, intentional [as "I don't want to get dirty"] or unintentional, to understand why the bad human thinks he is justified won't bring you towards your goal at all. (It's also the problem when men complain about [progressive] morals without taking the time to first understand women, for that matter; that's precisely why all the reactionary criticisms fall flat.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
21hr ago
Free workers were in constant competition with vast hordes of immigrants who worked as slaves to enrich a small elite. Thankfully nothing like this is happening today.
And there definitely wasn't a significant amount of energy put into the reform faction, and they never tried to throw the reform faction's leader in jail as soon as his legal immunity expired, and that question definitely had nothing to do with any resulting civil war.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
22hr ago
but Hillary getting upset about Bernie’s racism struck me as a cynical appeal to black voters more than anything real
Which her successor would make much clearer later; I believe his words were something to the effect of "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black".
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
Justified vent against selfish women aside, I don't think "repeal the 19th" is likely to be a helpful think to do- merely retvrning to 1900's solutions is not going to be the answer because it's not 1900 any more, so the solutions of 1900 are simply not appropriate (and the changes that were made from 1900-1940 in particular are what we're forced to deal with right now- all the money that kept us from having to face them directly is gone).
In the early days of the United States, only those who owned a certain amount of property were allowed to vote
The obvious problem being that said landowners will just block all development, and in so doing block all reform. They already do this in coastal states and (ab)use the "muh environment" veto; landowners don't need any more political power. (Some ancient societies had this problem too.)
The problem you're trying to solve for is moral hazard.
I think a sufficiently-expansive definition of "taxpayer" might work, and gives the government a certain other kind of power to do big things in return for a populace that quite literally loses the right to complain. So, you could create a government initiative to bail out students under crushing loan debt at the cost of their vote for the next X years (since this would drop anyone with a net-negative job under this threshold). You'd need a lot more accounting for each citizen, though, but State capacity is large enough to do that now. You could offer public-funded healthcare with the same condition attached.
You'd also have to compensate for women with children somehow, since being a full-time SAHM naturally limits the amount of tax you can pay, and revoking the right from women who both obviously have a stake in the future/doing what they are supposed to be doing is not likely to be productive.
I also think that should include public sector workers; if your employer is the [X level of] government, you don't get a vote in [X level's] elections, simple as. They have already received their allotment of power through being employed by a highly stable government position, getting to set their own salaries and policies too is double-dipping. It might also include farmers and other workers in bailed-out industries for the same reason.
If you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you are charged in this way for your stay. (This doesn't change much in terms of felon voting rights, but it's an easy justification for why they should disappear, and also provides an automatic mechanism for restoration rather than begging for pardons.)
(You could solve the illegal immigrant problem in a similar way too: if use of taxpayer-funded services are being offered to non-citizens, then each member of a polity suffers a penalty to its political power. Polities [and voters] clearly need to be incentivized to follow the immigration laws.)
I mean, there's no retreat; that's what I meant in the first place, and why I opened with it.
that argument that socialism is based on envy
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.)
Feelings are not self-justifying.
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.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
2d 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
2d 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
2d 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
2d 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
2d 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
2d 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
3d 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
6d 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.
So why do we have abortion laws, then? The women tell me it's literally a female-privilege/power thing- that the baby creates a liability, and that it's OK to kill liabilities.
Are they incorrect? Obviously they must be.
If they are correct, then "I am allowed to abort my children whenever I want, including post-natally" is trivially a natural consequence of the same abortion argument.
Note that I do completely agree that this case isn't motivated by convenience (because she had other ways to do that). It's basically just a bog-standard family annihilator case, with the associated motivations- convenience may commonly be claimed (or shorthand) for the motive in those cases, but I doubt that's anywhere near the whole story.
To the point that I actually don't think there's anything mentally wrong with the people that do this (well, other than "being insufficiently able to resist a very specific trapped prior", which is what some types of mass shooters do as well, right down to the suicide [by self or cop]).
But that's not insanity. You had the choice to resist doing that and you didn't; that's why it needs to be prosecuted.
Yet the women defending her are doing so because they perceive, correctly, that their convenience/privilege would be called into question should she be found guilty. That's the difference.
They can't just say "bad woman was bad, #notAllWomen", for the same reason behind why every mass shooting turns into a
gun controlmale privilege debate (and note that these are the women who absolutely will #allMen when that happens).More options
Context Copy link