ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4hr ago
The right also errs by conflating progressives (as in, the right-in-waiting) and liberals. Part of that is (to borrow another comment) that their TV hasn't gotten over the fact it's not 1989 any more.
The "left" actually does keep boundaries and standards, you just either don't know what they are, don't like how they're justified, or are simply confused by the fact they call them something else (and you need a tool like POSIWID to figure that out).
For example, their criminals are their police- they're policing Racial Injustice, one taxation event (theft) at a time, until the conditions are right for the[ir] government do the stealing with that justification. So is their drug policy- after all, they couldn't help but be someone who gets addicted to drugs, and your broken window and stolen goods are their healthcare policy. Immigration's the same thing; they believe they live in exclaves threatened by the existence of the rest of the [outgroup]/nation, and open borders is the natural Uno Reverse card.
The problem with conservatism (as in, where the right-in-waiting is headed) is that there isn't actually any way to moderate it, because its moral foundations are different and thus demand an infinite contribution to its memes. Liberalism is not like that because it draws its strength from where the memes are wrong, which is why they go back and forth between estabilshment and establishment-in-waiting.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4hr ago
Once these boomers are gone, I think these silly views will fade away.
I don't believe so. It's just that these silly views will be yours, so you won't see them as silly, and you'll start worshiping Your Experience and insisting others do as well because that'll be the only value you'll have left.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4hr ago
basing adulthood on brain maturation
Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
People think this process occurs magically, like some sort of "everyone's born black but they lighten gradually over time, and are granted rights at a specific shade of white", but people who maturity isn't expected of do not mature.
Set the age and expectations at X, and you'll see development delayed to match. The soft bigotry of low expectations is a thing.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4hr ago
There’s a reason citizens have “equality before the law.”
No they don't; the under-[age] are far less equal, and any attempt to raise that age is simultaneously an attempt to undermine that norm.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
5hr ago
At the limit, the only thing considered high class by a gerontocracy is death, and the forced worship thereof crowds out everything else, including the concept that men should expect to live at all.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
5hr ago
And for bonus points, getting charged as an adult for a crime that can only be committed by a minor.
The system is broken, and the young are too weak to purge it.
Why are we constantly raising the bar and treating adults as children?
Because the gerontocracy has a massive incentive to pull the ladder up behind it. Gerontocrats favor increasing conservatism and fear of... well, life in general[1] so as the balance of power (being a zero-sum game) in society is stretched thinner, it's inevitable that the law protects but does not bind the old while binding but not protecting the young.
It's basically just racism, but for age; complete with the exact same skull-measuring behaviors.
The problem with modern society is a failure to reinvest with "but muh risk" as the excuse, one would expect that to impact its most vulnerable members first, which it has. And this happens all the way up the honor roll, so to speak; as we punish parents who the aged don't judge sufficiently risk-averse for that reason as well.
[1] New advancements that nullify their stores of value for retirement are inherently threatening, so 'just being able to go do things' inherently conflicts with their class interest. Which is exactly what we have seen since the '80s.
we should probably acknowledge that the median case is not the 15-yo getting her breasts removed, but the baby getting circumcised for religious reasons of his parents.
The two are far more similar than I think is commonly realized, because the 15 year old getting her breasts removed is also doing it for reasons that have a lot to do with the dominant civil religion. This is more apparent when the kid's younger, and just like the Christian Right of the '80s, it's always the moms [including teachers, who are just state surrogate moms] pushing the kids into doing it.
It's also why the "consent" argument doesn't work here, since the "but they can't consent" has the same valence as the "don't allow children under the Age of Consent to be exposed to the destructive memes of religion" of the 2010 Atheism Wars. That didn't really get off the ground; it's an argument that's plain unworkable outside of full societal restructuring (and most people have a vague sense it's being made in bad faith), since a parent's worldview inherently influences what their child does. That is ultimately true of the same assertion when applied to kids engaging in transgenderism.
And of course every 10-yo has the ability to kill themselves (without PC), not granted by the SCOTUS but by physics (i.e., God)
Every boy has the physical ability to chop off his own dick, and every girl has the physical ability to bind her breasts.
I think that the bodily integrity of people whom we don't consider to have the ability to fully consent is an important good, and one should not make it too easy for them to get irreversible changes done to their bodies.
If the moral framework around "consent" led directly to a society where transgenderism would be declared sacrosanct, that's pretty clear evidence that this framework has serious and fundamental flaws, and should be either refined or done away with.
True, but Anglos (including their descendants, popularly the Puritans) have a... unique interaction with Temperance. It's pretty clearly an HBD thing, since most other Europeans don't act like this. The Dutch and Portugese stand out in this regard.
The ultimate problem with Temperance is that the people pushing it are, to put it mildly, scum.
From the point of view of... uh, most normal people, they're redistributionists who would like to take the ability of people who can handle drugs perfectly well away for the benefit of those who cannot. It's a religious thing for them, which is why in years past it'd usually be some flavor of Christianity; the best evidence for this being AA (a child of this movement).
This was a contributor to DARE being a complete joke, too, for you'll recall its mission was 'to resist drugs and alcohol'. Pretty clearly a neo-Temperance movement, a moral craze [no deeper than 'drugs r bad mmmkay'], which is why it was as much a failure as the 18th Amendment was. (Doesn't just apply to drugs, either; they treat sex and guns this way too.)
It's also why tobacco is treated that way, as multiple Anglo nations have rolling age bans on it (I believe NZ, UK, and the US state of Hawaii do this at the moment); Temperance was more successful in this area both because nicotine is a shitty stimulant (and requires you to smoke so much that people want to do it indoors, which is not as true of weed), and because "companies are evil" was a better springboard for "and tobacco companies moreso".
Other countries' drug control efforts are themselves a lot more tempered specifically because they're not simultaneously trying to combat scumbags using the opportunity to go full Demolition Man on everyone else! The French (and basically every other non-Anglo nation) don't have to worry their government is going to try and ban $traditional_drug_variety, and as a result the median citizen can be a lot more on board with dealing harshly with the more dangerous drugs specifically because it's not really a tool of social control, and the people who are morally developed enough not to want to impose that on everyone understand that.
It's even more complicated in the US because muh racism (especially around blacks and weed), doubly so because the racist solution actually has some factual backing in these countries/counties (re: Indians and alcohol). But because Temperance is a social engineering project, it doesn't actually care about improving ground conditions, and as such doesn't focus its efforts in this area.
When it's not about the drugs, and when people know it's not about the drugs, then normal people start sabotaging the machinery that lets [the people for whom it is not about the drugs] prosecute drug users. After a while, that attitude metastasizes into "fuck it, all drugs are legal, bring on the Fent zombies", and now you have the opposite problem where prosecuting people for a lack of self-control is impossible.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
3d ago
They're way too wide
I might just suck at the game; I seem to find them a bit narrower than 5's. Then again, 5's set in the fictional Dei region of Mexico, and them not being able to afford paint, or more than 3 roads and one mountain, is realistic I guess. You can't run over the cows in 6 either, which is unfortunate; gone are the days of secret minigames in benchmarking programs where you could shoot down flying cows with a missile launcher mounted on the back of your monster truck (which, annoyingly, I can't find any good footage of, though you can see the aftermath of it here).
NFS Heat was very good but I haven't heard much out of them lately (I know they made a new game but I also know nothing about it). Hey, at least the AI cheats as hard as it did in those games, so you too can experience the classics, like picking a 3000 HP drag car and losing to a Beat.
Which was funny, but come on.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
3d ago
The Metroid remasters and Prime 4 do, but I hesitate to call those popular, sadly.
That being said, though, the obvious answer is certain smartphone games, Pokemon Go in particular. VR headsets use them as well.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4d ago
I was shocked by how many people thought that the final season was a sharp dropoff from the penultimate one; for both, I had thought that the penultimate season was garbage, and the final season just felt like a continuation of the trajectory.
The penultimate season was garbage, but it still at least had some promise (and felt like it had some stakes, and hadn't gone all Dark Fate on the protagonist).
Also, the final season forced you to wait for the worst episode(s). And over the holidays, too. Likely wouldn't have been so bad at any other time.
A cancelled season is always as good as the fans make it. A rushed season is bad forever. I get that the show-writers were dealt a bad hand with it taking way too long to film everything but in truth the cracks were visible from S2 (mainly because they reset most of the character development and hit the protagonist with the idiot ball, which S3 and S4 actually seemed to be safer from).
When I am made consciously aware that the events are happening because the writers wanted to manipulate me
The writers didn't respect the characters enough and it shows. (Which goes double for character types society in general does not respect; kid characters being the most obvious.) I'm led to believe the same thing occurs in the final season of GOT.
When I am made consciously aware that the events are happening because the writers wanted to manipulate me, rather than because of reasonable action-and-consequence within the world in which it was built, the suspension of disbelief is lost, and I'm left emotionlessly thinking about the writers instead of emotionally empathizing with the characters.
The 90s nostalgia that has already been written has been pretty good so far. Granted, it's also not really trying to be this right now. But outside of Deltarune and Omori it's going to take a lot more effort to pull it off because there really isn't very much kids of that time will remember about the '90s- there's a lot of difference culturally between the '60s and '80s, but not a lot of difference between the '90s and now (this is kind of the cost of extended adolescence, by the way). At least, not in the West; the East probably sees it differently.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4d ago
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4d ago
Your idea that we should have a world where only those who are on top at any given moment [in this specific instance, that's the old] should have anything is dystopian.
But we kind of have that world right now.
and do not somehow belong to the younger generation merely because they are younger
They belong to you insofar as you can defend them. Historically, the old pay the young to do that (in various ways, not necessarily financial, but is a good chunk of the time). The fact they're currently refusing to (because they feel, perhaps correctly, they do not need to) and at the same time preventing any other independent development is, again, kind of the central issue.
I believe I've mentioned this before: when a society is in equilibrium old vs. young and to the degree that all modern development is zero-sum, TFR should be 2.0. Lower than that means the old aren't reinvesting enough (it's very clear that they're addicted to low-cost labor, hence their preference for infinity foreigners rather than focusing on domestic reproduction); higher than that means the young are burning through the capital too quickly and are on track to create this problem.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4d ago
But there is not, because progressives believe their moral authority is self-sustaining. (Hence zero attempt by them to fix things; if "it was everyone else's problem" is rewarded electorally, they'll be correct.)
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
5d ago
And the fact most mothers do not perceive what you've described as rape of their sons is the entire problem.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
5d ago
thousands during WW2
How many men died? Just an order of magnitude estimate will do.
Not that this is even necessary; men are more than willing to vote themselves into going to war even without universal sufferage re: WW1, or revoke their own ability to resist being conscripted like they did in Russia (not that it would helped; WW2 was existential for them).
Do the female soldiers who joined the military get an exemption in your book?
In aggregate (which, let's be clear, is what we're talking about here) they do not. It's not even limited to protecting against foreign enemies; women more than men support things like decarceration, because the consequences (that being more violent crime) are disproportionately unlikely to affect them. That's what "moral hazard" means- no skin in the game means the freedom to make stupid choices.
Yes, Kipling said the female is more dangerous than the male, because
the way a woman commits violence is by convincing a man to do it on her behalf. Therefore, as someone who does not know (or need to care) about what that actually costs, it's more likely she will seek a violent solution and cheer it on.
Women shouldn't have a say in foreign policy if it's not them who will be sent to die over it. This is merely controlling a moral hazard- violence is very literally sex work (as in, "work performed by one's sex") and in a fair system should be treated as such.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
7d ago
you don't believe all the mainstream media lies about Trump
I merely assume that there's corruption everywhere, in every administration, and that what is [accurately] reported on with Trump is about how much there is more generally. The rest of it just won't get reported on, because the [old] media is Conservative/D/Blue and is therefore party to it whenever their candidates hold office.
So when it comes time to hold him (or rather, his party and successor) to account for that, what kind of barometer shall I use to determine, on a scale from Nothingburger to Iran-Contra, how bad it actually was? Because all the information I have, if I watch the news, is that him being elected was already infinity corrupt, and now I'm expected to believe there's an infinity + 1 like every other first-grader who just lost an argument.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
9d ago
they haven’t noticeably changed at all, both physically and mentally?
Yes. To be fair, he was pretty girly (and pretty big) before. I guess she smells the part now, though that's complicated by failing to take regular showers and living in a house that has a strong natural odor, and the transition isn't as clear moobs to boobs.
it’s more like it sets the scene for sex to actually mean something and be enjoyable.
Hmm, I guess the collaborative model should suggest men are supposed to do that as well. (At the risk of doubling down on a poor argument), maybe I'm just thinking the setup for the sex is what's doing the getting off if the partner is themselves not particularly attractive/somewhat obnoxious during the sex.
(It also reminds me that hookup culture is probably better seen as a low-risk way to have a bunch of different glimpses into how this works and not "just a step up from masturbation". I guess that requires nuance or something.)
Is it really that disgusting for a straight man to think about having sex with a man?
I think that's generally a comorbidity with being straight, yeah (complaints about miscegenation have a similar root back when race was a purity thing). I get that the enterprise world has tried to tamp down expressions of 'yeah that's disgusting', and it's not, uh, PC to say it- but(t) in places that don't care about that you'll still hear expressions of it.
It's definitely a queer thing to even consider much less actively pursue; hell, if most women take it as an active cost to have sex with men [and I'm pretty sure most men understand this to some degree], why would a man want to do it if he's not getting the other stuff women are, traditionally, supposed to get out of sex? At least with women you usually get wine'd and dine'd, men just hear the Grindr ping and proceed straight to the bath house (or whatever- I get that's a simplification but, like, is the stereotype that inaccurate?).
The only time it's not gay for a straight man to think about it is if they're 2D and pulling off the female uniform well, but that's also purpose-built superstimulus. Most men don't look or act like that (outside of the rare femboy, and attraction to those is generally waved off as "anything that makes my dick hard is a woman"- like, we get it, that's why it's funny to fluster each other over "traps are gay")[1].
it really does push you a decent % of the way towards the opposite sex in terms of physiology and psychology.
This is where you lose me, because of the people that I know that are on HRT, none have changed in this way. Now, I guess you could say that "well, doesn't that just prove they have female brains all along?", but their general mannerisms do not suggest that was true to begin with. (Which is why I generally tend to think of them as, well, ex-men.)
[1] Though I will point out that, especially if they're tall, easily-flustered, and have a cute face... I mean, it's not like I wouldn't consider it (and I suspect that the emotions I feel when considering it are closer to what women [are supposed to] feel about men, though I am suspicious enough of the "euphoria boner" effect that I'm unwilling to say the mental pathways being activated here are not just projection). Not like I haven't been exposed to it from some other ostensibly-straight guy being attracted to me for what in hindsight may have been similar reasons, either, but then again most LGBT discourse/definition is so incredibly selfish and destructive that the categories have no explanatory power beyond a means to justify the same so I can't in good faith claim any of this fits the bill.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
10d ago
tend to be espoused by the people least disposed to impose those restrictions on themselves or hold themselves to that standard
You can just say "moral hazard".
What the LARPy version does is it breaks that by making everyone focus on what they were supposed to get and ignoring the requirements for how they are to behave
Yes, but what else do you expect from those people? The people traditionalism didn't need to force responsibility on to (or for whom that force would have had a negative/redistributive impact) are already happily married under the current system.
The market floor of "how much conscientiousness do you need to secure a marriage [in addition to the other things]" has, simply put, gone up. And the unpleasant reality is that enforcing traditionalism for the benefit of these people would be nothing more than a forcible redistribution of conscientiousness from those who have it to those who don't, because virtue is its own sort of capital.
That's not even saying it's wrong to do that, or that it is not necessary (because it very well may be), but any neo-traditionalist thought that fails to understand this is just selfish noise.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
10d ago
Sure, it runs on boys suck it up; girls suck it up.
Well, no. (Actually, I'd argue traditionalism really doesn't "run" on anything so much as it is a mostly-blind adaptation to it. But this is also coming from someone who sees [the kind of person who becomes a] traditionalist and [the kind of person who becomes a] progressive as the exact same thing, in their hearts.)
The problem here has always been economic. Before the advent of the "energy wherever we want it"- hallmark of the early 20th century- that was literal man power. There's a concept called "primary and secondary goods" that explains this pretty well- men extract primary goods (sexual dimorphism gives men an advantage in this area), women turn those primary goods into secondary goods (including children, it's worth noting). The problem, of course, is that while not having secondary goods is bad, not having primary goods is catastrophic. Sociofinancial power, then, is naturally controlled by men.
And so here's where I tap my sign: traditionalism (Abramic religions most famously) simply doesn't have an answer for when [the place men get their power from] is supplanted by technology- except for the null answer which is "turn inwards and die"[1]. And this resulted in two things:
- Men are constantly berated/judged for a lack of progress in avenues to power [which brings with it attractiveness] that no longer exist, and
- Traditionalism had no other significant check on the sociopoilitcal power of women beyond that which was imposed by the state of nature
Which is why traditionalism gave way to progressivism, and was also why the 20th century (and especially the first half) was full of alternative answers to one or both of those questions (what that answer actually was depended on the local conditions: communism is a natural fit for places with a low ratio of people to economic opportunity like Russia or China [or the entirety of the Middle Ages- equally worthless is still equal], whereas fascism is natural for places with a high ratio like 1930s Germany). Technology naturally drives this ratio down, which is part of why fascism really isn't a viable answer today while communism remains sympathetic[2].
Those questions still haven't really been resolved, because the winner of that conflict was the only remaining frontier nation (that didn't at the time, and still doesn't, have any productive way to answer this question beyond "be rich lol") that threw resources at the conflict until it vassalized basically the entire world, and if your society has a more productive answer to that question you'll just get invaded. So it goes.
[1] Now, I get that a lot of men really do like this [even some intelligent ones, on occasion]; especially since the Taliban spent 20 years providing an object lesson to the West in just how successful a strategy like that could be, and the fact the largest cities didn't even bother to resist them suggested that Taliban rule was what [the men responsible for holding up the US-led order] wanted all along. Which is a valid assumption, because the US-led order offers literally nothing to men, and if it happened in the continental US many believe that a campaign of white feathers would be ineffective.
[2] Socialism naturally occurs in populations where the variance in ability to extract that economic opportunity, and the variance in that opportunity, is low (for a variety of reasons both internal, like bad land, or external, like being a vassal state of a greater power); liberalism naturally occurs when it is high (great powers not being liberal is historically unusual).
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
10d ago
that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes
Of course, what people fail (perhaps intentionally) to realize is that traditionalism gave way to those modern woes. Which means that sure- be as Based and Trad as you want- but in 50 years you'll be right back where you started with the same problems Traditionalism failed to answer productively in the first place. This is the fundamental flaw of reactionary thought.
The biggest giveaway for this is the fact that "women don't think men are good enough, women most affected" is literally front and center in the article. Not to bang the "traditionalists are just yesterday's progressives" drum too hard here, but this is a pretty clear example of that[1].
Traditionalism does not have an answer for this[2]- in fact, it's one of its weak points, so weak that it was completely displaced by feminism!
So any productive solution to that problem is going to need to understand why traditionalism succeeded despite its failure to evolve any reason/why it never evolved any reason to have an answer for the modern environment, and which isn't just a barely-disguised way to vent about those said modern environment currently privileges ("muh sinful entitled whores").
But then again, people who are succeeding don't have reason to spend time thinking inventing novel sociopolitical philosophies (or spend time implementing, say, a series of technologies that could push society in that direction), especially ones that will only help the poor at the expense of the rich, and doubly so if it would require more effort.
[1] A meme of "X first" applied blindly/traditionally is destructive when X fail to serve the biological function that result in them needing to be first.
[2] Of course, much like communism, true traditionalism has never been tried.
Depends on whether you think the mindset behind success at basketball is good or not.
If you don't, you'll say "it's not worth the time/resources to teach these people before it is physically optimal, what about the risk of injury to self or others?". If your social position is threatened by people better able to play this game, you will generally be in this camp. This is the "conservative" position.
If you do, you'll likely be in favor of encouraging young people to play basketball, and you accept the fact that some of them will play poorly, break bones, etc. If your social position is not threatened by people better able to play this game, you will generally be in this camp. This is the "liberal" position.
More options
Context Copy link