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
23hr ago
The concept of Original Sin, The Confession, Repentance, The emphasis of the sanctity of the meek, it's universalism, etc.
A good chunk of those can be found in pagan religions, though.
Let's take Communism: capital is the original sin, confession/repentance is done through continual revolution, the meek are the workers, Comintern are the missionaries, etc.
Woke, same thing: ability is the original sin, confession/repentance is done through continual humiliation, the meek are the disabled, USAID are the missionaries, etc.
So while I do think it presses the same moral buttons as Christianity (or perhaps more relevantly, Islam) does/did in the average follower (which is what I think people actually mean when they say it's a religion), I don't think it's actually a proper descendant.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
23hr ago
Fine.
Every now and again there are throwaway lines in comments here about how Canada is a bad ally, or incompetent, or just generally bad-and-should-feel-bad.
If the US didn't exist we wouldn't be having this conversation; if you're a competent Roman, you move to Rome, because that's where the persistent investment is. If no Rome, we'd have to actually get off our asses, but if we did the investment and capital required to do that would turn us into America.
Actual, real, civil minded sacrifice to develop the country in some way (be it industry or otherwise) just isn't there; we can't keep it, and our culture reflects that, though whether the chicken or egg came first is an open question. And from a Western perspective, fuck Ottawa and Montreal, there's zero logical reason they should be making laws for me. I would be OK with sacrificing for an Alberta-based Western government, but the difference is they're not foreigners; Easterners are just as foreign to me as Americans (and even moreso under certain circumstances re: the things you mentioned).
The comments I'm talking about are usually hinting at foreign affairs, but even the most self-hating Canadian usually believes Canada is internationally respected.
I honestly don't think they think about us at all outside of occasional peacekeeping missions, but we (nor anyone else) have done much of that since the late '90s. I don't think about them either, really; we live on the same island as the Americans do and that means outside of maybe French tourists we don't get too much in the way of international exposure, both the threatening and the non-threatening kind.
To be honest, I'm not even sure how I'd like other nations to think about Canada, and I think that is the average Canadian's viewpoint. Part of that is that decisions that would generate distinction are made by the Empire- British before 1970, American after that.
But we don't have many foreign policy accomplishments or even know where to begin apart from "the Empire is doing this, and we're along for the ride". We accomplish the Empire's objectives far better than they do, but at the end of the day they're still the Empire's objectives. And I think most of the world sees that; and I think Canada is treated less seriously as an international partner because of that.
"Competent, with an asterisk."
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
23hr ago
getting conspicuously upset about terrorists and commies
Doesn't Utah have a higher proportion of federal government employment? If they do, I suggest this is probably at least somewhat true.
the defining point of Canadian culture is [maximum snobbishness]
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I think it's an Anglo/French HBD thing. Fortunately, with all the immigrants they're importing at my direct expense, they'll soon be a minority; unfortunately, it'll be too late for me to gain financially from that because destroying any hope of that is why they are importing the people in the first place.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
The sequels did capture that energy, that's part of why it's a dead franchise. (Also happened with Bond; Craig, but also Dalton.)
"Navigating modern norms regarding sex" is the modern "leave room for Jesus" and the media spawned with that as the underpinning is generally poor.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
No, you need this system of education because it's a jobs program (and because Boomers are obsessed with graduation rate as a proxy for how well society is doing). The purpose of college is not to teach; professors are not evaluated on knowledge retention rates and are notorious for being poor at teaching.
Ironically the problem with this system is that, because its primary objective is not education (both lower and higher), it's proof that high-IQ people will be fine no matter how garbage and wasteful the education system becomes. Which means that if you reduced a degree to the IQ test(s) for which it serves as a hyper-inefficient proxy, you could save billions upon billions of dollars and refund nearly 8 years of prime lifetime to nearly every young citizen, something worth several hundred thousand dollars at current rates.
This isn't to say that we must abolish job training, of course- that would still be required- but it's also required right now on top of education anyway. Cutting out the middleman would probably be OK, though of course, employment in academia is one of the primary contributors to the existence of the middle class as a concept.
This kind of creates a circular reference, though, since the OT has nothing carved in stone about what 'women's clothing' and 'men's clothing' is, and who/what the deciding factor as to what article becomes for what gender is.
(If 'intent of the person creating the clothing', then pants are women's clothes and skirts are men's clothes [re: kilts], so it can't be that. If interpreting that as 'the clothes that provide sexual designation', that seems like a better dividing line, but it still suffers from the fact that to everyone else, pants aren't sexual designators any more- dresses and undergarments, sure, but that's not usually what they're restricting themselves to.)
I think that "women must never wear pants" is just an excuse to be traditionalist for the sake of traditionalism (or "fostering group cohesion by believing odd things"/"set apartness", if you prefer), or at least that appears to be the intent behind doing that.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
That's, uh, part of where my observation that they look like men comes from (they're not all like that, but some of them definitely are; 4chan also has better taste than average than some mostly-random aggregator).
I can accept that maybe it's just due to being bad at faces more generally, but the second-order of that then leads me to ask why, implying it's not the primary draw for the image. (It's also just considering the face, not the other characteristics; obviously you can usually see them in the picture.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
A cat is fine, too.
They do indeed all have snouts to some degree; interestingly, the longer [and pointier] the snout, the more masculine the character (exhibit A: Deltarune; exhibit B: the rest of e621 lmao).
It might just be a neoteny thing (which, again, places where the women appear to have a better cultural relationship with the men tend to express/emphasize more often; the worse it is, the more socially-offensive the look women tend to take on) though.
Are you saying that anime women look like men?
A good chunk of them do (it's less bad than any other Western media or RL but it's still at times present) but it's simply most obvious in the hentai repositories.
To be fair, most of my repertoire at this point is CGDCT from the late '00s-early '10s so I might be a little biased; and I think I'm overextending the connection in normal Asian media (because half the reason I'm more focused on that area is because they know how to draw women well).
I'll just come out and say it, then: I believe that Zendaya, in most of her appearances, looks like a man. And I'm assuming you're straight, so naturally that doesn't map as attractive.
I think “girl pretty” might just be a way for women to sabotage and confuse each other.
Most "girl pretty" outside the Asian sphere of influences make female faces more masculine, not less. By the way, did you ever notice that white tomboy women seem to have more feminine-looking faces than average?
I believe the reason for this is to signal the capacity for social aggression just as normal masculine traits stereotypically attractive to women signal the capacity for physical aggression. That's why models are cast that way, that's why the angry librarian glasses and angry-eyebrow jobs exist, and perhaps it's why white women are so obsessed with black women (I don't think that strong-man-Chad-jawed-homoeroticism is limited to men; I think this is just how [normal] women express it).
[It may be the case that, for tomboys in particular, their internal keep-yourself-alive compass points at 'to get stronger, you should get better at the physical aggression side of things'. Kind of sounds like a transgender thing to me, but what do I know. Same with femboys that want to get better at the social aggression side of things, for that matter.]
Furthermore, I think that to be normie-straight, you have to be attracted to the signals of how the opposite sex displays its power or worth. (I also think that men who don't tacitly understand this are doomed to have a hard time in relationships- it's just as much a mismatch as being in a gay marriage would be for most of the same underlying personality reasons (re: @aiislove's push-down-pull-up model of successful relationships being less viable when you're a mirror of each other rather than a compliment).
I'm sure you've noticed this on anime porn sites, by the way- 80% of it seems to be hyperinflation with no attention paid to the face (or the face actively looks male) because of this. The other 20% has faces that are far more palatable, but notice that 'cute' is not a valid search term unless it is combined with 'funny', and that combination yields 80% of the results (in that block of 20%).
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
2d ago
This is literally just Kingsmen, though.
It occurs to me that there is a funny counter factual out there where people of different skin colors are really all nearly identical on all the measurable things that are supposed to matter (intelligence, crime, education, financial outcomes, hygiene, health, inhabiting clean a tidy communities, etc.) and then you have the racists making enemies of certain pigments
Once you control for class filter bubbles (i.e. if you believe the only people who exist are middle or upper class, and in that case/context, what you have stated is literally true) this is exactly how progressives behave (the pigments they hate are white and yellow). It's not ludicrous, it's personally advantageous- those classes are shrinking, so as any good whore rational actor would do they sell their dignity and do stupid things like "be racist against themselves" (the upper class that pays them loves a good self-hating worker who tells their fellow workers they deserve lower wages because of their pigment). That is how they defect against everyone else, by signalling that a lower [sociofinancial] salary will be acceptable to them, and the other workers who won't do the same thing should be fired (or killed).
It's the exact equivalent to a scab working behind a picket line, just using an expanded sociofinancial sense of salary, not just the financial one most are used to. Rational, yes; but the union response to that sends goons to their homes to extract a little rent of their own, and so far that clearly hasn't been happening for a bunch of reasons that are out of scope of this response.
There’s probably a leftist out there who would endorse the racist paternalism you describe, but that person is not an “average person.”
True, prosecutors and judges tend not to be average people. In that case, you have 2 possibilities: either the true belief is limited to them, or it's politically advantageous for them to act in a way indistinguishable from believing it [in which case we need to ask why that is, and we can assume that, because some of these are elected positions, that the charge of racist paternalism can be said to extend to a significant portion of the population, or at the very least it doesn't bother them].
they're just the most insanely racist people on Earth.
I think most of the moral sentiment that caused racism in the first place is absolutely alive and well (in that some people have a psychological need for an enemy outgroup categorized by simple observable markers like skin color and gender, and furthermore that people who do this are inferior themselves), and I even believe Progressives when they claim it's [relatively] uniquely a problem with whites. Perhaps ironically, I think this is an HBD thing.
Naturally, I am highly suspect of a race of people who then seem to exempt themselves because they say "look we're maximally discriminatory against ourselves on the basis of race", because the intent is the crime, not the fact it was ever done (which is also the problem with other X-supremacy groups, most notably feminists/gynosupremacists). The correct lesson, and one the classical-liberals tried to teach in the '70s, is that the correct way to not be discriminatory on the basis of race is to not be discriminatory on the basis of race; their folly is that this discriminatory behavior is, in fact, innate to white people (and cannot be trained out of them), and they were just laying the grounds for the (overwhelmingly white) daughters of the Confederacy to roll right back over them with their new racism after classical-liberalism reached its high water mark that decade.
Which also explains the related phenomenon where a non-trivial number of [assuming/acting in the progressive framing] "white supremacists" are black or hispanic (or married to one). That inconsistency is resolved if you assume Progressives are more guilty of the discriminatory-intent-mind-crime (which is what non-progressives actually mean by "racism") than those who they accuse of it.
It doesn't need to be if you accept the progressive framing that "white supremacy" means "being of a mental state that opposes the progressive power structure", but at that point "white supremacy" is not the actual crime.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
phone autocorrect often inserts directional quotation marks
Unicode was a mistake.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
It means he's pretending to be bad at computers, perhaps for stylometry reasons.
Much as how the key to type an em-dash is not present on your keyboard, the keys that type ‘ and ’ do not exist, so that had to have been pasted in from somewhere else. (Ah, the joys of Unicode.)
It's genuinely weird that the position of some conservatives is that we've moved backwards in division of labor since the 1920s, and that this is a good thing
Why is it weird? The only conservative answer for men is "fuck you, get good" [tacit: in return, the division and realities of labor are how you acquire social power/over women- hasn't been true since 1920, but with a temporary break from 1950-1970], which is why feminism was a natural outgrowth of it.
I've noticed in the discourse online about this is the conspicuous absence of right-wingers pointing out that cooking for oneself isn't a man's job but a woman's one.
Who's doing the talking? Is it the young men, who simply don't have this frame of reference, or is it the old men, who do (and are intentionally undermining it because their view of gender interaction never progressed beyond the 1970s)?
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
8d ago
If your dress and behavior sends a particular signal, its not really fair to get mad at guys who respond to what the signal usually means.
Which also applies to women when dealing with men in dresses and fake tits (and the signal that usually means).
"Clothing is not consent" is absolutely true
"Consent" (when it means as it is meant here, not the definition you'd expect from a plain dictionary reading) is the root of the problem, and the specific tool that is used to legitimize the excess here.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
8d ago
The "feminist-as-in-liberal" you recall had as much to do with classical liberalism
While I admit it's in the same vein of "show me one righteous man and I won't destroy the city" I do assert that some of them indeed exist.
(They also tend to be on the tomboy-ish end of things; I suspect that has something to do with it. The younger examples tend not to call themselves feminists, though.)
Perhaps this is more why I'm worried about destroying the entire edifice (and going back to androsupremacy as so many reactionaries do); limiting the worthy caught in the crossfire is important. I don't think that would happen even if we put them in charge, since if they did manage it they'd basically be the equivalent of a modern "racist" that doesn't even know what racism was outside of overusing the word "nigger" (and most of what their heuristics of racism are now simply happen to be objectively correct things; limiting immigration is simply correct), but it is frustrating that specific framing dominates.
Funny how it's never the attractive ones that are into the exhibitionism-style nudity, isn't it.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
8d ago
A computer, especially a handheld one, is a convenient portal to the sum of human knowledge. Some of my friends live in there. Like, do something useful with it.
But hey, if programmers can't figure out the benefits of async/await communication patterns, and they're supposed to be smart, what hope does anyone else have? (Technically books and TV are like that too, they're just one-way.)
Don't optimise children's screen minutes. Optimise what they're doing, what they're not doing because of it, and whether they can disengage from it.
Yes, but if you're not smarter than the tool (which tends to be co-morbid with not being smarter than your kid) you won't be able to think like that, and many people are not smarter than their tools. The simplest way to do that- the one any idiot can understand- is to flatly reject those tools and to urge others (perhaps at gunpoint) to do the same. You can even claim you're helping keep the underclass from vice when you do it (re: test scores and child molesters), which is the standard prohibitionist playbook, and as such opposing these things will require an approach focused on human dignity.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
8d ago
I'm old enough to remember feminist-as-in-liberal, but today feminist-as-gynosupremacist is the rule of the day.
It's all very confusing, like how parties that call themselves "conservative" are far more reform-minded than parties that are not, how self-proclaimed "liberals" have nothing to do with classical liberalism, etc.
I'm actually somewhat sympathetic but this ultimately creates a method for one gender to remove evidence of their past behavior from easy access, and not the other
Yeah, that's why I'm not sympathetic. This is a highly-mechanized world, and man and woman should have equal political privilege. This just removes it from men without any benefit.
Throughout all of human history the world has been indifferent to male struggles.
And outside of the last hundred years, that came with other privileges.
Now that equality is here, this must change, or we can't have equality any more (currently, the way this is happening is because women inevitably abuse the moral hazard this creates to replace the culture of equality with one that has more correct views about them, but it can happen in other ways as well; gender equality perception currently trends down among men born under this system, as is correct).
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
8d ago
The distinction is erased once you consider that establishment means old/legacy more or less by definition.
(This also describes how the progressive -> conservative pipeline functions, though they don't call themselves that for reasons that have a lot to do with the 1960s 'establishment should never call itself establishment' paradigm than anything else.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
10d ago
whereas the stereotypical female reaction to a female physique in popular media superior to her own is to perceive it as a threat to her Wonderfulness.
If only there was some popular story that served to make this common knowledge.
Ignoring that they could be put on trial for that more generally, of course. Everyone else has a reasonable fear that in a self-defense case this will occur anyway, and isn't that generally the justification the pro-abortion side trots out?
So the hospitals that pre-emptively prohibit the procedure are generally either just grandstanding (re: "Blues think they're the only bastion of civilization in a hostile country"), or are sunk into the tarpit of (Blue-style) extreme risk-aversion by banning the practice. Which they're incentivized to do, since this can give their side a few graves to stand on to enable the grandstanding, even though those deaths are ultimately caused by them and their power structure being insane people.
More options
Context Copy link