ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2hr ago
Come to think of it, this means that
The legal definition of robbery is theft plus assault
Which I think kind of proves the point that it's specifically the assault that makes the theft notable, where theft itself is boring, abstract, uninteresting, and provokes "well, didn't the victim deserve it a little?".
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2hr ago
I do not believe that there is any amount of 'deterring inchastity among consenting adults' that can outweigh 'preventing one instance of rape'.
You misunderstand the purpose of slut-shaming (which is generally [collective] women vs. [individual] woman, not men vs. woman). "Deterring inchastitty" is not its goal.
Somewhat counterintuitively, the collective benefits from more instances of rape, not less (though only to a point).
"See what happens when you price yourself too low, or give your only worth away for free?"
And yes, it does result in scratch-and-dent models having to sell at a discount, but it reinforces the idea that collective bargaining for the worth of sex is collective bargaining (and the rape is simply justification/encouragement to be maximally mercenary when selling), which benefits all women except the raped one. Who, naturally, deserved to be raped for working outside union protection.
In that case, it's natural the woman in question would then proceed to attack targets of opportunity to recover some of the damage. Her product can't be repaired, but she can, correctly, tell herself it was all the buyers' fault. (The only weirdness here is that the collective will attempt to back her up when she does this, but then again, buyers tend to fall over themselves claiming rape devalues the collective so maybe that's not as weird as it sounds. It'd be in the buyers' interest to lie.)
Men doing this is kind of a legacy thing. Their moral opinions fell out of favor around 1900, but so long as people believe in them, they can be used to launder the above operation.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3hr ago
· Edited 3hr ago
Cartels coordinate.
That's called an in-group bias. Women have one, men not so much.
Since the amount of available product on the market depends on women and not men (also for biological reasons), we put women on the selling side and men on the buying side.
If sellers co-ordinate, then it's a cartel, by definition. Slut-shaming (a classic practice among women) is kind of the basic example of this: given women form a union, that is scab behavior [it's working at a discount from the cartel's perspective, defeating the power of collective bargaining], and discouraged accordingly. See also the concept of a "pick-me", where the woman throws in some other value-adds to gain an individual advantage, and the chain is similar: why would you do that, unless you want to sell -> you're trying to undercut everyone else = slut = scab -> punish.
If you honestly think that "all women" are in a sort of cartel where they determine the cost of entry for "family formation" or engage in "resource siphoning,"
The idea that there is some grand war in incentives between women, as a class, and men, as a class, is precisely the mindset that I think is fallacious.
This isn't really a conscious thing; it's merely human instinct. Revealed preferences by the relevant actors (as buyers compete with buyers, as sellers compete with sellers, and as both negotiate between each other) demonstrates the collective negotiation between men and women has the character of a market, so economic analysis is the correct framing with which to make predictions.
perhaps your attitude has not shifted with the majority
'What the average market participant is willing to afford' is actually kind of the central issue here, so 'attitudes' are inescapable here (and again, this has biology/instinctual roots). Sexual attraction obviously has a lot to do with that, and that's something you simply don't get to decide.
In this case, the clearing price of the sexual marketplace has risen to the point where it's created a much larger proportion of men and women who are either unwilling or unable to afford each other; even when they can, they have far smaller families as a result.
Feminism is to blame for a little bit of that (in the "why bother buying into someone they're only marginally attracted to" and "government-enforced wealth transfers from men to women handicaps buyers and frustrates price discovery for sellers"[1] senses- this also matters on the seller side, particularly when considering [2], but inherently affects buyers far more than sellers), but a lot of it is that the substitute goods have become far better and cheaper than they used to be (and the cost of everything else associated with supporting a family has become far higher), so the value each party must bring also must be correspondingly higher.
Which means that, at the clearing price floor, attraction (and perhaps the compromises thereon) is making most of the difference (and perhaps providing more of the buyer's remorse upon purchase), so the fixation on it at that point makes sense.
[1] Forced-diversity initiatives as well as intentional subsidy of college degrees increase a seller's perception of their real value; once they realize they're overvalued, their more advanced age has devalued them further (again, this is a thing men value, and no, you don't get to pretend they don't). Discovering this is more likely to lead to their leaving the market entirely, creating further distortion.
[2] Divorce laws in the "she took everything including the kids" direction result in buyers perceiving more risk than there actually is. This should actually decrease the price a woman can charge due to fewer buyers willing to take that risk, and can lead to sellers competing with each other in ways like "known adherent to a religion where divorce is a sin".
The idea that there is some grand war in incentives between women, as a class, and men, as a class, is precisely the mindset that I think is fallacious.
feminism [exists], continuing significant political split between men and [particularly unmarried] women
If you can't agree on the facts there's nothing further to discuss. Having interests is not inherently malicious; good and evil are not life's concern.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5hr ago
Even if they did, it only impedes automation of low-value labour.
Oh, so that's how mass immigration serves the lower/underclass.
So why isn't it being practiced, then?
Because the State has incorporated most of Christianity's community-building aspects. You don't make the choice to donate your time to the soup kitchen any more; the government simply confiscates your time (through a process known as "income tax") and runs that program itself (at times it will pay religious groups to do this). Same thing with permitting crime, actually- the way Western society donates to the poor is simply by permitting them to walk into any store, take what whatever they require, and the cost of that is redistributed through something called an "insurance premium".
they have high youth unemployment despite an enormous pool of well-educated young people
The education, of course, was mostly just to dissuade young people from dealing with unemployment the traditional way. Education to those who can't use it provides no bonus.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
6hr ago
· Edited 6hr ago
My armchair theory is that this is because the prototypical crime people imagine is entirely gratuitous.
It's the same effect whereby people imagine the average robbery to involve a gun and the words "stick 'em up", and ignore the fact that most of it's done through means diffuse (white-collar crime, embezzlement, contract violation, etc.) or direct (scams, fraud). They even blame the victim, usually saying "well, they should have noticed the signs/paid more attention" or "people who fall for get-rich-quick schemes deserve it".
Rape, as a subtype of theft, is exactly like that too. Forced entry is obviously criminal; but that's more because it clearly involves assault. The others, as you mention (and for the same reason), are far less clear; justice in cases tackling who consented to what is arguably best handled as a civil matter as well.
(Perhaps surprisingly, this is also a feature of Deuteronomic law; "pay her father some amount and must never divorce her" for casual sex the woman feels wronged by has the character of a civil violation, not a criminal one. One notes the modern standard for this is 'preponderance of the evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.)
nearly as bad as murder, if not worse
This is more downstream of an human instinct to Protect Women more than anything else. In an environment of equality, this is wage theft.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
6hr ago
· Edited 6hr ago
reactionary-reactionary
You have correctly identified that DreadJim is a male feminist. Feminists take the posture that women are better than men and tend to take "well, what are they good for" for granted. So does DreadJim, with the valence swapped.
Anyway:
Further, women suddenly getting careers, delaying childbirth, or even having more sex doesn't make them fundamentally unattractive
Yes, it absolutely fucking does.
It does in the same way and for the same reasons as the listed behaviors make men unattractive to women. You're making the same tired mistake the social conservatives and feminists (though I repeat myself) do where they fail to weight the desires and worth of men and women equally in an environment where they by all rights should be.
Which is why the assertion it's a double-standard is correct: what you've listed are all the ways men want to skip the bill for providing what women want, and you claim that's bad, and then you list all the ways women want to skip the bill for providing what men want, and you claim that's good.
Now, in the before times, "it's worse for men to skip the bill" was OK because there were external factors that balanced it out; mainly that, because women were not capable of primary resource extraction, women were dependent on those resources and had to sell (which is why you correct observe marriage is an economic bargain).
But, exactly coincident with the dawn of feminism, men destroyed that constraint in a massive wave of automation. So the instinctual double-standard remains, but now nothing else exists to moderate the impulse.
The nugget I can share is this: paying attention to the behaviors of "women" and "men" as a whole, when examining the dating world, is an incredible fool's errand and bound to produce resentment.
I really don't believe you are as free of resentment as you claim to be. Systems design begins with observing the users.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
13hr ago
maybe it's been politicized to mean something like "an attack done by the bad people".
Always has been.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
14hr ago
· Edited 14hr ago
What I am suggesting is that it shouldn’t be considered authoritarian for a cop to recognize obvious signs of gang membership and act appropriately
The problem with this, as you know, is that there's a really, really easy proxy for this: evaluating based on the gang colors you can't take off. (Unless you're Michael Jackson, I guess.)
That's the classical liberal concern with doing this: that targeting gang colors is already accepting this should be done (and in so doing destroying the noble lie that profiling is useless), and are back to haggling over the price. Skin color-ism lives at the bottom of that slope.
What I am suggesting is that it shouldn’t be considered authoritarian for a cop to recognize obvious signs of gang membership and act appropriately
I consider it authoritarian when a progressive recognizes signs of my "gang membership" (I can't really hide being male) and acts "appropriately" [or, were I an appropriately tomboyish woman, would consider it authoritarian if a traditionalist saw "woman" and does the same], and I don't [and wouldn't] like that, so per veil of ignorance I feel I would have to consider this authoritarian too.
Whether I care about not being authoritarian is another matter given outgroup consensus is to do it to me.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Taking a guess: must be a race riot.
It was. The 2020 BLM riots were technically larger in scope, but a lot more distributed.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
I learned my lesson with Goatse
Stare into that abyss, and that abyss also stares into you.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
It's leveling the playing field the same way retards of all walks of life can demand accommodations from the cradle to the grave, and push all the externalities of their misbegotten existence on the schmucks around them who are still dumb enough to try to be productive.
Which is why an elite cluster that wants to survive maximally unenslaved needs to hurry up and establish (or retain to the greatest extent possible) an aristocracy of the Abel-bodied those who are dumb enough to be productive on their own before their own AI puts enough of them out of work for said people to [have to] force this kind of settlement on them.
Perhaps such an elite will come to the conclusion that they must subsidize the conditions required for classical liberalism far beyond the point they economically make sense. That is the best way we have to create such an aristocracy, for in such a system, it is the worthless who are forced to subsidize the worthful by their disproportionately suffering real, measurable harm to their psyches created by the existence of things they don't like.
I remember being told not to touch any of them because they were dangerous
This is the thing I can't properly parse yet- where being able to obey "don't touch, that's dangerous" doesn't necessarily imply "now that you, without questioning or arguing, accept "it's dangerous", you may now know why it's dangerous" (and move on to that stage where you blow up a bunch of soda jugs and watermelons). Then again, I don't have kids yet.
You do a lot of staring down the metaphorical barrel with this stuff and it's odd nobody ever fully acknowledges that. Because yes, them being motivated enough to get to the gun and using it is always a risk. Doubly so because it is a technological terror of a mechanism not found in nature; we don't do that calculus with knives or rope since they're everyday items yet have to consciously do it with guns (I believe hanging ends more kids with a death wish than guns do even when they are available, but I honestly don't feel like verifying that).
It just occurs to me that maybe accidents were more common when the physically smaller guns were the standard home-defense fare simply because they were guns perfectly sized for a kid to use in the first place (and hence more closely resembled the size and weight of their toys at the time). Yeah, revolver triggers are really heavy in DA, and a shrouded-hammer DAO design might be safer because of that, but if my hands are that size I can see me getting enough of a grip on the gun to be able to yank the trigger hard enough to fire it. (With an exposed hammer, I could use my entire hand or some other object to push the hammer down if it's too stiff for my thumb.)
That said, those exact firearms are arguably ideal for actually teaching a kid to shoot. I'd rather give them a pawn shop .32 than a full-size handgun or even a .22 rifle simply because it's not this boat anchor of a thing... which inevitably lends itself to said kid (who is indeed paying attention) getting dope-slapped unnecessarily because they're using so much of their strength to hold the damn thing up in the first place that they can't pull the charging handle back without the gun tracking off to the side. The adult does not know they probably should have told the kid to do this because they're inherently strong/tall enough to never have needed to do that.
Of course I think the real correct choice for this application is a vz. 61 Skorpion (with the shoulder stock) simply because it's harder for that to point the wrong way and easier to actually use, provided you also put one of the really big charging handles on it. But that's also an order of magnitude more expensive than "coincidentally child-sized old revolver" and it's not as simple a manual of arms as "finger off trigger, break it open, loose rounds in, double check finger off trigger, grab cylinder area and close it up, left hand back on grip, [cock hammer and] shoot", so...
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Democracy only works in an area where consent of the governed is equally geographically distributed.
In Washington, it is not.
a curious infant goes and shoot himself or something else
Even a 5-pound trigger pull (the average full-size handgun, compacts are generally worse) requires some significant finger strength to actually fire, and you're at a mechanical disadvantage if you're trying to shoot yourself (that's really not how guns naturally point- you can only really pick it up one way, where the dangerous end faces away from you). We know that 6 year olds can do this because they've been in the news for shooting teachers before, but before then, maybe not so much.
Revolvers and guns with exposed hammers are more dangerous because the hammer on the back, when cocked, makes the trigger pull light enough for any infant to use- so if you're investigating the device like a very small child might and are properly fuzz-testing the controls, a 3 year old could easily fire it.
The most dangerous age is the one where the kid recognizes what the device is, points it at another kid, and pulls the trigger- for all media with a gun in it that a child is likely to see, and all of the [toy] guns they may themselves possess... well, that's how guns are used, right?
It's not like the other kid is likely going to do that characteristic side-step that gun people do if you point a gun at them; they don't fully understand the implications of "loaded gun is pointed at you" either. They might understand it means "danger", but it's in the abstract, or kid with the gun does that so quickly you don't actually have time to react. (Kind of like how deer will just wander out into the middle of gun ranges.)
And this is indeed unique to guns; injuries caused by play-fighting with knives tend both to be self-limiting (it hurts before you are fatally injured, whereas with the gun it only hurts afterwards), rely on the physical strength of the user to work (not a limitation with a gun due to its nature as a self-powered tool), and the danger is obvious to any child who has ever cut themselves.
It's perhaps more accurate to say that the exercise of political power is automated by guns, in the exact same ways (and with the exact same effects) that conventional warfare is automated by nuclear weapons [so the outcome is generally "don't even try"].
When each man is his own nuclear-armed nation-state, MAD doctrine applies and thus limits the scale and scope of conventional war. The Khmer Rouge or the Hutu don't rack up that kind of body count if every man, woman, and child can simply shoot them. (Genocide doesn't discriminate by age, and under those conditions, you probably can't kill them all. But in the dawn of the decade, in a particular Western country, a nationwide Kristallnacht-style movement was killed in 3 rounds. Even a revolver holds more than that, and if everyone has one...)
(The typical "but does 2A cover nuclear weapons" question is far closer to the mark than I think either side realizes. It's just a matter of degrees. One notes the same question will apply to AI usage in the long run.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
You're equating actual borders to metaphorical borders.
I’m doing no such thing; I’m just describing what is already being equated, and why.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
as long as the behaviours discriminated against aren't cherry-picked
Of course, the converse is also required: when they are objective, they must be permitted to stand without critique, rather than be falsely claimed of secret cherry-picking.
Could Trump do it by "asking nicely" - i.e. doing the same in secret rather than in public? Yes, he could, but then he wouldn't be Trump.
I actually don't think he could.
And the reason for that is specifically to force a response from the public- if it was back-channeled, then it could simply be "we'll think about it" until he's out of office.
But once you involve the electorate and force that question into the public sphere, that's a different question entirely. And in this case, with respect to "well, are you going to war over this or or not?"... the majority of the voting public enjoys the tax break they get from not paying their young men funding their military properly; either way, the US wins.
But the second best is to get the same benefits of the sovereignty - freedom of movement, freedom of military deployment, freedom of exclusion of others, freedom to mine the resources - without paying any money at all, but Denmark gets to keep the nominal title.
It's not lost on me that this is some of what a settlement with Canada would likely involve (for the same issues apply to it as well), and the fact the US can pull this off does undermine its "we'll just run to Europe" strategy somewhat (did Denmark actually defect from the EU here?). Claim associate membership all you like, they won't do fuck all to defend you.
the "long time allies" aren't that much of an allies anymore, and become less of an allies every day, so not much loss
Well, refusing to pay your workers properly has costs. If old women refuse to realize that if they want sovereignty, they have to take the hit and pay for young men to do it, this is what it costs. Too bad they're unable to pay them- they spent all that money on collecting all those migrants. Moral causes aren't free.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
I think that the idea that a sovereign nation gets to enforce its national borders is still a controversial one in contemporary discourse.
Depends on what you mean by "borders". Because when you say
a boycott-worthy offense
That is Blue enforcing its [version of] national borders. It just looks weird, because their borders are "inside or outside of our economic system" (which is how they define who "us" is/who they are as a culture), not "inside or outside of a physical location" (which is how Red defines who "us" is).
It's the exact same impulse for social cohesion preservation, it just looks different because they define their nations differently (and in a maximally self-serving fashion; Blue benefits from infinity migrants to destroy the cost of labor so denying the Red framing with "muh poor migrants" makes sense, Red benefits from zero migrants to preserve the cost of labor, so denying the Blue framing with "terk er jerbs" makes sense).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
It’s not a race.
You're not classifying it correctly.
Affirmative action is anti-white racism- we're not disputing this fact.
Therefore, any name that sounds white? Straight into the trash can.
What they actually look like is secondary- as the example shows, it's not only completely possible, but normal, to be racist against someone bearing the same skin color as you.
Did you really think racism was merely "skin color bad" and a license to say slurs? No. It's an assertion that all you're ever going to be, because you have [genetic trait], will always be bad. That's the underlying meaning the slur carries, and why they even exist/are deployed in that sneering tone in the first place.
It’s not a population we did slavery to no debt owed to them.
You misunderstand. Fundamentally, you understand that you owe everyone else everything, and are just haggling over the speed at which your obligations increase.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
And to a volunteer organization anything in the form of "I am unhappy, therefore you should do more work to make me happy" is a threat. It can overwhelm the amount of work people are willing to take on for the organization.
If they respond with hostility to some formulation of "I'd like to keep you happy how about you work with me to appease your concerns" then fuck them.
I don't have much else to add here outside affirmation that this is indeed its own special kind of hell, and noting that this kind of behavior is in the Simple Sabotage Field Manual for a reason.
They just also sometimes have a magical belief in the value of certain peoples.
And hence one of the objectives of management is to make sure that magical belief is placed in the value of the peoples working for the organization. If they can't, then they must be excluded.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5d ago
I would have assumed they could have just picked off to fill their classes with University of Michigan quality white hispanics.
You put racists in charge of implementing a racist policy, and are somehow expecting the race they hate to not be underrepresented?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
6d ago
I try to use oppositional or oblique framings to questions when it's something more complicated than a fact check that I'm querying about.
I tend to get relatively poor or confrontational results when I ask it questions like that; the AI tends to assume the user is adversarial, and not actually seeking to understand unless pushed back against verbally.
Reading between the lines of analysis remains an effective way to figure out when the bot is wrong or seems to not want to say something, which was quite surprising to me. But then again, how surprised should I truly be, given it only truly "knows" about what humans write down rather than any private or discussed analysis?
Better to have an earned-reward system, even if that earning is such a basic threshold that not clearing it is an obvious sign of social malignancy.
Yet the fundamental problem is that a provably fair metric for this justifies discrimination.
Everyone knows that "scientific X-ism" is starting from the conclusion first and working backwards. What happens when you don't do that and still come up with X overrepresented in the set? (And "couldn't graduate from high school" is a stronger signal than the traditional examples of race or sex. Scientific credentialism, perhaps.)
Hence the answer of "never ask that question, also sacrifice the time and potential of people who can graduate in such a way that sufficiently soothes society's guilty conscience about discriminating against the failures".[1]
Which means that there's a tendency to make society feel guiltier about that- that as society perceives itself as even richer, more sacrifice should be demanded from everyone to get over the fact that some people are better than others.
(Example: in 2020, American society got an absurdly generous stimulus package (of both money directly, but also of time, as it was illegal to work. Within 3 months, in every major city, protests broke out with the goal of increasing the amount of sacrifice to compensate for the existence of social malignants. That's what the cries of "Black Lives Matter" ultimately mean.[2])
So why the continued farce and the presumption that there is some sort of "right" to ~12-14 years of education on the state's dime?
Assume the above is true, and take the view that high school and college are just one very long IQ test. Those 12-14 years [so basically, most of a productive person's youth] taking the test are ultimately forfeit[3]. That level of sacrifice is required- a tax, if you will- paid to the societal consensus.
In return, that consensus will commit violence against socially malignant persons older than that (who "were given every chance and now deserve the outcome of prison or death"). In other words, past the age the youth have sacrificed for this protection, we no longer pretend a malignant person "could have been a future doctor or lawyer" no matter how many [crocodile] tears are shed.
Asian countries do this too, but to a far greater extent to the point that men and women who fail tend to kill themselves. This is because by failing, they're permanently demoted into the class against whom all of society, including themselves, agrees discrimination is warranted. (If they didn't believe this, they wouldn't be taking the honorable way out- that's why that type of suicide is "the honorable way out" in the first place.[4])
[1] These human beings are, in a fundamental sense, bad harvests. Ancient peoples made many sacrifices [including perfectly good human beings directly] to prevent bad harvests, but the purpose was more likely for any member of society to be able to ease their consciences and understand they did all they could if the harvest was bad anyway. (When the bad harvest is a human being, the moment that human's life ends in imprisonment or death does not qualify as being sacrificed. Actively having chosen to be an opponent precludes this from being a sacrifice.)
[2] The term "omnicause" describes this effect in the general case, but is also designed to destroy any other local system of sacrifice by insisting upon the primacy of typical American blood feuds like racism, sexism, anti-/semitism (depends on the day), etc.
[3] It is no different than any other child sacrifice. Yes, the one being sacrificed survives, but they have sustained very serious injury for no other reason than the religion of the people demanding it. Sacrificing babies to Moloch for a good harvest has the approval of everyone...
[4] ...including the child who will be incinerated. The holiest children play their part.
UBI, for those who forswear politics and vow to embrace lowest common denominator slop.
In other words, you must sell your ability to do politics to receive the UBI.
At a personal level, we call that "slavery"; at a State level, we call that "The Republic of South Africa". (Complicated by the fact that South Africa wasn't post-scarcity at that time, so if you had genes that were [at that specific time] a reasonably-effective proxy for "unproductive with respect to the people with actual financial power" [inconveniently visibly marked on your body from birth], you had to sell your ability to do politics to have the privilege of working for a living.)
This is why communist nations are all authoritarian: the populace itself has forged this exact bargain and collectively sold itself into slavery.
Or in other words:
UBI, but only for Party members.
Yeah, the worldbuilding of Interspecies Reviewers was much more serious. (Konosuba isn't actually that thoughtless though I stopped watching it after S1.)
Yes- by the social conservative and feminist definition, "wanting a decent-ish relationship with a relatively-close peer at any age where you'd actually be attracted to said peer" is absolutely indistinguishable from pedophilia. She was only barely post-menopause, you sick fuck.
The reason men tend to watch anime is mainly because it's free from this bullshit. Even though their birthrate is relatively poor Japan really doesn't seem to be a country whose men and women hate each other. Perhaps it's because women look way younger for way longer, so there's correspondingly less temptation for the collective of older women to re-enact Snow White on everyone younger.
Which, it turns out, is easiest to do simply by pathologizing natural attraction to them (by any group whatsoever).
More options
Context Copy link