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
11hr ago
Artillery is only relevant for exceptional expensive rounds
Not necessarily. Artillery is relevant when there are bigger things you want to explode, like proper infantry columns, tanks, and whatnot. That said, the cutting-edge of anti-tank artillery rounds is itself a drone. If you're dug in, shelling the area is a lot less effective.
In this context, drones are very sophisticated anti-personnel cruise missiles that operate in the same effective range as a mortar (that have some anti-tank usage as well; it's not hard to imagine sticking a Bonus "warhead" onto a drone, but it would be quite inefficient to do that because AI targeting and spotting is good enough and you have much better effective range with that).
That's fantastic for dug in positions and trench warfare, because you can just crash the explosive right into/on top of the enemy (and perhaps the only scenario in which a shotgun could be effective against such a weapon)- it just takes time and effort to do that right now because you have to have your guy sitting there driving the thing, and you have to spend money and drones to train him too.
I think that drone response is itself mostly going to be automated, but building those kinds of things takes time. Micro-caliber CIWS systems, EW systems listening for a drone lifting off prompting immediate and automated counterbattery fire, etc. They'll get there, they just aren't there now.
Pretty much, yeah. Canada is mostly huddled around the border because, with the exception of Alberta (and why they're the natural seat of any Western Canadian government), that's where the good land is, and it's also as close as it can possibly be to its largest trading partner.
It does depress me to be talking about this. Maybe if I had grown up in a different time I'd have my elbows raised just as high, and we're ultimately talking about the possible/eventual erasure of peoples and cultures that still ultimately may have value.
But the culture in power, for ever- that in a different time once could and did respect the value of mine- has already clearly been erased, by the Americans, long ago (we venerate the American flag[1] so much we paint it on crosswalks and prosecute its desecration, and the ruling power holds the Blue view that they're bringing civilization to the wasteland from their urban exclaves). So I'm now in the unfortunate position of being dominated by the excesses of American culture even more than I ever think I would be if they were actually in charge, because were we under American law, I'd have far more robust cultural and legal protections against that.
Instead I suffer unilateral domination by that culture that I know I have no hope of checking... unless I am under American law, with an American vote, and American freedom of movement/employment.
[1] That rainbow one with all the chevrons is an American flag; it is intended by a certain subculture to replace the Stars and Stripes. All this stuff is what Blue Americans want for themselves, but they're not restrained by law and process here.
I've worked with trans women that would be the spitting image of that link, modulo a purple sweater if it's winter
Judging by what I have hanging in my closet I am intimately familiar with the concept (and why you would do that).
But I can't wear that outside (or on camera), for the same reasons I would have problems conducting same-sex PDA- others have plenty of good, evolved, biological reasons to find that disgusting and off-putting, and I feel that's going to get in the way of my other objectives. (And even worse, it also marks me as belonging to the faction that gets off on making that fact everyone else's problem, so I believe I would alienate both the traditionalists and the low-information liberals upon whose support I largely depend. Something about "fisher of men".)
So now I get to suffer the "if my initial conditions and social circle were different I conceivably could have gone that way" outlook for a very good reason, and get to be just as much on the back foot on that topic as any of the dozen other principled libertarian is. I guess the only prosecution for bad actors is that they simply find themselves mysteriously excluded, but the State (and its supporters) are naturally only interested in making sure I bear the costs for those bad actors.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
12hr ago
It's just so very hard to get worked up about this when your region has been intentionally completely locked out of political power by the design of the country in the first place (and even if we do win the election- or at least don't get BTFO- the House won't respect those results anyway!), and so very hard to see the nation as a coherent place worth preserving as a consequence. Yes, the unique culture of my area might be erased in the process, but it was going to be erased by Ottawa anyway; what difference does it make if Washington does that instead?
They both show the same constant, callous, uncompromising indifference as far as I'm concerned.
I don't sympathize, and won't volunteer to die, for people who have continually demonstrated their hatred of me- that is the price of my sympathy. No American ever called me a nigger. (Or, well, okay, maybe that's not really true. But they are 100% a contributing factor to why my 'fellow' Canadians do that though.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
13hr ago
It's completely different from how actual trans women dress
If only that were true. Every ex-man I know has bad fashion sense (they all do the falsetto thing, too).
If they looked like this, I'd be a lot more OK with it; if I had to cross-dress in casual [or business casual] environments, that is what I would select. Or just the underwear, for a more privately/inherently sexual example that is invisible unless you're doing it wrong (and provides the majority of any sensory benefits for those so declined- even the male attempts at a "panty"-style brief don't work because they're still made of heavier cloth and have a seam parallel to the axis of dangle, where the female ones are made of lighter material, fit a bit baggier on men, and the front is completely flat and seamless with nothing to bother the relevant areas).
To the point I'm not really sure you could meaningfully call that cross-dressing; it's just shorts with one less leg hole and integrated undergarment, and certain models are nearly built for men to wear them (if the fit was slightly different; a little tight in the crotch and wide in the hips for obvious reasons, but that's par for the course when you're wearing something not actually meant for you).
But it's not just putting the clothing on because I felt like it, it's being seen/others' reaction to putting the clothing on, whereas that's something I would want to avoid at all costs. And that's hard to prosecute because that's a woman thing (and ironically one of the stronger arguments for transgenderism being treated as a legitimate mental condition)- literally, the fashion police- which perhaps is part of why 'no crossdressing' [implication: no bad crossdressing] was at one time a reasonable compromise.
Vancouver and Island, West[1], Ontario[2], St. Lawrence[3], Quebec, Maritimes [4], Newfoundland/Labrador [5], North [6].
Those are all the states you need.
[1] Might need a couple of subdivisions due to geography, but the GVRD and Island are distinct nations compared to everywhere east of that. Removing the crooked law that banned all greenfield development in the rest of BC would be a massive boon to that area.
[2] I mean the part of Ontario on the East of the Canadian Shield, but excluding the parts less than 100km from the St. Lawrence- basically, excluding the region below.
[3] This region is the most culturally belligerent and needs a containment area so that it can't run roughshod over the rest of its area like it does now. It includes Montreal, for if they did not exist, Quebec would have separated 30 years ago.
[4] They'll say they have distinct cultures. If they had any cultural or economic output maybe I'd agree, and they have the same fundamental problem- the destruction of the Grand Banks and shitty geographic location- in common.
[5] Technically still Maritime, but I don't think NB/NS/PEI should have to suffer Newfie English being an official language. Different weather and with much less connection to the rest of the country.
[6] Dividing line at 54'40".
I don't understand why I should be humiliated when an entity with whom I depend on strategically offers me the right to vote on what it does, and I also want my all of my EHC that ran away to the US under NAFTA to have a reason to come back.
I was under the impression that "punish Canada" was from Trump's "Twitter" account (and a bunch of Canadian social media surrounding the issue).
But even as a Canadian I legitimately don't think Canada is in the right here. EU influence here is a problem, British influence is a problem (the LPC got into a bit of trouble with this; they were using British English, not Canadian English), and Chinese influence is a problem.
The solution floated at the beginning was "we want these things; in return, we will just straight up grant everyone citizenship". I see that trade deal (whether that one infographic is real or not) as continuing that posture, and to a point also demonstrating what Red would like to visit on Blue going forward by proxy. But I also believe in no taxation without representation, and if I have to pay taxes caused by the US, it's only fair that I get to vote on them and be protected in protesting against them under US law.
I honestly don't even want full annexation to go into effect here simply because the US is full-retard on things the Canadian identity actually had answers for, and while redistricting would ideally need to be part of the process we arguably had the better way. Blue political thought has already proven stupid enough to erase the legacy of the Underground Railway ending here and accuse the descendants of the people who made it of muhrasism just like they do the rural South, and universal healthcare started in a relative backwater province before the US populace really started to get interested in it. "Laboratories of democracy" is kind of their thing.
But I don't think the average trade war belligerent understands that, so just like when you ask a MAGA supporter what Trump has actually done for the country, I get the exact same response when I ask the Elbows Up-ers. And for the same reason- where Blue American culture has demanded the destruction of what used to be a nuanced look at the rest of the country, and the Elbows Up demographic adapted it perfectly- I think they're going to lose the(ir) nation as a consequence.
Only thing I can see is increased polarization in Canada between the people who voted for this and the people who have to pay for it. (The manufacturing sector went hard CPC last election; so did every sector that will be impacted by these tariffs. Fancy that.)
They weren't the same people, and far as I can tell still aren't. Obviously Carney and his Maple MAGA Boomer cohort don't care- they're too busy manufacturing a crisis through incompetent statesmanship to try and quell movements about kicking them out of power for ever- so it's realistically going to be up to the workers in lower Ontario to solve this.
At least they'll have a lot of time on their hands once their plants close down, especially if what the sister comment mentions comes to pass and the supply chain is destroyed. Which is kind of the risk here- if Canadian manufacturing is destroyed, then they have no reason not to just import vehicles from China [and was a huge problem when Canada hinted at doing this last time], which means a Canada pulled closer to the Chinese orbit, which is something the US can't accept.
So it does make sense for Canada to adopt the Palestine strategy of holding themselves hostage, and a bonus for the LPC since it won't cost them electorally (the areas affected have no alternative and the areas not have been so turbocharged by jingoism they'll be voting the same way at the end of the decade at least).
Which itself might make further policy interventions against Canada more likely from the D side. If the objective is to lay a massive annexation-shaped landmine under the foot of the next administration, perhaps Trump is doing a better job of that than expected.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
But people mostly don't believe their nations ought to have a "real locus", a telos, or anything like this, they just want sovereignty, respect, and the ability to make deals in their self-interest.
I don't even get that in my own country; that's actually why I hope "we" lose.
Because Shakes is right- if we made the reforms necessary to actually stand up against the US, "we" would cease to be Canada any more. Carney's done the absolute bare minimum to get infrastructure projects that have been stalled for years and that's just because Alberta threatened to cut him out entirely.
Ottawa would prefer Edmonton remain underdeveloped because an intentionally underdeveloped province is easier to control, and can throw much less weight around on the Imperial stage (ironically, Canada is itself a post-national state- in other words, an empire- the imperial seat is in the area stretching between Toronto and Montreal, and every other province, including the rest of Quebec, is nothing but a vassal state).
And to be fair to the Imperials, this strategy might actually put out the fire of independence; if it does, perhaps they didn't deserve it after all.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
Japan's basically the only Western country to have actually raised the age of consent in the last 100 years, although I could be wrong.
Trivial example: Canada.
However, I posit that across the entire West the age of consent is mostly a distraction. It is currently "infinite"- for consenting to sex is impossible if you are permitted to revoke that consent retroactively, which is law in basically every country, including the US.
All sex is sex work to a feminist, and once you notice these are sex worker protection laws the reasoning becomes a lot clearer. What worker protection law has become weaker in the West in the last 100 years? (And sure, there's always offshoring where you have sex, but at least one Commonwealth country claims extraterritoriality for violating minimum-age laws, because of course they do. They don't do that for worker protection laws re: offshoring, but gynosupremacists by definition take for granted the work the male sex does.)
there's the "overprotective parent" voting bloc opposing lowering the AoC.
Traditionalist fathers create feminist women, feminist women create traditionalist fathers.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
2d ago
Yeah, the every-other-supremacy thing progressives do, in the standard "reversed stupidity is intelligence" way.
I remember reading the view once that Jim Crow laws in the South practically applied to the middle and upper classes only
Exactly the same as they do now. It's almost like the "racism" was itself just laundering a certain kind of class interest.
(What benefit did white-supremacy ever bring to the average poor white? I suspect it's about as much benefit as opposite-day-white-supremacy now brings to the average poor black.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
Scattered responses:
while frankly my id at least would be just delighted if a third of the programming on the television was cartoons with tween protagonists who look like this
Ah yes, the Zone pantheon. (Well, maybe not for the newer ones, but others have taken up the mantle.)
Note that the characters that you've shown are also not the hostile-female types in the media in which they appear. You're also missing, like, all of MLP G4, which while slightly more abstract was still obviously intended to invoke this. (Which is why it was insanely popular among young men, to the horror of its financial backers.)
[And on the opposite end of the gender spectrum you have My Hero Academia, and basically every shonen protagonist to a lesser degree.]
The antithesis of that is, off the top of my head, Steven Universe- at maximum gynosupremacy- but that's kind of a gimme in being why the show was written in the first place.
We can give the other two thirds of the airtime to the Japanese to see what they do with it.
Asian cultures more generally (except perhaps for Korea) seem to have better gender relations where women aren't turbo-hostile to what men want, and vice versa. Female politicians defending loli hentai (and not just because they represent a good chunk of the women drawing it) just doesn't make sense otherwise, and neither does, like, all of Bangkok.
I think part of it is because the women in those cultures look younger for way longer, so old women have less cause to exert the same kind of anti-youth-competition political pressure that white and (to an even greater degree) black women instinctively do. (The other part is that they've lived under much higher state capacity for much longer- China in particular- so they've had time to more productively adapt their cultures and gender dynamics to that. The West hasn't, and it really shows.)
I'm getting a similar distance from my comfort zone looking at a crossdressing boy or an overage woman - both, after all, are likely pretending to be a girl
lmao. Honestly I'd be more likely to select the former than the latter, because beyond what their appearance predicts, a lot of it is the attitude. I'm not sure if the attitude predicts the appearance or the appearance predicts the attitude, and I know there are many confounders that might make or unmake that and sampling bias, but that is what the information available to me has stamped into my mind.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
Thanks for posting that; it's what I'm trying to evoke/working off of, just couldn't find the article.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
That is kind of what I'm thinking about when I say 'superstimulus' but that does less than nothing for me.
(I'm more of a Rainbow Dash guy myself. The way she's usually drawn is not like that; figure suggests collaboration, not domination.)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
4d ago
I would concede that there is probably a big-boob fetish among many Japanese dudes.
Ironically it's kind of something I think does prove the pattern: even though the average Japanese dude might be somewhat compromised in how large they can actually find in nature, they still also seem to prefer representations of women that portray something very different.
It's something I think I understand, but only in the abstract.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
4d ago
My cluster of prioritized traits looks more like "short, thin, neotenous, healthy, happy, vulnerable, innocent".
That's kind of why I was surprised. When I looked up your examples there really wasn't much of a difference in how she looked between 14 and 25; she looked more or less the same, like most adult women do.
Were you actually as you claimed to be (and not just self-assigning the label because reasons), I believe you would only have considered the version of Emma Watson at 11 as maximally attractive and at the same time failed to consider any other examples.
You know, because she still actually looks like a kid.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
4d ago
As I understand it, they describe different types of snow, different conditions and modifiers.
It's all the same substance being talked about. The substance of "racism" and "sexism"- that being "blasphemy"- is the same.
Now sure, you might say that snow is real and blasphemy is all made up. But like all religions, it's real to the people handing out the money, just as nature provides food (provided you can navigate to it, which is what the snow words are for).
and the remaining people that must position themselves as superior to other for self definition can do some neosport for the same sensation of superiority
This neosport has already been invented. It's called "politics".
Unfortunately for you, politics is a blood sport, and it's extremely popular. Men fight, women cheerlead.
The US did a case study 6 years ago about how long a population-wide UBI could buy peace in the face of mass unemployment.
The answer was about 3 months. After that, citizens started playing the aformentioned blood sport in city streets nationwide, and those games would continue even after the UBI ended.
You can tell yourself that it was only 0.01% of the population that was responsible for that, but I think 0.01% is closer to the number of how many city-dwellers didn't start chimping out.
Progressives have as many words for "blasphemy" as Eskimo have for "snow".
It's kind of understandable considering their environments. Both groups have so many words that describe the same thing, because if they didn't, it would be much harder for them to extract resources from their respective environments and thus stay alive.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
4d ago
Perhaps, but I suspect the kinds of men who would move to Japan and (correct me if I'm wrong) marry women local to that area may be outliers in that regard.
And those people kind of invented the anime titty, so...
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
4d ago
not supposed
That heavily depends on who's doing the supposing, and why.
For instance, I lend zero credence to people who "not suppose" me when they're under conditions of extreme moral hazard, like how I'm "not supposed" to defend myself if the criminal attacking me is a particular color.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
5d ago
Which is, ironically, the steelman of "company towns".
Of course, the problem with that is that (stereotype of these places aside) unlike towns of old built around resource extraction using significant amounts of unskilled labor, data centers require minimal amounts of skilled labor.
It wouldn't occur to them to build or rebuild the town in which they locate the data center. They wouldn't even know what to do with one.
you've seen all those studies where men list what age of women they're attracted to and the graph mysteriously starts at 18 and immediately plummets?
Most guys want tits and ass, big as can be, and appear to be attracted to symbols of social dominance[0]. Young women right at the point of sexual availability (biologically, 13ish, which is why men have the evolutionary response for this) dominate all others in the desirability game[1]; after that, that they will make themselves up to evoke this as well. If you ever noticed that most women look angry, that's why.
As a mirror image, most women are attracted to symbols of physical dominance[0]- most commonly the rewards that dominance brings.
[0] Note that they expect this dominance to be used against competition- against others of the same gender- not against them directly in a relationship. They also tend to be much less attracted to people who exhibit cross-dominance; normal men don't generally select tomboys (physical dominant), normal women don't generally select effeminate men (social dominant).
I suspect this also has implications for why certain homosexuals and bisexuals have the attraction patterns they do.
[1] Which is why feminists push for higher and higher ages; restricting supply of the most desirable goods increases demand and price for the middling ones is Econ 101.
Being forced to submit to something your biology and instinct tells you not to has some seriously negative psychological effects.
But, that's not unique to sex. Obviously.
Even getting held captive during a robbery does this to people; so does any shitty authority figure lording over a captive audience- boarding schools, concentration camps, prisons, etc. can all prompt this shift in behavior. Shitty jobs with no other opportunity can prompt this ("sleeping with the boss" is not a meme for no reason).
So then the question becomes "why do we still honor the isolated demand for rigor for sexual causes of those issues?", and that has 2 main answers- evidentiary trail, and female market power.
The evidentiary trail argument is there because it's easy to prosecute. "Look in $orifice and take sample, determine origin of that sample, compare birth certificate. If under $age, the person who made that sample is guilty." Open and shut. And it's not like sex isn't a means of forcing submission (or a prize thereof); it's just the only thing that comes with the territory that you can actually prosecute without having a crack team sort through every text message ever. (Proving gaslighting/sabotage is very difficult; that's why people do it.)
Female market power is a bit more complicated, but it's an instinctive collective bargaining thing. Let's say woman A has nothing else to offer but her submission (her "self") to man X, and let's assume there's woman B who's more attractive (specifically, younger) or more desperate than woman A.
(Just like human biology, we're ignoring the existence of contraceptives and assuming the "self" may only be sold once at full price- each subsequent selling, if at all permitted, devalues the product.)
Woman A has every incentive to render woman B unable to sell her self to man X.
To do that, she will come up with every excuse- usually (and ironically) "too young to know better"- to convince other men to visit death upon man X no matter how low B's price goes. Now, woman A can sell her self to man X, and she gets to set the price of her submission, for man X now has no alternative if he would like a woman. Her "wage", her "worth", has increased relative to man X due to the absence of woman B.
(More generally, this is just how markets work. Collective bargaining is inherently an oligopoly.)
Now, let's assume that a picture of a woman is worth some fraction of her self. Woman A will want to ban woman B from doing that as well, and it'll be done by complaining about how wicked man X would ever be to buy B's pictures. When woman A is pulling the ladder up behind her, she'll go on and on about how the choices were "work or starve", blame society and her family for giving her that impression, complain about workplace conditions and the assigned tasks, claim she had to use drugs to keep up, go on about about how horrible it was to grow up poor, and blame man X for knowing she should have been paid more.
(This is just how unions justify themselves.)
What limits woman A's ability to control the market is how much enforcement power she can muster. She wasn't able to muster very much in the '60s and '70s, but in the '80s her relative power expanded and that of men contracted. So now it's man against man in the white-knighting competition rather than woman against woman in the casual sex competition; just as woman B must undercut woman A when men get richer relative to women, man Y's only option is similar to woman B's would be in a free market: undercutting man X by promising woman A a higher price- less submission, more resources offered, or by publicly swearing an oath to woman A that he will harm man X should he prefer the superior product/better deal that B offers, or if X ultimately fails to pay A what she believes she is worth.
(This is why ground-level anti-union/anti-oligopoly violence is ultimately counterproductive. The more sellers you take out of the market, the more powerful those who remain become.)
Most of the claimed issues that "social conservatives" have- all of the ones you have listed- is just the same kind of justification for why man X and his desire to maximize his own value is evil and must be suppressed. They strategically pretend (and eventually will believe for real) that [the interests of] woman A morally outranks man X. At the same time, and for the same reasons, woman B is strategically denied any notion of agency whatsoever; it will be argued that that she is a "mere child, helpless and confused, and should run along while the adults are talking". This is all to convince Y to support A's suppression of X, which is who A generally wants to sell her self to. (Talk is cheap, after all.)
They must also pretend that men's wage has never decreased relative to women's relative to its peak. If that happened, Y might stop paying to defend A's interests. But if A can successfully deem B to be "a child", then interest in B can be righteously condemned as child rape. But because that is a lie, it creates an externality resulting in more actual child rape. (If the market were working correctly, A would be liable for that externality, not X. It actually helps A when a [future] B is raped: fewer Bs mean less competition for A, damaged Bs mean less competition for A, and it's a kickback to the Y that did it.)
And yes, the reason it's become continually worse over the last 100 years for men is because, outside of 1950-1970, their wages have dropped compared to women. From 1950-1970, the reverse occurred, which you know as the Sexual Revolution (when A's power to prevent X from buying B failed.)
40 years of decline in man's relative wage, though, and as you can see we're way past minimum (w)age now. The current frontier is "he ended up being poorer than he said he was, so the sex was rape" and "the court is not interested in any of the evidence that proves the rape allegations are fabricated" (labor dispute, A vs. X), "boyfriend given the Scarlet Letter for a nude selfie the girlfriend sent unprompted" (legitimacy dispute, A vs. Y [and sometimes B]), and "young men, provided they are not white, are permitted to rape young women" (pollution, A vs. B [and sometimes Y]).
This is examination of revealed preference, nothing more. There are no value claims to be found here; buyers aren't intrinsically evil, sellers aren't intrinsically good. Both are life, and they simply are.
But these two things- market dynamics, and what the enforcers of the power that makes it so tell themselves- are the precise reason why AoC laws (as one of several demonstrations of the market power of woman A) have remained one-way ratchets for the last 40 years, and will continue to be so long as current market conditions remain the same.
(re: @dailydogma)
More options
Context Copy link