ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
14hr ago
Most players in Bethesda or freeform character created open world games go for troll runs because the available choices end up sucking pretty hard and are inconsequential or inconsistent.
Tell me you haven't played Undertale without telling me you haven't played Undertale.
On that note, the problem with "evil" runs in video games is that it basically just handicaps you, removes content from the game, and slowly makes your experience worse with very little to actually show for it and very little external motivation other than "for the evilz". There's literally zero reason to (for example) explode Megaton other than "some character asked you to do it"; same thing with the slavery mechanics (it barely pays and nobody really cares or reacts anyway- you'd think companions would have a reaction to you enslaving a little kid, but they just stand around and watch) and doing what the President suggests you do at the end of the game. Fallout 4 had a DLC that let you do this sort of thing, but it's very surface level and confined to the settlements; basically nobody in the large areas reacts (and to my knowledge there aren't really any mods that make the townsfolk react).
At least Mass Effect's Renegade prompts were entertaining, but that was always conflated with the sub-optimal choices in the wider world and choosing them sometimes even locked you out of major plot points down the road (that you couldn't see).
I think the other problem with choice in video games is that sometimes, that's not actually the point. Someone mentioned HL2 and Mario as prime examples of "the journey, not the destination" thinking, where HL2 is designed to test your puzzle-solving abilities (and the fights themselves being puzzles- though admittedly HL1 did that better) and Mario is designed to test your reflexes and timing. Sure, you could just watch a playthrough of them to extract the whole movie-like experience- and many do- but the interactivity is kind of the point.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
15hr ago
I’m quite fond of my Lee-Enfield and stocked up on ammo for it.
It is the best fighting rifle under the technological constraints of the era (ignoring the P14/P17, but those are just iterative improvements on Rifle No. 1; Rifle No. 4 had to compete with "just make semi-autos lol" and isn't in my mind as special).
They already had the high-speed operator thing figured out, and you can tell; cock on close, 10 rounds in the mag, and the safety that you can "slingshot" off of Safe when the rifle is cocked (which is an interesting touch I've never seen anyone mention). It's truly unfortunate that a fighting bolt-action rifle was never iterated on meaningfully beyond this- I would have expected one design just to try and keep that niche alive but nope, nothing but slow-fire high-accuracy (which was the only niche that remained for the action type).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
17hr ago
I would definitely say I prefer the Dojo as the healthy alternative, but if it works and persists across decades
The sex clubs have certain protections against the segment of the left most eager to ban them that the dojo does not share- specifically, that the left can't both continue to use the concept of sex-positivity as a skin suit and be seen shutting down places that "empowers women" [by that definition] at the same time.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
17hr ago
A spontaneous violent mob horizontally coordinated along racial lines for ease of identification just to wreck shit. Less armed factions battling street by street Stalingrad style, more Harlem Riots with more destruction.
I think that describes the Rwandan genocide pretty well, too- if perhaps a very extreme example.
Civil wars really require geographically consolidated factions free of any local element capable of resistance.
Of course, the problem here (for the belligerents) is that defense against even a consolidated faction is really one-sided. 3 foot soldiers dead on national TV was enough to end BLM; how much worse for turbo-BLM in a free-fire zone? Unless the National Guard is defending them, but "government organization decked out in military gear shooting civilians" is the definition of civil war anyway.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
17hr ago
I don't know why paid parasocial entertainment isn't really a thing in the western world
It's called "Hololive" (though really, this is streaming culture in general). It's big business, apparently.
Frankly women can enter as well, were it not for the nannying and tutting.
In other words, only transgender women who are sufficiently divorced from [as perceived by the other gender] their gender's primary flaw can enter this space.
That flaw, being (in my opinion/experience) unrestrained anger/disgust, is the GP's point about why non-transgender women are motivated to destroy male spaces in the first place: they're angry that they have to follow the rules to get anywhere, and something inside them renders them wholly incapable of doing that, so their attempts to simply destroy the space for "reeeeeee"-asons are a natural evolution of that.
This isn't to say the standard feminist "all the important things happen in places we're kept out of because something something gender" steelman doesn't still apply (since the primary problem with men is that they're stupid), but that it's almost certainly overblown by people who wish they were more capable than they are; I think it's fascinating that feminist political thought starts with cargo-culting what are effectively transgender behaviors, leading to everyone being shocked to discover that most women aren't transgender, and [the selfish version of] their conclusion was that it's not them that's the problem, it's the notion of gender itself (the productive one was just going out and building other institutions that reinforce transgender behavior in an ostensibly discouragement-free environment; which is why [female division of things men are naturally better at] exist in the first place).
And I don’t see why people assume that computer and network issues are that much more complicated to learn than any other security or safety concerns for anything else you might do or use.
Well, that's because you trust yourself to get out of anything you get yourself into.
The problem with learning how to use computers is that, quite literally, everything's behind glass. The efforts to ameliorate this in the early '90s (and to a point, why early versions of iOS had the design language they did) were all attempts at solving this problem, and the reason the more famous ones failed (specifically Microsoft Bob) was because this problem is intractable outside of maybe VR- it's just side-grading from one "this is all behind glass, weirdly artificial, and I'm not truly in control of this machine's states" to "that, but at least it looks like a house".
With other forces of nature, such as electricity, gas, driving, etc., you're interacting with a physical thing. Human beings are exceptionally good at manipulating and understanding physical things- for electricity, you can physically guarantee that the current isn't going to go anywhere but where the wires conduct it. Same thing with driving (or at least, before we stuck shitty tablets in the dash).
Take away the state they're supposed to be directly manipulating, though, and make it both abstract and only accessible through a very specific set of fragmented language? And make it clear that (just like how people claim drivers would be better if there was a gigantic spike sticking out of the steering wheel) there are a bunch of [metaphorical, but sometimes very literal] loaded guns sitting inside the box? I don't blame anyone who hasn't had time/motivation to practice that in a safe environment for giving up pre-emptively.
(And the industry has done itself no favors- yes, there is an undo button, but the contexts in which it is useful and the powers it has within those contexts are not obvious even though with a plain-English reading they should be. Plus, now you have mobile-first design, which has to hide that functionality as a limitation of the user interface if it even has it at all... and every redesign that's made without actually proving it out, which UX designers love to do for some reason, chips away at the established knowledge base of a user little by little until there's nothing left.)
it’s that they see computer devices and the systems around them as too complex to understand. They aren’t.
I don't think it's that people are unwilling or unable- though there are certainly plenty of men and women who very blatantly refuse to use their eyes- but there's no obvious observable demonstration of "input A results in desired state 1", and that's coupled with "input B-Z results in undesired states 2 through 2000 and there's no easy way to go back to before making that input". So yes, "basic stupidity" is a thing that keeps people from understanding these devices, but I don't think it's the primary cause.
Speaking of physical interfaces... you ever seen what PLC programming interfaces look like? Ladder logic is arguably the most intuitive programming environment ever invented and most software developers have no idea it exists; its entire design goal is to make it as obvious as possible what input will result in what output. The only real thing you have to deal with there is the logic; more advanced things like functions become much more obvious when you can physically [or at least, as close to physically as possible- in this case, tracing a line with your eyes or finger] see what's happening and why.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
5d ago
Old-fashioned gender roles were better at teaching young people how they can be of value to others than today's gender roles are.
The gender roles were also very good at determining/controlling pitfalls, too; a society that is only capable of condemning stupidity/violence in men [who provide value by doing], or anger/entitlement in women [who provide value by being], is inherently divided against itself simply because that is the most common failure mode of each gender. It gets worse when those faults are portrayed as positive.
If you want to be valued (beyond the default "all human life has value" value, which is a wash across the board), you need to provide value.
Maybe, but along came mechanization and post-scarcity, and the West hasn't quite figured out how to deal with that yet; now, men need to act like women to succeed (sit down, shut up, regurgitate is how they'll waste their physical and mental peak times of their lives), and women need to act like men to succeed (you have to waste your physical peak proving you're fit to receive the welfare that is most public service jobs and by the time you've done that you're already starting to wilt- divorce doesn't pay well, after all).
And when "how well you can pass as the other gender" is the order of the day, it's not a surprise that men-acting-as-women aren't attractive to women, and women-acting-as-men aren't attractive to men. And while that's great for man-women and woman-men, maybe most people are better off steering clear.
(And really, it's threading the needle: making sure the bi-gender people aren't held back, but at the same time pointing out that cargo-culting their inherent success is a bad idea. If humanity was capable of understanding that nuance we'd probably be better off, but I don't think the average human is and it doesn't remain stable between generations either.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
5d ago
In Canada, our Charter of Rights explicitly lists "freedom of expression"
S. 1 of the CCRF is the explicit "everything after this section is functionally meaningless" part. It's difficult to miss, being at the top and all. And if that wasn't enough, there's S. 33 (which normally gets used for provincial vs. federal slapfights).
and it was worried that including it would imply rights not listed did not exist.
Well, given how they treat the rights that are listed...
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
5d ago
Or more generally:
The ultimate arbitrator of what constitutes success in [subject] should be [a structure men have significant biological specialization into manipulating], not a [a structure women have significant biological specialization into manipulating]
I don't think there's anything more complex than that going on here. I think the lack of biological specialization in objective usefulness is a serious problem to people who were sold "if you waste your life on this degree, you'll be just as objectively useful as men are", and so need to compensate [in a way indistinguishable from them truly believing it].
And the way you compensate in a zero-sum environment... is to impose taxes. And if you want to levy taxes, you need a good excuse, and what better excuse to use than something currently intractable like "disparate impact"?
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
5d ago
"don't tell a trans person you don't think they're the gender they claim to be"
No, this is more "you can think you're [opposite gender] in your own head/in private, but there's no valid reason to do that in public outside of wanting to make it someone else's problem".
Going out and screaming "it's ma'am" in people's faces and insisting that "because I think I'm a woman, that means I get to be classed as one in their sporting events" are, in my opinion, central examples of "making your thoughts other peoples' problems", and is as intentionally destructive/disruptive as publicly announcing you're using hot-or-not on people when they interact with you. (Same thing with casual racism/sexism/ageism, come to think of it.)
We make a compromise - don't make your thoughts other people's problems.
Of course, the pronoun/trans thing is a deliberate and willful violation of that compromise.
(That the faction most supportive of breaking that compromise in that way is apoplectic when anyone else does it is... illustrative.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7d ago
But the ECHR does caveat hate speech, dangerous speech and so on
Yes, that's what "no right to free speech" means.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7d ago
English law doesn't even recognize that concept; the US's notion of protecting it was a reaction to it being non-existent.
Later nations gesture vaguely at the concept, but if it's in their law, it's always explicitly prefaced with "unless we really don't want to".
Why is this more offensive than ranking people according to academic or athletic ability?
Because all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
their right to freedom of speech
Australia recognizes no such right. Also, the people who made the list are generally recognized as subhumans [due to their age], so nobody's expecting them to have rights in the first place- the hysterics are because lists like that are hard evidence the brainwashing campaigns were ineffective.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
7d ago
Believing in the rule of the law does not imply believing that every law should be rigorously enforced all the time.
But it does imply that if every laws was rigorously enforced all the time, they should be written in such a way that isn't blatantly oppressive if taken to that logical-by-words-on-paper conclusion.
Otherwise you get anarchotyranny rule by law where we just ban everything and selectively enforce against political enemies, which is what we have right now.
"bro the communists are being arrested you have to help them bro please I know they'd kill you and your family but what about libertarian values bro?"
I extend my libertarian values to communists and other people who want to murder me and castrate/imprison my descendants so long as libertarians are in power (and so there's no actual threat of the inherently-corrupt ever being in charge; the entire point of allowing corrupt talk [identity-supremacy being the best example] in the first place is that there's generally at least a kernel of truth in what they say, and we can absorb it without stepping into the trap- in the "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, it's what comes out" sense).
Indeed, this is the folly of the liberal; to assume that (sociological-economic-technological) conditions that permit non-corruption will exist forever and not just be enabled by a specific combination of those three from 1945 to 1973ish. A smart observer (Orwell) in a country that had yet to be positively affected by those conditions (England, 1948) elsewhere in the world would come up with an accurate description of how the future would work, and this would have been possible pre-computer.
I could have treated my enemies with that respect in 1950. I could have treated my enemies with that respect in 1970. I could maybe have treated my enemies with that respect in 1990.
I cannot do that today, so now I have to accept market shortfall on the net good that "developing lab-grown meat" would bring me because my [domestic] enemy will just use it as yet another excuse to hurt me and tax my virtues at a marginal rate of 100%. EVs are another example, so are smart guns (in the New Jersey sense). Neither rum-runners nor Edgar Friendly can survive a computer-assisted State.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
11d ago
Glen Youngkin won in VA largely because he said "Hey, stop teaching kids woke stuff in public school."
Maybe, but I think there's a difference between "stop teaching woke stuff" and "stop copying the Catholic Church's playbook". I seem to recall a significant rape scandal at that time (the school administration was just relocating the boy-in-a-skirt rapist from school to school, then the cops arrested the victim's fathers when they dared to complain)?
There's a lot of tolerance for the former and most parents don't really care all that much about it (considering how averse they seem to be in terms of trying to reclaim their rights). Heck, even a "we're so powerful we won't even bother to cover up the fact that trans rapists are A-OK in our books" has only so far prompted the election of one more sympathetic governor; if that's the full extent of parental organization and power here, well...
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
11d ago
you could probably do well creating something to re-orient gen z people into healthier directions.
You need to teach them to want.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
11d ago
I just call it “corruption”; because that’s what it is.
The woke are not meaningfully distinct from an Eastern European cop demanding a bribe; great for the cops, bad for everyone else. That they claim it all goes to the church is not material.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
12d ago
Insert standard “cunning linguist” joke here.
and that it has no such antibodies to feminism [other than that mandatory military service thing], allowing it to run wild into radical man-hating.
Yes, that's called "being a fully mechanized nation". Most Western powers ran into this somewhere around the 1900s, and women were first granted rights above and beyond men (as in, "rights without corresponding responsibilities") in those nations around that time- you see that with the right to vote most prominently [without the corresponding duty to be drafted into a war they voted themselves into, something we see in Ukraine today], but prohibition and minimum-age requirements for brides are their doing as well.
I think the pedofascist was/is trivially correct when he made the point that these policies, from the start, are properly viewed as radical man-hating; tearing down the places they'll go after work and putting ever-increasing caps on the quality of women they can afford with no suitable substitute are not exactly pro-man things (worth noting 1984 begins with a description of "the only woman a middle-class income affords the average man is an ugly, infertile, prostitute", and then Winston finds a secretly-transgender [from a biological standpoint] woman who he has wild sex with before the Gender Police torture them to ego death; I believe Orwell predicted modern gender politics to a tee). In that light, first-wave feminists must have been motivated by the same hatred/anger that motivates third-wave feminists (and the white-knights for each wave similarly motivated), and it's always the legitimately transgender individuals that are used as tokens by said women only to later suffer from it (in this case, "the 1% of women who actually are competitive with the men want the right to pursue those opportunities"- something that would fit under the trans umbrella as 1900-1950s society would have understood it; today, the genders are reversed, where men are demanding the opportunities and privileges of women).
[Further effort post: the concept of transgenderism is coherent from a strictly biological standpoint, and our instinctive grouping of all non-straight-as-in-established-man-on-youngest-possible-woman sexuality into "biology should not predict this behavior therefore the people that do these things are malfunctioning" is also coherent, but the people who are transgender under this definition are not the people most people would claim it is today!]
But if the complete obviation of the biological male gender role was such an impending disaster, what let us avoid those consequences for so long? Well, the post-war WW2 boom pushed the economic balance in the West far enough towards men that it was the women who couldn't meaningfully co-ordinate to soak up so much wealth, but that was over by 1980 and the problem our great-grandparents failed to solve has returned to haunt us once again.
Korea, then, is experiencing this for the first time, in full force, being that they have only just made it to full mechanization (they weren't in a position to benefit from post-WW2 booms especially thanks to that civil war)... and being a US-occupied nation means they have to deal with the US' cultural outlook/propaganda, which is currently tilted in the gynosupremacist direction. It's probably worth considering how the Japanese managed to avoid this problem, but I think that was because they mechanized in that boom time and managed to lock in a "the genders aren't actually at war with each other" mindset (and their rule-following did the rest) [but they still haven't dodged the problem, because all the good gender relations propaganda in the world can't actually solve a problem of 996/economics].
The Koreans, by contrast, didn't make it in time- but they also happen to be blazing a trail (being a smaller nation) whose trajectory men (and women) in the wider West would be wise to observe, regardless of whether it fixes the problem or conclusively demonstrates it's not fixable.
And I've pointed out before that people don't have kids if they expect it to be a miserable experience all around which for Koreans is a very reasonable and grounded expectation.
I think it is true for Americans as well; states that have successfully kept angry/neurotic women from destroying the rights of parents to allow their children to enjoy life as much appear to have higher TFRs, even though their average income would take even more of a hit by having kids. Sadly I can't find a by-state breakdown of TFR for 1920 to prove that, so my evidence for that ends at the car seat thing.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
15d ago
Respectively:
Yes, since it's more likely it'll find a path to humans (and bonus points for the last "burn the world" emergency having been the uncommon cold, we know exactly how much it cost us now, and we're more likely to reject safety measures now even if they're actually warranted because safetyists burned their social credit on said overreaction).
No, because I prefer a dignified life to a safe one and those things taste good.
I think the core female complaint is that there aren't enough good men to go around.
The men say this too.
As the alternatives to (and opportunity costs of) selecting a bad partner pile up every time some new media comes out, the bar for who is marriageable in the first place rises, which means a man or woman who had marginal personality/attractiveness in 1960 is probably not getting out of that pool in 2024 without substantial mitigating factors (the "666" dating app meme is a symptom of this).
I think gender dynamics predict women will be more resentful of this than men specifically because it is the sociobiological role of women to be wanted. I think the "it's your duty to serve me and my interests" attitude from women comes from the same place it does from similar-quality men; incels say "state-mandated GF", femcels say "all regretted sex is rape", and they both seem to want to problematize anything that could possibly be sexually arousing to anyone (hence the DignifAI thing for incels, and 72 genders/drag queen story hour for femcels).
Does this hold across different time periods?
If it did, we should observe any given race become more neotenous over time if we consider selection pressures (since I think we can agree that 1600s human beings needed to mature much quicker than 2000s ones do simply due to the realities of life at that time), but remembering what ancient Greco-Roman statues look like that doesn't really seem to be the case (and I don't think anyone did photorealistic sculpting/painting until more or less the modern era).
Alternately, does this hold even within a given race? Because if this is true, we should expect that people with more neotenous characteristics [androgyny, smarter men, calmer women] should exhibit more childlike behavior- which, anecdotally, I've seen very little evidence to disprove- but that might be caused by something else or just be a biased observer.
More options
Context Copy link