ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2hr ago
And the fact that nobody's actually able to hold a legislator to account for intentionally writing laws that fail any (or all) of those three conditions; a few laws are clearly designed the way they were to intentionally provoke adversarial readings for power reasons.
Which might not be the point the game's necessarily intending for you to notice, but it is something I feel is pretty apparent- I'd say someone who came up with a law like that while failing to even define terms is incompetent at best, and is the reason anti-social women (and men, but mostly women) feel as entitled as they do to call the cops on someone "driving" an R/C car in the park.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
14hr ago
What makes you say that? Men vote for the faction that seeks to trans their kids all the time.
A slave can't walk away
Sure they can. But they don't, partially because there's no better deal to be found elsewhere. (Related: why don't women leave abusive husbands in 1860?)
The thing about one's group being in deficit is that it increases the benefits to defectors. Usually this means "pays a [higher/lower] wage if one is a [buyer/seller]", but it can be other things too, in particular political power.
For the last 100ish years, men have been the defectors, paying women higher and higher socioeconomic wages. They couch this in moral terms, but fundamentally it's just business, just like anti-slavery efforts (and democracy more generally) were back in their day.
Make the economic situation dire enough and people will literally fight to make themselves slaves. Communist countries are a pretty good object lesson in how that works.
We can debate the point that men are completely unnecessary in modern society (which is, in fact, a reasonable question to ask- as automation mostly replaces men, including suicide drone swarms); if they are, this won't work for exactly the reasons you stated. But if they are vital, then my point holds; I'll point to Western gynocracies' obsession with mass male immigration as a suggestion that they are.
and I'd worry about all the usual failure modes of hewing the legs from under liberty as a societal principle (including economic stagnation, for starters).
Yes, I'm fully aware of the track record of Western governance over the last 30 years.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
15hr ago
We've also done all of those.
The first one is a gimme. Of course, they don't have female children either.
The second one is already law in Blue areas (some nations take it a bit further and only make it illegal if the child is female- it's sold as an anti-Muslim thing, but the incentives align).
The third one is likely already the case for Women are Wonderful reasons.
The fourth one is war-as-population-control (re: white feathers of WW1).
Reducing the ratio of men to women means increasing the political power of feminists.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it's the reverse.
Remember, men provide, women select.
If less providers, selectors are now competing with each other and don't get to be as picky, (and each individual provider becomes more important), so the political power of selectors in aggregate decreases (a "seller's market"). If more providers, selectors get to be pickier (and providers are competing with each other more) so the political power of selectors increases (a "buyer's market").
This is socio-economics 101.
Right now, even with a rough 50/50 split, men are in surplus due to automation that uniquely affects that gender, and have been for the last 100 years- hence they have no power -> feminism. Communism is the same way, for that matter; too many (male) Russians and too little economic opportunity to sustain a democracy. Implications for China are obvious.
If we were able to automate women out of their jobs just as hard as we did men at the opening of the 20th century, or experienced a massive war where 20% of Western men were wiped out, politics would shift for a generation. As they had from 1945 to about 1990, which is also the reason you don't notice that 2020 is, socioeconomically, closer to 1900 than 1960 because the socioeconomic problems were merely hidden for that generation, and now that the surplus (in power for providers/sellers/men) is all gone they've come back with a vengeance.
Maybe women will lower their standards purely due to a lack of options, but I honestly wouldn't count on it.
It doesn't matter if they do or not. By increasing the number of women, and by lowering their political power without being able to partner up, you've increased the number that will settle to match the number of men. And that, empirically, is good enough.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
1d ago
The Lion King
and here I was hoping you'd post the better version. i cry evrytim
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
1d ago
I'm not just talking about college, if they cant or wont go, fine. But there needs to be something after high school, with a job that is decently paying lined up shortly.
You can't even offer white boys that! But I agree that, of everything else you've said, that "path to early and stable-enough success" is something that, if you want men to function properly, you need to offer. Early buy-in and rewards for following the system we've set out is ultimately what makes people adopt its values; that's why Boomers still think you can get a job with a resume and a firm handshake, after all.
There are no black pretty boys, like we see with asians. I suspect much of this is because of the toxic environment that was created via the war on drugs & the familial breakdown following the sexual revolution.
No, it's genetic. You literally bury the lede in the first part of the sentence then deny it.
Further,
particularly because black women are in a more violent and aggressive environment, that demands more masculine behavior as a matter of survival
if you're going to go HBD you might as well go all the way. The place they come from is a more violent and aggressive environment and has been for quite some time. Asians (including the natives of North America) had less of that; if having 2000 years of the modern bureaucratic state doesn't convince you of this, then nothing will. The most violent of those groups were living in an area that didn't lend itself quite as well to this- is there any nation the Japanese hadn't gone to war with?
Their ought to be more skills to black masculinity besides "guy with huge dick and a Glock with a gold chain"
What makes you say that? Having a huge dick and a gold chain on my Glock is pretty awesome, actually.[0] It makes reloading harder but that's just the price you pay for fashion.
girl scouts to sharpen feminine attributes
That's not really what Girl Scouts do, and from what I can see black women are very and completely uninterested in femininity that isn't [for lack of a better word] hostile. Part of that's just how they look- there's a particular variety of white woman (compare 'gyaru') who make themselves up like black women specifically to evoke that hostility- but a lot of it is the accent that inherently sounds like sass/will track as a disrespectful tone to anyone who isn't black. I'm not entirely sure where it comes from.
If you want an example of this, go watch a season of the Cosby show; Claire turns this off and on when/as convenient, but the kid characters run it full blast all the time.
(Interestingly, the same is not as true of the men. Watching them trying to turn it down to fit in is strange too.)
Perhaps it's simply a reaction to the [evolved?] need to control men who are themselves predisposed to a more extreme form of masculinity? Explains a lot about the "sleep with them early to secure a mate" thing, because that's [part of] how women force commitment from men... but because the abolition of racism as government policy coincides with the sexual revolution/abolition of sexism as government policy, the women are depending on male relatives to make sure that commitment occurs and it can't.
Well, unless the men do what is natural to them and use the unofficial state-condemned violence to force it... which is the thing you think is the problem with them. Go figure.
[0] I do always enjoy being able to post this on-topic. I will point out, that as patently absurd as this is (and whether the people participating in it are aware of that or not is irrelevant), most of it sounds exactly like what 19th century Americans understood masculinity to be (mostly thinking of dueling here but the fact that was even a thing to begin with suggests a more... offensive and proud form of masculinity as standard). And I'm not even entirely sure they are wrong considering what happened once we moved away from that.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
1d ago
demonizing political opponents in moral terms
Yes, it's kind of the conservative (which the Left are, make no mistake) thing. Has been since at least ancient Rome, for that matter.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
1d ago
I dunno, being able to say you're putting human trafficking on ICE suggests the name is already a good one.
But honestly, I don't think renaming that is on-brand for an administration that [albeit temporarily] renamed the Ministry of Peace back to the Ministry of War. The world of 1984 is a traditionalist/progressive fantasy, not a reformer/classical liberal one.
Yes it does.
"I want sex lol" is a Reason as Good as any other, and privileging sex beyond anything else is just as crooked as demanding labor for free.
An assertion that there are some prices which are deontologically invalid is ultimately an assertion that labor can be demanded for free, especially when no price the laborer wants can be asked aside from those you have conveniently (and without any associated moral hazard whatsoever, I'm sure) declared priceless.
A condition reality imposes- in this case, that a lack of shelter is fatal- does not create "unwillingness" on the part of those that require shelter (and an inability to agree on price would be fatal to that party anyway). The only condition with respect to reality is whether you accept the prices willing to survive, or whether you would rather die.
(Additionally, I understand that, for those who live in times where scarcity for some things is no longer the natural order, that acknowledging their privileges are indeed merely privileges induces some existential discomfort. If I perceived my sociofinancial salary was dependent on nobody understanding that, I would not understand that either.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2d ago
Of course you would think that, because you can't answer the question in a way that doesn't unfairly create a duty to one side.
intermittent fasting for the person who can't manage their sugar cravings
Ah yes, the "I'm sufficiently antisocial on my own, so why can't everyone else be" solution. This isn't actually a problem with the women, by the way; much like it isn't actually a problem with the men who aren't self-aware enough to notice it.
The reason we tend to end up with people who are Cluster Bs to some degree, or at least have some of that behavior- is that it's very difficult to find ourselves, as it were. So what ultimately ends up happening is that, much as the proto-feminists note, is that we kind of end up boxing off/contain the other member. In other words, we settle, for what you may (or may not) know in the workforce as a "shitty" or "subpar" boss, because we're not made of stone and actually do require human companionship.
And that whole "I get to be the authority and better than you" thing is just as much a payment from participant to participant as financial resources and everything else is. We don't teach the nature of this exchange very much[0]- mainly because the question makes men and women who should notice it very uncomfortable, especially in Western nations, and especially especially in New World ones. That attitude has a lot of pros, but this is one of its weaknesses.
Empirically, when women are being pilloried as subhuman irrational whores who need to be forced into line for the future of the race, it's uncommon to see another male poster speak up to contradict those claims.
Yes, because doms take not being better than [their] subs very personally, and it's very important for their proper functioning they get to do this! Both partners do this from time to time; women usually exhibit it differently than men, almost like they compliment each other or something.
[0] By the way, the core of the BDSM movement are mostly autistic weirdos who have both noticed this and have it under control, or use it to keep it under control (or are weird/open enough to cosplay or cargo-cult it). This is why it usually makes relationships go sideways when one or more non-autists get a hold of it, especially when they start saying "liberation".
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
4d ago
There's no "killing" in debates
Yeah, and Charlie Kirk faked his death.
So we are faced with a situation where male abusers are a far greater risk factor than female ones, all else equal.
And that's the mistake that got you feminism/gynosupremacy in the first place- so instead of male abusers that beat you, you have female abusers who will [have] you beaten if you don't pay a pre-emptive penalty for the beating it's assumed you'll do.
A beating by proxy is still a beating.
And they're absolutely able to deceive and manipulate their way into a position to be abusive, they don't wear a giant tattoo on their face saying "I <3 punching females" so its not trivial to pick them out of the crowd.
Yeah, because it's out of fashion; given way to modern women putting giant tattoos on their faces saying "I <3 male tears". (It's the pointed librarian glasses and the danger hair, in case you were curious.) Ah yes, but that isn't "harmful", only the male version of it is- it's not like we can pre-emptively judge KKK members in full regalia for racism, right?
I'm fully on board with the need to heavily police male behavior
And I'm fully on board with the need to police female behavior just as heavily in the ways it generally acts out. This hysterical bullshit is just as destructive; but it's a burn slow enough that we can blame the designated abuse gender for not being happy with it. We can start by making it illegal to express opinions like the one this politician has.
Such males ALSO have to be selected to not be abusive, fathers/brothers/husbands
Which, given historic DV rates, they're not actually better (especially husbands). I get that the average traditionalists think men were ever any good at this, but they failed pretty hard in the '50s and '60s (and quite a bit before that, re: prohibition).
I think it's simplest to just not have consensual murder. The benefits are questionable and the costs are enormous.
Interestingly, your entire line of argument against consensual murder also boils down to this:
I think it's simplest to just not have consensual sex. The benefits are questionable and the costs are enormous.
Which is not meaningfully distinct from progressivism or traditionalism, which come up with this (bad faith) answer for the exact same reason.
My final answer- that being the liberal one- is simply to state that the optimum amount of possible bad relationships is not zero.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
6d ago
Now whether that’s fraud is a different story
But only because the legal and popular definitions of "fraud" are different. Maybe it doesn't satisfy the former; it trivially satisfies the latter.
Do you seriously believe that the reason the SPLC gave these groups money is because their directors are actually white supremacists who are trying to fleece their liberal donors?
Would the SPLC claim I was a white supremacist if I gave money to those groups for no other reason than giving them the money?
The SPLC is, as defined by the SPLC, a white supremacist hate group. Seriously.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
child prostitutes who were constantly being raped
Sounds like wage theft to me, which is a problem distinct from what you've described. You don't need AoC laws to fix that, you simply need to enforce the existing ones.
Just because someone loses their virginity doesn't mean they consented to it.
Perhaps, but the desire is there for the vast majority of cases where a 14 year old loses it; typically to their similarly-aged companion of the opposite sex, sometimes even in the context of a marriage [as at least one sibling comment describes]. (Alternately: since a young age, I've suffered self-abuse. I always told myself no, but deep down, I knew I wanted it.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
Actually, no; but I'd characterize it less as "subordinated to acceptability" and more as "the necessary translation layer to get as much of the truth across as possible".
You can't say the phrase "daily bread" to a people who don't know what bread is, so if you have something to deliver them you have to find words that do mean that and then say those.
This saves you so that once/if you get to the part you can't do that for (specifically, at 7:19) when your audience has to make the special effort to understand something- and you have to tell them which part to focus on, they don't naturally know that- they spend, and are still willing to spend, that limited effort [and time] only on the irreducible/important part.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
But there's a huge amount of societal attention placed on the few men that do want to fuck little girls, which is the whole reason that this is even a topic of discussion in the first place, right?
It's more that they're just the motte of the "all sex is rape, all men are predators" argument that women draw a socio-financial salary from repeating. It makes sense for them to do this, just like it makes sense to spam "all young people are subhuman/mentally invalid until 25" for all people whose station in society would be threatened by the presence of younger competition (doubly so for women who #fightfor25).
There's also the fact that, for people who are not you or me, sex is very special (in a way described as spiritual, which makes sense as it's fundamental to human existence); it's core to the way they experience the world and as such has to fall into specific buckets. This is why early '70s academics were all like "well, if you fuck in childhood, maybe you won't grow up to be such a square?", and why that didn't actually end up working.
(Note that said academics generally treat opposition to this as 'closed mindedness' and treat pushing it on those people as 'liberating' them; ignoring the fact that for a lot of people, their instincts are smarter than they are, or they're already at maximum capacity for resisting the instincts that are maladapative to the situation and forcing them to bear even more is not tenable. Compare "hatching eggs" for transgenderism.)
the phenomenon of segregated teenagehood has been going on for quite a while
It actually hasn't, though; the word only dates back to the 1930s, and between 1945-1980 the post-WW2 economic boom created space for [older] teenagers to enter the workforce. Before that was peak "children in the mines", of course (and if they were as useless as the average adult thinks they are, they couldn't have been so employed), but the Depression forced most of them out and into the asylum school system because there was wasn't enough work for adults at the time. Creating more schools and legally mandating a captive audience attend them was a great way to employ more people, too.
Things started getting worse for the under-18 set after that time ended; that was the beginning of the "CPS will come abduct you if you're playing in your own front yard" era.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7d ago
Which is why the line after that is “there’s no other way to really say this”. If there was, I would have said that instead.
The problem with ‘you’re just going to have to trust me; what I’m doing is too hard for you’ is that you have to be right, both objectively and (as much as is otherwise possible) subjectively.
Most people don’t think about it as much or that way; they generally outsource what they think to others and match that (best case, those who that was outsourced to are following these rules and keeping things palatable for the average person, but that doesn’t help the people who have already mastered that part).
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
8d ago
so even if we grant for the sake of argument the many claimed cases of people saying they would've totally been fine if they had sex when they were 14
Is there evidence of 14 year olds being uniquely damaged in countries where the AoC is (or was) 14?
because most 14 year olds don't consent.
Until about 30 years ago the average age of virginity loss was around here, so this is obviously false. Unless you can't tell a 14 year old and a 4 year old apart, which is perhaps useful rhetorically but not realistically.
to why you can't consent to being murdered
Sure you can- break into a Texan's house. Though this is just splitting the difference over "breaking into a house defended by armed homeowner will definitely get you killed" and "all cases of self-defense are murder".
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
8d ago
The UN still ultimately handed control of that region over to them, though. Not that Britain really had much of a choice with a military that destroyed, but still.
I think a purposefully-ignores-most-history view that "the Jews got it as a treat back when we liked them, but now we think they're total AshkeNazis, so we should try them at the EU Inquisition (aka the ICC) and embargo them so the Virtuous Natives can take it back over again, it worked in South Africa so it will work everywhere, #peoplePower #queersForPalestine" is not completely without merit.
I don't think this holds.
Much like the sexes are "male" and "female", there are 2 genders: "Man" and "Political". (By the same logic, there are also only 2 races.)
A woman is a Political that only claims that one singular identity. If it claims anything else, that Political is not a woman, so we don't erroneously classify other Alphabet People, or ex-women who are not Men, to be women.
By contrast, a Man is the gender expression of the people who don't think their gender merits any special privilege. This is generally because, from a biological or environmental standpoint, they aren't granted any- if they disagree with this, they're (by definition) a Political. This ensures we don't preclude females from being Men if they waive the privilege being female inherently grants them, but so many of them won't that it's not worth building separate facilities for them. Of course, being Men, that wouldn't bother them.
Categorizing gender identities this way solves most problems. For instance, we can continue with the 2-protected-space (changing rooms/bathrooms) system for Men and Political, where Politicals aren't allowed in the Men's room and vice versa. Again, because the gender expression of a Political is complaining (about the other users, the lack of accommodations, or whatever), it's very easy to tell who's who- if a Political goes into the Men's room and bitches about how unsafe it was (or whatever), that act reveals them to have broken the rules.
This also permits Politicals to express their gender identity fully in that space- which I agree is very important- and includes things like "complaining that males in dresses are in there leering at little girls". If a Political doesn't like that, they might choose to identify as a Man in that moment and use the room for Man, but as you'll recall they express their gender identity by not complaining about a lack of sex-specific accommodation so if they do that they're barred from [identifying as a Political and] complaining about it.
Note that, because the sexes are male and female, Men will accept that dichotomy is accurate and (if they happen to be straddling the gap a bit) will accept that the categories don't necessarily cover them (if they are mad about that, they aren't a Man, which solves the question of what gender the intersex are). So Men's clothing stores will carry male and female clothing, while clothing stores for Politicals are free to express their gender identity and have all the alternate opinions about the fact Men divide the world into two sexes that they want.
Sure, Politicals might still demand access to Man-only spaces, but that approach is not compatible with the idea that one's gender identity is a free choice. A more corrupt version of this (where it's only a free choice when it advantages Politicals) would necessitate 3 gender identities: one for Political women, one for Political non-women, and one for everyone else; or "women", "men", and "cissies" for short.
More options
Context Copy link