ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
12hr ago
Plenty of other democracies have been stable without such a system
The average democracy is only about 60 years old at this point. The US has, incredibly, managed to make it to 248.
What the EC does currently is tell minority party voters in every state that they don't matter and shouldn't bother.
That's more a consequence of FPTP (and in Westminster systems, whipping votes) than anything else. Again, other countries have political parties that manage to pull this kind of voter suppression off just fine.
Separation and/or a more confederated system starts to make more sense here simply because it encourages political competition and innovation in the areas that break off. Otherwise you start to run into certain failure modes of democracy, like "intentionally fail to enforce immigration laws, let the illegals vote, then swing elections that way", or letting the cities merge together politically into one globally homogeneous patchwork rather than retaining solutions tailored to/coupled with that area's unique circumstances (perhaps as a reaction to not being able to get their reforms through).
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
13hr ago
Far more influence over the country as a whole != far more influence in actual fact, especially on the local level.
The large city/states have more than enough ways to throw their weight around, including the mere fact they're city/states. They don't need the ability to pass the "Loot the Rest of the Country Forever Because Fuck You Act".
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
13hr ago
rural voters are relevant too. They're just only as relevant as their actual population size.
Which is just another way of saying "they're irrelevant".
Not true.
Trivially true; look at election maps of my [admittedly newly-added] example over the last 150 years and you'll see exactly what I mean. The cities always only ever vote for themselves with a brief exception perhaps once every 30 years.
More citizens live in the cities therefore doing pro city stuff
This doesn't actually preclude them from doing their city thing in that city. In fact, a significant chunk of power comes from the city people being able to do this- which is balanced against the below.
And the rural country doesn't likewise depend on the cities?
The country needs the city far less than the city needs the country. This is a significant strategic liability for the city, actually- the city needs water and food and raw materials (to convert into finished goods) far beyond subsistence levels by its nature of being a city. Thus the power the city derives from centralization is dependent on the rest of the country, not the other way around.
This is much like how a man's job is to bring home the food and the woman's job is to cook it.
If the woman doesn't do her job, they're unhappy. If the man doesn't do his, they're dead.
So it is for city and country, and why the country outranks the city.
Ah so giving them extra vote power is just a deal so they don't shoot up the democracy.
Yes.
To a large degree, I think this is because the people on the ground have asked for too much. It's not that the people have too little power- that was what the BoR and the Amendments are an attempt at mitigating (and were to a large degree successful)- it's that they have too much.
Regulatory agencies are an instance of this- they employ lots of people and execute a quasi-popular mandate, but that mandate is also extremely conservative (or "safe") and the agencies [have] become self-licking ice cream cones. Thus the central government becomes, by virtue of those employed at these agencies (and those who do business with them, to a lesser degree) having a vote, captured by those special interests, and Congress (being beholden to them) has become too weak to purge them. That is why it is completely ineffective against them- if Congress moved against the agencies, the people employed by them would purge Congress.
The best thing would be to disenfranchise anyone who works for those public agencies simply because it's a massive conflict of interest. The Founders got it right by not permitting DC to vote, but that has to apply to every public employee (and aside from China, no state at that time was powerful enough to have a bureaucracy of that size, so it's natural they overlooked this). In doing that, that the rest of the citizenry has a better chance of keeping them working in the public interest, not just the interest of the agency. In turn, the agencies must keep the citizenry on board with their agendas (which is in part why RFK is in the position that he is).
This is kind of why emperors get into the positions that make them emperors- the citizens wage a [civil] war, put one of them on the throne, and that generally solves the bureaucracy problem (but creates some obvious others). Elections actually do still allow the average citizen to impose some of their will, but for how long that remains the case remains to be seen.
by making someone in California have like 10x less say than the same person in Mississippi in Congress and the presidency
Yes, and that's a good thing.
Let's take a look at where that isn't true: Canada. This country has the politics you say you want, where the only relevant voters reside in one of 3 cities (legislature is de facto unicameral, though on paper it is something else). Naturally, they all vote as a bloc, and their policies are not only alien to the rest of the country, but increasingly oppressive in the sense that they prevent anywhere else from developing.
As a direct result, Canada has had active separation movements since roughly the late 1800s. These weren't as much of a problem between 1910 and 1950 for obvious reasons, but it's been a continual threat since 1970, and the referendum in QC in the mid-'90s had majority support except for the city on the QC/ON border (as in, the vote for QC to secede would have succeeded without Montreal). Even then, it was defeated on a razor thin margin. And the next Provincial election in QC is likely going to the separatists.
Serious attempts at Western separatism are newer. The province is a natural seat of government for a separated West due to where it is and what it sits on, and there's a bigger barrier with respect to the fact it needs to win referenda in 4 provinces to be a viable country- but Ottawa (and Vancouver) become more and more foreign, and grow more and more hostile, to the rest of the nation every single day. The rest of the country won't have the chance to get any political representation for 15 years, the sitting government exists completely contrary to the results of the election, and everyone knows it.
Most of the movement on the issue has been cooler than it would be in the US- Canada is a much poorer country thanks to difficult land and high latitude so there's a lot less to fight over and a lack of social cohesion is therefore costlier. Were this same situation true for the US (even in its original 13-colony form) it just straight up wouldn't have survived.
TL;DR Consent of the governed isn't equally geographically distributed, and the cities depend on the country for raw resources and soldiers- which are two things cities require for continual survival they cannot create on their own. (Not that it's a law of nature for a city to fail to field soldiers; that's a new incapacity revealed over the latter half of the 20th century, and specifically for Western cities.)
It is wise to limit the power of larger states to run roughshod over smaller states to ensure the larger states are limited to mining/colonizing the rest of the country in a sustainable manner, and not one that doesn't just end up with the country folks shooting up the power lines and oil pipelines (or seceding completely -> reserving the right to wage what is technically a civil war at some time in the future).
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
22hr ago
[Progressives] confused getting yelled at with actually getting prescribed out of existence; they seem to think that nobody should be allowed to make them feel bad and the power of the state should be deployed to that effect.
Yes, I think this is a perfectly valid characterization of their actions.
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.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
2d ago
The Lion King
and here I was hoping you'd post the better version. i cry evrytim
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
2d 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
2d 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
2d 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
3d 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
5d 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.
Because these are only topics a high-decoupler woman would bother discussing (in a way that isn't just naked self-interest), and those are rare.
There's not much more going on than that.
More options
Context Copy link