@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC 

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 3 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


if we defined "economic violence" equally broadly then it wouldn't need to be a robbery - a shoplifter pushing past a security guard would qualify.




Honestly, why shouldn't we define "economic violence" that way?


Stealing sexual value is to women like stealing economic value is to men (for control over that is what that sex uses to impress the other), so a regime that treated men and women equally should logically treat both just as seriously.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Female sexuality should not be looked at thru a rationalist brain.




Why not?  It's just the mirror image of stuff men do that women haven't correctly communicated when to and not to do, like that whole "take them seriously but not literally, also ignore half the things she says because that's how the emotional spam filter works [and the 'attractive self-respect' thing comes from the 'doesn't respond to every emotional outburst about X']" thing.


It's not a direct counterpart, but men and women are different and start from initial conditions (inherent scarcity, etc.), so it's going to be expressed differently.  Men (especially straight ones- it gets complicated when they're not) don't really have the circuitry to appreciate why you'd want a Cluster B werewolf billionaire, so it's difficult to know when to act like one (re: PUA, which as I understand it sums up to 'treat them like they're in a porno'; women will do the same thing to men sometimes, but less often because it's [socially] costlier for women to do that).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


According to research, globally, sex workers have a 45% to 75% chance of experiencing sexual violence on the job




That's one hell of an error bar, so the research is garbage.




many previous & current progressive movements




Repeat after me: progressives are not liberals.  I get that it's very confusing, especially if you're in certain bubbles that made much hay claiming they were the same (because in large degree the marriage of convenience between the two was still running at the time).  The difference is that liberals actually like sex and aren't turbo-butthurt about its existence, while progressives are existentially threatened by anyone else but them controlling sex and sexual expression (because it is all the value they offer- that's part of why they're so attached to education as an alternate path).  Needless to say this is mostly a thing with female progressives; the men might parrot it but they don't truly understand it (the ones that do tend to be traditionalists, which is just progressivism with the opposite gender valence).




I struggle to see how these individuals may square this perspective that sex work is valid, despite fitting the bill of objectification.




The clue is that progressives tend to believe it should be legal to sell sex, but illegal to buy it, which takes the price of sex up to infinity.  Any sex (or sexual expression) that occurs must be maximally monetized, or it's offering an alternative to that monopoly.


This is why progressives get extremely angry about older men dating younger women: the motte cope is "she's being taken advantage of", the bailey truth is "she's getting more money for the sex than I ever would, which drives the price I can get for my sex down".

When women say the existence of something "devalues sex", they're being literal because it actually does.




So it's not the sexual objectification they're objecting to, it's getting around the fee they feel is due.  Sexual labor (which for women is "being observed while sexually desirable") without pay.  Progressives don't like sex work because it makes that fee legible, which is a threat; its legality is generally a compromise they struck with the liberals in the original anti-traditionalist compact.  They do reserve the right to play at sexual labor, though, which is how they justify to themselves having made that deal, and is also why they don't really have much problem with non-straight sex (it's orthogonal to the market).


Which is why it's also important to identify what kind of feminist you're dealing with- some are just happy not to be under traditionalism (and will deploy patriarchy and equality arguments to that end- that's who they originally came from, and still have some truth to them), while others are trying to impose a matriarchy instead (and generally using the descriptive liberal arguments as prescriptive weapons).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
People use the term "predator" indistinguishably from "men" (and "straight" and "white", to a lesser degree).  Again, no evolved memetic defense system against this; it was reality that kept this from getting out of control.  Kind of like how in US politics you get extreme rhetoric but the Constitution prevents it from getting too out of hand.


Now that reality no longer gives men that advantage, you get both barrels, it's that simple.  Of course there are a few societies that can avoid this, so you find things that seem strange to Western ears where women defend certain extremes of male sexuality (re: female politicians defending loli), but they also aren't Western, and they still can't reproduce above replacement.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Perhaps, then, that's a part of why the ingroup vs. outgroup behaviors really evolved: if you have one ingroup and 5 outgroup tied to the track, you can sleep easy not pulling the lever specifically because they are your outgroup.  Remember, humanity didn't even invent 'love your enemies'-style accountability, and even that's pretty vague in terms of what you're actually required to do there.


Most of the equivocation about this topic mostly comes down to the fact that in this situation, and in psychologically-normal human beings (the sociopaths are going to sleep easy regardless), a justification will be found to either pull or not pull the lever, because the decision must be made.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Hence "have cake and eat it too".


Just because they're throwing the killer away does not imply [those who define UK society] are not in complete agreement that what the killer did was justice.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the killer refuses to accept culpablity and continues to insist that his victim was a racist, as if this would justify the killer's conduct even if it was true.




And he is correct.  A society doesn't normally prosecute soldiers for murder, because they are killing that society's enemies.  Why else do you think only that group is de facto allowed to go around armed?  (Canada at least requires you to have it zip tied to the sheath so it can't be drawn, but in fairness that was 10 years ago.)


Here, though, English society gets to have its cake and eat it, too- killing its enemies while at the same time being able to claim murder is bad.  Certainly confusing for the soldier in question- because here his claims that he was acting on society's general orders (to kill its enemies for their crime of existing, or "racism" for short) won't save him from prosecution.


Then again, soldiers get thrown under the bus all the time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


America definitely isn't holding Europe's balls or brains




Empires hold their provinces' balls or brains almost by definition.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They gave their brains and balls away along with the rest of their colonial possessions.




That's an unfair characterization.  They sold their brains and balls and the rest of their colonial possessions to Uncle Sam, because the European powers (and the UK) were back-to-back World War losers.


The Allied powers like to delude themselves into thinking their contributions made a difference but, uh, no?  Most of the materiel came from American factories, and Americans accepted the price for that materiel in mineral rights and real estate.


It wasn't "giving away".  It was war reparations.  The rest of Western Europe has paid similarly.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel like whatever issue there is with child actors will just be part of a larger trend with actors humans in general with AI, i.e. we just no longer need to place real humans in such dangerous or effortful situations anymore, thanks to being able to show the same thing using computers.


After all, life is dangerous and risky, and humans are no longer working animals.

As such, some consider it on par with animal cruelty the notion that someone would ever consider having kids.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Actually, MLP G4 does this as well for 3 characters in particular, come to think of it.




Perhaps that's a reasonable balance?




No, it really isn't.


I get that nobody really watches sitcoms any more, but I'm really not interested in making The Cosby Show or Home Improvement (or Two and a Half Men) illegal to produce simply because there's significant value in retaining an environment that can produce them.


I think removing the conditions that make filming Stranger Things or Terminator 2 (or IT, Super 8, ET, etc.) possible/practical would be harm to broader culture that far outweighs the higher variance in outcomes the child actors in them have as-is.  You're not picking an adult up off the back of a dirtbike they're too big for and then CGI-ing it into something else.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
NZ is also beholden to American interests in a way Argentina is not, re: Kim Dotcom, and those interests are generally Blue-aligned.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A slow Tuesday on Xbox Live?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


a live-action film in which the protagonist is a prepubescent child (e.g. Home Alone, the Harry Potter films) is not




Absolutely.  Fuck any real representation and wish-fulfillment for ~10% of the population.  Self-actualization should be confined to grownups only.


(Ironically, most kids and teens in animation are usually voice-acted by grown women; the few notable exceptions to that off the top of my head being TAWOG, Chowder, and the Iron Giant.)


You can fix most of the other issues with payment later or with some other contrivance, but I'm firmly in the 'stay in Omelas' camp here; the ideal number of burnt-out child stars in a healthy society is not 0 specifically for that reason.


"But muh creative freedom" is a nonsense complaint here, because what you're suggesting would completely destroy the ability to have sitcoms that feature families (alongside, uh, most of the Spielberg catalogue).  Erasing portrayals of that from TV and film because it's Unsafe will surely help TFR.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Modern society, on the other hand, does not believe that the ruling class assumed its status through hereditary privilege




The ruling class in modern society assumed its status exclusively through age (and to a point, gender, but it's the vaguest possible one as it's a whole 50% of the population).


This is orthogonal to actual merit (which is generally what hereditary privilege implies), which is why the standards this class imposed as they came to power were destructive.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Polite society ceased to believe it needed to offer a benefit to observing its standards.  Most have noticed.


"Standards on polite society" impose noblesse oblige over the sum of societal actors who control what politeness is.  Cancel culture was their effort to keep things in line.


What benefit did accepting cancellation or playing by those standards offer anyone else?  Financial ruin, felony charges, and death.


So we can't have standards in this age.  Much like the ozone layer, the societal machinery that enabled them has been damaged and will take some time to regenerate.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No idea what kind of filter bubble could separate us on that.




Well, I know (or rather, knew, they're older now) teenagers, and in particular whose parents tend to be pretty intelligent though on the old side- so they benefit/suffer from the same late-Boomer social/parenting patterns with which I am familiar.  This filter bubble was honestly just luck [and to a degree did indeed provide a sort of second teenager-hood; it's uncanny the second time around].


It's partly cultural compression; I don't find circumstances growing up now to be particularly different from that which were present in my time, but that's also because most of the sabotage to the cultural push/rewards of growing up was already done before I got there, so there wasn't much left to take away.  (This was mostly something that happened in the '80s, as I understand it.)


It's more just the room temperature and the 'artificially zero expectations during critical period' that does most of the damage resulting in these guys just acting slightly off, like they're invisibly handcuffed to something.  "You shouldn't try because you're undeveloped" combined with teenagers being smart or agreeable enough to take that advice seriously is destructive (and can evoke certain Uncle Ruckus-like behaviors with respect to each other too).  I think most adults tend to take for granted some in-built biological resistance to that meme because "well, if someone told me that I would have just done it anyway out of spite" but I'm not so sure.  It's that kid who clicks "no" to the site banner that asks them if they're 18 yet, where honesty and conscientiousness become vices.


Some of them are even self-aware enough to wonder where the opportunity for them to create the stories their parents always tell is, or when it's going to show up.  It's very strange and to be honest quite depressing that [society in general] still suffers from this problem, and I don't know (but think very often, perhaps too much) about how to break it (and trying to identify where to settle, in a place that maximally permits this sort of thing, is one of the things I tell myself delays family formation on my end).






20somethings who are trying to prolong their childhood rarely act self-aware




Self-awareness is really rare anyway; those who have it but would rather spend time Motteposting rarer still.


I noticed a good chunk of this effect in my 10s (perhaps I might say I was radicalized from an early age).  The distractions that were thrown my way proved effective enough though (plus, even though I underrate this, I got a chance to work in places that are either illegal [now] or highly unusual- I didn't just do nothing, even though it feels like it a lot of the time), but a lot of time I'm recalling things I specifically promised myself at the time I'd remember (and commit to not doing in the future).  Emotional states reacting to certain things, etc.


I'm well past 20something at this point, but for a couple of reasons won't clock (to even said aformentioned teenagers) as someone who's doing this.  Part of that is that I'm just as meme-poisoned, I guess (I skip a certain piece of modern slang, but I also skipped modern slang back when I was an actual teenager, so...), but I think the bigger part of it is that I actually kind of like teenagers (or the stereotypical attitude they have more generally), and maybe the relative lack of awkwardness does most of the passing (or rather, I'm just as awkward around these guys as I am around everyone else, which is especially apparent whenever I interact with someone younger than that).  But, who can say.


But then I never grew up in an area where the average 10-something was particularly stupid/irresponsible (i.e. exceeding expectations), went to what you'd call a charter school, and grew up in the (equivalent of the) Purple part of a Blue state.  So the concept that the young are actually more thoughtful [and risk-averse] once out of adult earshot is pretty natural to me (and experience bears that out); whether that's simply caused by the assumption that they wouldn't be, I don't know.


It's also more widespread than that; more generally, I've noticed interactions (just walking around in public) where the kid notices something before the parent does (usually a car, or someone taking a photo), and the kid's already corrected the problem before the adult can tell them to.  And I think that some of that's just caused by inherently having experienced them at their worst and most helpless, but I think a lot of it is either just not paying attention, or not having the time/context/energy to know when to pay attention to the fact they're going to automatically do it.  Maybe "being told to do something I was already doing" is just uniquely annoying to me, but I don't think it is.




I think some of the problem is that we don't teach people how to lead properly, and now that there's less organic opportunity (both to make mistakes, and the mistakes made are costlier now) the people who did learn it organically are now failing to compensate for the fact you seem to have to intentionally encourage that development now.  Because the teenage rebellion meme isn't strong enough and won't help the people who weren't going to do it anyway.


(And the people who don't aren't necessarily doing it on purpose, since there's the power angle to consider, and the biology angle, and the cost angle, and the "they're turning into someone you hate" angle, and the "I spent 13 years raising this kid why aren't my old strategies working please help me" angle... tend to frustrate the powers of observation -> ability to compensate for this in people I believe have those powers.)


It's kind of the definition of a wicked problem.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed with, via edit.  In the 21st century, you either have to travel above the hecklers and their vetoes (by air), or below them (by Hyperloop).  One's cheaper than the other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


so they're generally on parity




I'd say they're better than merely on parity, to the degree that construction techniques and materials science in the '00s and '10s was better than it was in the '60s and '70s.  Questionable quality control might offset that a bit, though.


HSR is kind of a meme in the US because its hybrid private-public transit infrastructure, which takes up a significant amount of space (every building has a station beneath it that usually stores at least one bus per tenant), is already so good that they don't really need it.  Mandating the speed limit on the highways be increased to 100 mph would probably be just as time and cost-effective if not more so (yes, it burns more fuel, but the cost of that is just as much a tax as raising revenue for HSR would be).


Sure, the HSR might technically be faster, but now you're dependent on public transit to do anything, which is generally so slow that the time lost to driving still arguably makes sense (or you have to rent a car to get where you're going).  Air travel has the same problem, actually- its average speed is about HSR-tier thanks to the TSA- but air travel has no need for rails, which means zero infrastructure spend, zero public upkeep beyond ATC, zero need to level the terrain, zero need to acquire terrain, and nearly zero ability for hecklers to veto via environmental complaint.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Trigun, trivially, but that’s Eastern media and probably doesn’t count.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Rape is in a separate class for reasons that aren't merely psychological, of course.


While I don't deny that "forcible confinement" and "assaulted so hard you suffer lifelong injury" do have psychological effects (in a way entirely dissimilar to underage sex, doubly so when the underaged is male), we punish rape because those things have physical consequences- things we have an objective measure for, and an objective remedy.


That's not something you can do for psychological harm, which is why it's a useful vehicle for concern trolling to justify whatever you'd like without actual evidence.  Because I guarantee you that I can absolutely find "evidence" to substantiate misgendering being just as psychologically harmful to someone as actual (to say nothing of pretend) rape is (and not infrequently claimed to be identically harmful, for that matter).




I could hear an argument that psychological harm is something we should respect, but it would need to be done in a way that doesn't max out the scale in favor of the interests of people with a biological predisposition to catastrophism the instant it's switched on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You yourself claimed elsewhere in this thread some burdensome trauma about not being ready to live in the face of women suggesting you were.


The statement and phrasing are trivially correct.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Abel must privilege Cain, because Cain will commit murder if he is not privileged.  This is a universal problem.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They’ve read it in a book




Of course, the people complaining about opportunities to gain that experience also conveniently tend to be traumatized by books and other media that describe it too.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The harm does not become the fault of the person who has been harmed just because he could have had values under which it would not be harm.




So you're in favor of criminal penalties for misgendering, then?  Because that (and safetyism more generally) is the logical conclusion to giving this argument any legal weight.


This is why we tend to set hard boundaries on "what a member of society is allowed to consider harm".  1A is like that- it absolutely oppresses the easily offended and the incorrect, who are forced to suffer the existence of [thing they don't like].


Of course, we only cover specific things there, so a Karen not consenting to your child walking down the street alone can effectively order him arrested for that crime, even in nominally liberal countries.


Those people have to be oppressed in this way- forced to suffer the existence of things that disgust and terrify them- for a pluralistic society to function.  As a (classic) liberal, I assert this is justice.