ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
No bio...
User ID: 822
The kind of shit that would get your whole country and people unprsoned in the west
Yes, we're aware the West is doing the "pulling the ladder up behind you" thing.
I'm talking wholesale ethnic replacement of vilages with military support, civilians fired at freely by the military with full support of the command chain
That's a perfect description of Western immigration and law enforcement policy for the last ~15ish years. And sure, let's call those things "crimes"[1]. Sure, the rapists aren't actually killing the women into whom they shoot, but their right to do that is very much backed by the military and command chain of those nations- voice disagreement, and the State's guns show up to suppress you.
Noticing this, somewhat humorously, demonstrates that both the main Western schools of thought about Israel are completely hypocritical:
- The pro-Israel faction tends to be the most opposed to Western governments committing the [crimes] listed above against them, but also believe that all national governments are fully in the right when they perpetrate those [crimes] against those under that government's monopoly of violence
- The anti-Israel faction tends to be the most opposed to Israel committing the [crimes] listed above, and claim that all national governments do not have the right to do it, yet they themselves perpetrate those [crimes] against everyone else in the geographic area the instant they gain control of their own government's monopoly of violence
In other words, the people who say the [crimes] should happen seem to dislike it when they're the victims, and the people who say it shouldn't happen anywhere directly perpetrate the [crimes] against their own neighbors.
Neither has a moral inch to stand on; both bear isolated demands for rigor.
Ironically, "forcibly rebuild Gaza into rich Trump resort" was arguably superior simply because the use of force was limited to pushing massive material wealth upon the colonized side- forcing the enemy's material standards of life to improve (and killing everyone who wanted their neighbor's life to remain so economically worthless that throwing it against enemy guns was the only luxury) such that any future chimp-outs would be moderated by the inherent desire not to gamble so forcefully you lose the creature comforts you now take for granted. One notes that this is more or less just how empires are stabilized (well, the successful ones, anyway- the Americans vs. the Germans/Japanese/Soviets, the Han Communists of Beijing vs. the rest of China, etc.).
[1] The framing is smuggling in both the assumption both that these things are "crimes", and that "crimes" are bad. Though, the accusation of rank hypocrisy doesn't change if they are not "crimes", or if these "crimes" are actually good.
consenting to treatment is taking responsibility. Agreeing
The set of possible sentences for her alleged actions is {exile, death}, so one "consents" only to abide by the terms of their sentence. (The sentence for violating an exile is death, of course.)
What we call the "insanity/mental health defense" is in truth pleading a death sentence [or one that takes away X years of your life] down to exile. What exile looks like is different in the modern day: all land is claimed, so we must create cities of refuge, or "asylums", for those we punish with that exile. It also protects her from the logical consequence of simply being declared an outlaw- if her husband is sufficiently aggrieved, she's physically protected from being killed by him so long as she remains there (a jury might not convict him if he did otherwise, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that is also justice).
Which is why "sane or not?" is the only real question here. Sane = intentional = death; insane = unintentional = exile.
And I do believe it reasonable to think that "a woman who murdered her own children" is strong evidence of insanity, because a brain that violates literally every possible fiber of maternal instinct is probably malfunctioning.
But that's only a "probably", and that is why she's on trial. And the women in society who dare voice anger with men for daring to point that out- when they know in their hearts they would never consider men who kill their children to be insane with the same measure- all do evil themselves.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
1d ago
Stephen Pinker makes a pretty convincing case that female politicians at least are slightly less warmongering than their male counterparts.
I don't care about female politicians, I care about female voters.
What policy and politicians do female voters prefer?
The one that was actively facilitating a massive invasion of military-aged men?
That one whose party apparatus directly supported burning down a bunch of cities in the US?
"Gender of peace", my ass. Civil warmongering is still warmongering.
There's no realistic path of mass hysteria leading to millions of Canadian youth being machine gunned in the mud by the Germans
The Germans ain't who the Boomer's elbows are raised against in jingoistic yawp. There is a reason that every 20th century anti-war piece blames those who have no skin in the game [at that time, mainly the old] for this shit: because it's true.
They knew a time of war that I do not; I therefore heed their warnings.
I find the idea that Canadian men will be subjected to a mass draft to die in a war started by women who don't understand the cost
The female (and the old) do understand the cost; they simply believe themselves worth that cost. So great is the society they create(d) that men should compete to bow down to them, they believe.
Serious question would you support a 50 50 gender ratio quota in combat arms to get rid of that moral hazard?
Yes, actually. Sure, we could do division of labor beyond that- a woman driving truck or doing supply work is another man that can be spared to the front- but the thing is they're just as conscripted as the men are to do that, and they know that. It's more mechanized, but trucks and supply depots and arms factories are legitimate military targets just as much if not even more so than the grunts on the line are.
If men aren't permitted to flee the country on the belief they might be drafted, neither are the women. The draft should be just as existentially terrible to anyone who has a vote on it.
The ultimate problem I'm trying to point out here is that man's life and woman's life don't carry the same moral weight any more (and that's something detrimental to any society where this is true).
They used to- which is why, due to the division of labor ['assigned to' human beings through inherent sexual dimorphism], the disposable gender had special privileges over the non-disposable one in return for their sacrifice upon "women and children first" (and the like). The duty is still there, but the privileges are not, and there's only the one answer to that.
the existential risk to most westerners is functionally zero
Yeah, I slept through 2020 and 2021, too. The ability of the public to be absolutely hysterical and jump straight into a war (foreign or domestic, 2020 being the latter re: BLM) a lot of stuff is and remains very real; I have that in my own country right now, that's where my examples are pulled from.
These people will vote for much evil if they're permitted to do so; exhibit A being the immigrant situation, and that's just the economic war, not a truly kinetic one. No risk to them, just like getting drafted into Vietnam was. And I absolutely believe those people would try to draft every other Canadian to throw their lives away just to make a point- that's literally what they voted for.
So no, I don't think I'll be forgetting that any time soon.
All the political leaders and electorates in WWI were entirely male.
If it was that bad then, how much the worse now that half the electorate is under moral hazard conditions to pull the trigger? And as we see in Ukraine, the minute the fighting starts it is exclusively the women who [are permitted to and as such immediately] make a run for it, which is absolutely crooked- that whole "be worth it" thing evidently won't matter when it counts.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
2d ago
If you are pretending seeing a hairy man's ass in a dress with a red thong is as good as seeing Ursula Andress ascend from the water of the Bahamas
You misunderstand. Ursula Andress's socioeconomic interest is the reason why I must pretend seeing a hairy man's ass in a dress is good, and why I must pretend desiring a younger, hotter version of her is bad.
In your original statement, you conflated the two by saying
They are obviously bad, like child obscenity is obviously bad.
And the answer I had for you is that you should stop conflating the two, for your concept of "child obscenity" is both trivially gamed and unequally enforced (by women who fear their own ugliness/inevitable devaluation that they ban anything more beautiful than them [with that excuse] and equate ugliness to beauty) with the ultimate intention to compromise your proper exercise of political power.
So the fact you even have it as a category has resulted in your kids being forced to see the drag shows in the first place, whether or not you're simping respecting your (present or future) wife's power by equating them as equally bad.
I brought receipts to back up my claims, but here's one more thought for you: the places that produce the highest amount of child obscene content has the lowest problem with drag shows (and, though they may have many cross-dressers- even an above-average amount at times, especially in their media- they aren't shoving themselves in your face or behaving anything like a Western woman-approved-drag-queen does).
So I assert that the men and women there, for a variety of reasons, appear to respect each other's interests more. I hope that intentionally hampering your ability to understand why that is- because you're afraid or offended, because it's against your religion, or because you're just plain lazy- has few consequences for your future children, for your ideas of how you must protect them are incoherent.
"The bunch of exceptions that were invented contrary to 1A worked 100 years ago" was literally what paved the way for your modern problems in the first place. A mere retvrning to those exceptions won't solve anything.
Sure, but to what degree can a selfish employer solve that issue? If a black man has a higher than mean IQ for his race, that means that now his time can now be bought, at a bargain price, and so I can get away with paying him less with the same amount of profit, which is what I want. I do better, my competition does worse because they were all "poopoo peepee, it's too much trouble for me" (which is how racism does its damage, and the crime-of-the-heart against which we want to convict). Yes, this doesn't last- because as he gains experience and credibility my ability to maintain the arbitrage decreases- but I can still find them and exploit it because I'm unwilling to listen if and when my moral compass tells me black men are inherently bad. That is itself labor and risk, as the normie sees it; should I not be justly rewarded for my effort [as compared to theirs]?
In this way we see that sufficiently-advanced mercantilism mitigates racism: indeed, these societies tend to converge on being less racist than others for this reason. (They're the least sexist, too, for similar reasons.)
I believe IBM is on the record, verbatim, as explaining that this is why they were willing to hire gay men in the '90s.
You are correct that it fails to solve racism. In your example, the fact that the reason the black man's labor was worth less remains caused by- and not even himself- but by the existence of other people that share his skin color being inherently worse than the median man of another color. One could make the eugenic argument that his success permits him to make more of himself, diluting the pool of 'people who look like him sucks ass' over time, but that doesn't happen for free (he's actually liable to reproduce less, not more, and you still have regression to the mean to worry about- which is an underrated benefit to affirmative action re: society offers, as part of his pension, that his "failsons" won't be left behind).
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
Instead, they are regarded with increased scrutiny by coworkers, as there is no longer a guarantee that they were hired based on their skills.
How the co-worker men feel doesn't matter: they have no power to do anything about it, and they know it.
And you can't measure "the degree to which the State induces quiet quitting" in anything outside of a vibes-based manner- you can't go to your boss, or do a risk assessment about it, because even if you did selfish women would [ab]use the current law to throw you in jail for strike-breaking!
The differences in crime rates would be caused by nature or nurture, neither of which the law is capable of controlling directly.
This is why I don't believe for a second that the "crime rate" is actually more of a man thing. Women are just as destructive; assuming equality, we should expect them to be responsible for half of all [anti-social behavior which merits prosecution, or 'crime' for short]. But the ways in which women crime are a lot less identifiable, a lot less cut and dry, than the ways in which men commit them.
So a legal system- one based on evidence and precedent- is the wrong tool to hold women to account for that.
In the same way that 90% of schoolchildren convicted for fighting are male. You can't prosecute bullying or exclusion, which are the ways women destroy each other, with a zero-tolerance policy based on who convinces who to throw the first punch.
And if you want to tell me "well, women destroying each other isn't as big a deal as it is when men do it"... well, that's not equality now, is it?
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
it is in my best interests that the (generally) less belligerent half of mankind has the franchise
How did you think the men got the idea to go to Verdun in the first place? The female of the species is deadlier precisely because it orders you to death on its behalf, and so you have the basic principal-agent problem.
The biological imperative for men is to go to war and die; the biological imperative for women is to be worth it. If we want to disarm that, and I think it is a net good to disarm it, both sides need to stand down. Right now, only men have [fallen into economic hardship and been forced to].
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
Wouldn't it be a contradiction for any woman to become a thought leader as an anti-feminist?
But come on, that's like asking why there are no black men in the KKK, or why an Ashkenazi does not place emphasis on the latter part of their name. With the added dimension that, if you're asking why tomboys don't do this... men don't really like doing this either, so why would a woman who is closer to understanding to how men think -> "complaining is just a you problem, get good" embrace this either? I guess you could ask the same question of ex-women, but they're too small of a group to do that.
It doesn't make socioeconomic sense for an average woman to publicly do that. Privately, sure, but it's simply unhealthy to be a Uncle Tom strike-breaker in public for the same reasons it was unhealthy for mid-20th century men. The best you're going to get is how Charlie Kirk's widow acts.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
You misunderstand.
My argument is that legal equality itself is something inherently giving preferential treatment to women.
Women have enough social power to force men to treat them [more than] fairly already; by your words, you prove that the same does not hold true for men.
This is reflected by the fact that, even if you did write the laws perfectly neutrally (and in most nations they are not), they'll only be enforced in favor of women.
Thus, the only fair way is for there to be no law.
Granted, you could do some unfair laws- if you assume men and women are already equal, then the number of crimes committed against them should match, and having quotas for how many cases can be prosecuted (if no man comes in claiming workplace discrimination, that means it isn't happening, so no woman gets to do it either; if no man is demanding Title IX redress, then assuming things are already fair, then no woman gets it either that year) might solve that kind of abuse.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
but this time we learn from experience and don't pass laws that escalate it, should be possible
No, this is impossible.
Selective prosecution means it doesn't matter how fairly you write equality law.
Which means if you want fairness (and aren't at the same time doing an overhaul of the justice system to prevent that) then you can't have equality law.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
I think you can make the strong case that, in the modern economy, women are better suited to the working world.
So basically, the only gender demanding affirmative action is also the one that from an objective view would be paying a penalty for.
That's kind of what's being litigated now, and why it's being litigated now. Basically, men only make 80% on the dollar in a system that is to a point set up to advantage women, and women are very interested in making sure that is never fixed.
If equality is to be true- if men and women are to have equal moral worth- this needs to be equalized. And I think it would be wise to note the previous answer, "strict legal equality", resulted in selective enforcement of various equality laws, which was how the gynosupremacy got established in the first place- so it might not be the answer now.
(You) have chosen to flaunt
some orcish beastwoman A and asked me to contemplate whether that monstrosity is perhaps as beautiful asGaladrielwoman B
My retort writes itself.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
This is kind of wondering-out-loud. If the populations of the countries most affected suffered more simply because of mass hysteria, then I'm underrating how much wars, which are a far more justified than "scared of the uncommon cold" is, should ideally cost.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
3d ago
This is a direct result of Canadian federal policy.
Which is why I want the culture of the people that voted for it utterly destroyed, as do the other 49% of Canadians.
A simple '51st' would probably be fine so long as the US mandates the new state incorporate its system of "prevent urban New England and California from imposing the dictatorship they want", because those are the people, and that is the culture, that causes the vast majority of the problems here. The soap and ballot boxes are in the rearview mirror.
Those 49% of Canadians were already moving that way before you got involved, of course.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
4d ago
Total global economic disruption from this war is likely to be on the order of $1T by end of the year.
Well, $1T sure does sound expensive. What fraction of a COVID-19 is that?
Conservatives do things; things are done to progressives.
But that's a contradiction in terms, because "conservatism" is kind of the definition of not doing things, whereas progressivism is about progress and liberalism is about maintaining the controlled chaos and flexibility out of which progress emerges.
Therefore, we must conclude that:
- Those who call themselves 'conservatives' are in actual fact liberals/progressives, because they do things, and in the traditional left-right view are left-wing
- Those who call themselves 'progressives' (or 'liberals') are in actual fact conservatives, because things are done to them, and are right-wing
And if we rephrase it as follows:
- Men do things
- Things are done to women
Then we can see that women are by definition the conservative influence they always have been, and men the liberal one. So men now find more common cause with "conservatives" because they are not actually conservative, or rather, what they promise is more liberal than what women want.
Media is generally hostile to left-wing causes when economic conditions reward rent-seeking more than R&D (which is why they were on the left's side back in the '50s-'70s, why they are not now, and to a point why they [falsely] claim to still be left), and the way they prompt that is generally by spamming any plausible invocations of Copenhagen Ethics as possible. So the behavior you see from them tracks.
As for "Republicans Leftists pounce", the reason the left can't benefit from the right violating their own morality is because the right is in control of what that morality is in the first place. Which is not a surprise; they literally exist to be aggrieved as a negotiating strategy. The left fights the right by creating and proving things, memes being the fastest and most well-known example (alternately, consider the phrase 'the left can't meme'; as explained above, this phrase gets who's left and right backwards).
The correct male/liberal behavior is just to ignore them. Once they fight it, they legitimize the framing of women/conservatives that they can't do anything right, and it's over. But, on that note...
And if there's no possible way to frame something they did as something that was done in response to something else, then they'll simply say it happened, not that it was done.
...you sure you aren't Sloot's alt account?
I don't think Clark could even conceive of the idea of a woman doing something awful without having been interfered with in childhood.
Sounds like she's the kind of woman who should try to conceive with an appropriately assertive/attractive $age_of_consent-year-old man.
They are obviously bad, like child obscenity is obviously bad. Arguments that they are artistic are ridiculous and not credible.
Depictions of child murder and the machinery associated with those acts is an overwhelmingly popular, billion-dollar franchise.
Particularly among its target demographic: children.
(Christian author, too. He wrote it at what was going to be the end of his career in game development. Perhaps God has blessed him.)
The thing about the great debate about why violence in media is different from sex, etc. is that at its root, it's a claim that "obscenity" is just smuggling an isolated demand for rigor around sex. I wrote about the reasons why that happens yesterday, and the argument that you're probably going to make about "but if you normalize it, it'll inspire people to violate children/woman Bs" will be answered by:
- gesturing at the rate of child murder and sex abuse (both over and under age) dropping over time
- gesturing at the inverse correlation between the acts and the availability and quantity of media depicting said acts
- gesturing at the fact that the only actor who ever demands censorship is woman A, and as we've established, this is entirely for self-serving reasons (deontological arguments about the sanctity of sex are covered by the "social conservative" section)
- gesturing quizzically
So what, we just don't get to discuss the ways in which children actually act because it makes (You) butthurt about the fact it happens in the first place? Did you grow up unusually sheltered? Did you close your eyes and ears when your elementary school teacher told you not to look up sex.com on the computers, know a friend who changed someone's background to porn images, or fail to notice that list of "sites you'd better not go to in the computer lab" was just a list of where the good stuff was? Did you fail to notice how every 9 year old knows what a lesbian is? Were you not cut into the middle school plans to smuggle some booze in and fuck on the camping trip (or did you just ignore it when they got caught)? Did your parents not tell you they took up smoking in middle school? Have you ever shown her yours, and did she show you hers? Did your parents assume you were masturbating far before you even knew what that was?
I mean, obviously the answer to all those questions is no- far be it from me to accuse someone of tactically forgetting things just to win an argument, and I'm not sure which is worse, a bad memory or a boring life. (Perhaps a bad memory is an evolved response to the existential horror of a boring life.) But when I remember that all of those things did actually happen, I notice that if I wished to accurately write about characters of that age, I'm cut out of a significant portion of human experience and motivation.
Which is why the courts- at least, in countries and laws laid down in times where woman A's power was at its weakest... like the US in the '70s- are so concerned with narrowly defining "obscenity" in the first place. I'm sure you've watched Stranger Things (S1), and perhaps Adolescence (at least the first episode) as well, and noticed the scenes that features a child character pissing themselves. That's its own tag on PornHub (and others), so obviously it's obscene, on its face (or rather, in its pants or shorts; not all of us are that flexible)- it's sexual domination of the forced-to-piss.
But the case in Stranger Things is not obscene, and the argument (or perhaps "compromise" is a better word here) for why is that the sexual humiliation of that boy wasn't the ultimate goal of the work. By contrast, in Adolescence, the sexual humiliation of the boy is very obviously the ultimate purpose of the work, so it is obscene. (And of course you had government officials worldwide promoting it for that reason. But this is the Epstein class we're talking about, so Kier Starmer advocating this child porn be shown in schools ain't exactly a shocker.)
Not to say the authors aren't getting off on kids pissing themselves; the author of Made in Abyss is... uh, not exactly a closeted pedophile. (Though, you could argue those instances specifically- though not necessarily others- are less harmful, for there's not really an exploitative sexual dynamic between characters there... even though other scenes in the work are a lot more explicit. That's probably closer to how a kid would assess it, actually; the entire conceit of the show is, beyond exceptional visual quality, about how a kid in that situation would assess stuff. Which is why it can't exist without the other sexual parts or in any other form. Stephen King's It has a similar thing going on with its depiction of child sex, as I understand it.)
Yet the argument there is the presumption of mind-reading. Take that picture of that little Gook girl running away from her village, terrified, in a state of napalm-induced undress. Now, I get that not many people have fetishes for Uncle Sam's massive dick dropping hot sticky loads all over Asian girls, but I definitely believe someone has found sexual pleasure in that photo.
So is it "obscenity" or not? To what extent was it necessary to create that to prove the point, and to what degree even can you claim to judge that? It's clearly sexually charged and sexually exploitative (it's relevant that it's a little girl, and it's relevant that she's exposed that way)- if it was a decrepit old man the response would be very different. It threatens the power of women if it is not; it binds your ability to know what the cost of "the nation's best interests" are if it is.
So I assert the only feasible answer- from a law that binds society itself to protect it from its most selfish impulses- is "none of it is", as a basic anti-corruption/anti-oligopoly measure from an interest group that half the population will someday belong to.
Which is exactly the kind of thing 1A (and its weaker imitations worldwide) exists to guard against!
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
5d ago
Psychiatrists put together the theory that serious abuse by trusted figures who applied shame or coercion changed how the victim saw the world, and this seemed to show up everywhere from suicidal ideation to depression to difficulty forming friendships to norm abuses to extremes of over- and under-expression of sexuality.
Being forced to submit to something your biology and instinct tells you not to has some seriously negative psychological effects.
But, that's not unique to sex. Obviously.
Even getting held captive during a robbery does this to people; so does any shitty authority figure lording over a captive audience- boarding schools, concentration camps, prisons, etc. can all prompt this shift in behavior. Shitty jobs with no other opportunity can prompt this ("sleeping with the boss" is not a meme for no reason).
So then the question becomes "why do we still honor the isolated demand for rigor for sexual causes of those issues?", and that has 2 main answers- evidentiary trail, and female market power.
The evidentiary trail argument is there because it's easy to prosecute. "Look in $orifice and take sample, determine origin of that sample, compare birth certificate. If under $age, the person who made that sample is guilty." Open and shut. And it's not like sex isn't a means of forcing submission (or a prize thereof); it's just the only thing that comes with the territory that you can actually prosecute without having a crack team sort through every text message ever. (Proving gaslighting/sabotage is very difficult; that's why people do it.)
Female market power is a bit more complicated, but it's an instinctive collective bargaining thing. Let's say woman A has nothing else to offer but her submission (her "self") to man X, and let's assume there's woman B who's more attractive (specifically, younger) or more desperate than woman A.
(Just like human biology, we're ignoring the existence of contraceptives and assuming the "self" may only be sold once at full price- each subsequent selling, if at all permitted, devalues the product.)
Woman A has every incentive to render woman B unable to sell her self to man X.
To do that, she will come up with every excuse- usually (and ironically) "too young to know better"- to convince other men to visit death upon man X no matter how low B's price goes. Now, woman A can sell her self to man X, and she gets to set the price of her submission, for man X now has no alternative if he would like a woman.
Her "wage", her "worth", has increased relative to man X due to the absence of woman B.
(More generally, this is just how markets work. Collective bargaining is inherently an oligopoly.)
Now, let's assume that a picture of a woman is worth some fraction of her self. Woman A will want to ban woman B from doing that as well, and it'll be done by complaining about how wicked man X would ever be to buy B's pictures. When woman A is pulling the ladder up behind her, she'll go on and on about how the choices were "work or starve", blame society and her family for giving her that impression, complain about workplace conditions and the assigned tasks, claim she had to use drugs to keep up, go on about about how horrible it was to grow up poor, and blame man X for knowing she should have been paid more.
(This is just how unions justify themselves.)
What limits woman A's ability to control the market is how much enforcement power she can muster. She wasn't able to muster very much in the '60s and '70s, but in the '80s her relative power expanded and that of men contracted. So now it's man against man in the white-knighting competition rather than woman against woman in the casual sex competition; just as woman B must undercut woman A when men get richer relative to women, man Y's only option is similar to woman B's would be in a free market: undercutting man X by promising woman A a higher price- less submission, more resources offered, or by publicly swearing an oath to woman A that he will harm man X should he prefer the superior product/better deal that B offers, or if X ultimately fails to pay A what she believes she is worth.
(This is why ground-level anti-union/anti-oligopoly violence is ultimately counterproductive. The more sellers you take out of the market, the more powerful those who remain become.)
Most of the claimed issues that "social conservatives" have- all of the ones you have listed- is just the same kind of justification for why man X and his desire to maximize his own value is evil and must be suppressed. They strategically pretend (and eventually will believe for real) that [the interests of] woman A morally outranks man X. At the same time, and for the same reasons, woman B is strategically denied any notion of agency whatsoever; it will be argued that that she is a "mere child, helpless and confused, and should run along while the adults are talking". This is all to convince Y to support A's suppression of X, which is who A generally wants to sell her self to. (Talk is cheap, after all.)
They must also pretend that men's wage has never decreased relative to women's relative to its peak. If that happened, Y might stop paying to defend A's interests. But if A can successfully deem B to be "a child", then interest in B can be righteously condemned as child rape. But because that is a lie, it creates an externality resulting in more actual child rape. (If the market were working correctly, A would be liable for that externality, not X. It actually helps A when a [future] B is raped: fewer Bs mean less competition for A, damaged Bs mean less competition for A, and it's a kickback to the Y that did it.)
And yes, the reason it's become continually worse over the last 100 years for men is because, outside of 1950-1970, their wages have dropped compared to women. From 1950-1970, the reverse occurred, which you know as the Sexual Revolution (when A's power to prevent X from buying B failed.)
40 years of decline in man's relative wage, though, and as you can see we're way past minimum (w)age now. The current frontier is "he ended up being poorer than he said he was, so the sex was rape" and "the court is not interested in any of the evidence that proves the rape allegations are fabricated" (labor dispute, A vs. X), "boyfriend given the Scarlet Letter for a nude selfie the girlfriend sent unprompted" (legitimacy dispute, A vs. Y [and sometimes B]), and "young men, provided they are not white, are permitted to rape young women" (pollution, A vs. B [and sometimes Y]).
This is examination of revealed preference, nothing more. There are no value claims to be found here; buyers aren't intrinsically evil, sellers aren't intrinsically good. Both are life, and they simply are.
But these two things- market dynamics, and what the enforcers of the power that makes it so tell themselves- are the precise reason why AoC laws (as one of several demonstrations of the market power of woman A) have remained one-way ratchets for the last 40 years, and will continue to be so long as current market conditions remain the same.
(re: @dailydogma)
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
Artillery is only relevant for exceptional expensive rounds
Not necessarily. Artillery is relevant when there are bigger things you want to explode, like proper infantry columns, tanks, and whatnot. That said, the cutting-edge of anti-tank artillery rounds is itself a drone. If you're dug in, shelling the area is a lot less effective.
In this context, drones are very sophisticated anti-personnel cruise missiles that operate in the same effective range as a mortar (that have some anti-tank usage as well; it's not hard to imagine sticking a Bonus "warhead" onto a drone, but it would be quite inefficient to do that because AI targeting and spotting is good enough and you have much better effective range with that).
That's fantastic for dug in positions and trench warfare, because you can just crash the explosive right into/on top of the enemy (and perhaps the only scenario in which a shotgun could be effective against such a weapon)- it just takes time and effort to do that right now because you have to have your guy sitting there driving the thing, and you have to spend money and drones to train him too.
I think that drone response is itself mostly going to be automated, but building those kinds of things takes time. Micro-caliber CIWS systems, EW systems listening for a drone lifting off prompting immediate and automated counterbattery fire, etc. They'll get there, they just aren't there now.
Pretty much, yeah. Canada is mostly huddled around the border because, with the exception of Alberta (and why they're the natural seat of any Western Canadian government), that's where the good land is, and it's also as close as it can possibly be to its largest trading partner.
It does depress me to be talking about this. Maybe if I had grown up in a different time I'd have my elbows raised just as high, and we're ultimately talking about the possible/eventual erasure of peoples and cultures that still ultimately may have value.
But the culture in power, for ever- that in a different time once could and did respect the value of mine- has already clearly been erased, by the Americans, long ago (we venerate the American flag[1] so much we paint it on crosswalks and prosecute its desecration, and the ruling power holds the Blue view that they're bringing civilization to the wasteland from their urban exclaves). So I'm now in the unfortunate position of being dominated by the excesses of American culture even more than I ever think I would be if they were actually in charge, because were we under American law, I'd have far more robust cultural and legal protections against that.
Instead I suffer unilateral domination by that culture that I know I have no hope of checking... unless I am under American law, with an American vote, and American freedom of movement/employment.
[1] That rainbow one with all the chevrons is an American flag; it is intended by a certain subculture to replace the Stars and Stripes. All this stuff is what Blue Americans want for themselves, but they're not restrained by law and process here.
I've worked with trans women that would be the spitting image of that link, modulo a purple sweater if it's winter
Judging by what I have hanging in my closet I am intimately familiar with the concept (and why you would do that).
But I can't wear that outside (or on camera), for the same reasons I would have problems conducting same-sex PDA- others have plenty of good, evolved, biological reasons to find that disgusting and off-putting, and I feel that's going to get in the way of my other objectives. (And even worse, it also marks me as belonging to the faction that gets off on making that fact everyone else's problem, so I believe I would alienate both the traditionalists and the low-information liberals upon whose support I largely depend. Something about "fisher of men".)
So now I get to suffer the "if my initial conditions and social circle were different I conceivably could have gone that way" outlook for a very good reason, and get to be just as much on the back foot on that topic as any of the dozen other principled libertarian is. I guess the only prosecution for bad actors is that they simply find themselves mysteriously excluded, but the State (and its supporters) are naturally only interested in making sure I bear the costs for those bad actors.
ThisIsSin
If you can understand the advice, you didn't need the advice
6d ago
It's just so very hard to get worked up about this when your region has been intentionally completely locked out of political power by the design of the country in the first place (and even if we do win the election- or at least don't get BTFO- the House won't respect those results anyway!), and so very hard to see the nation as a coherent place worth preserving as a consequence. Yes, the unique culture of my area might be erased in the process, but it was going to be erased by Ottawa anyway; what difference does it make if Washington does that instead?
They both show the same constant, callous, uncompromising indifference as far as I'm concerned.
I don't sympathize, and won't volunteer to die, for people who have continually demonstrated their hatred of me- that is the price of my sympathy. No American ever called me a nigger. (Or, well, okay, maybe that's not really true. But they are 100% a contributing factor to why my 'fellow' Canadians do that though.)
No. You have fundamentally misunderstood what progressivism is.
Progressivism is the reification of female political power. Everything a progressive does is downstream of that.
Female political power is not reduced when immigrants devalue the youngest (or future) women by raping or murdering them. Indeed, it actually increases- less intra-gender competition means more power for the average woman (socialize gains, privatize losses). Hence, women will aid and abet those crimes, and use their power to force men to do the same.
When the wages of women drop relative to those of men, progressivism recedes, like it did in the 1950s. Women now have to compete with each other more for access to men, so their political power drops. Society thus becomes more aligned with what men want.
When the wages of women rise relative to those of men, progressivism accelerates, like it did in the early 1900s. Men now have to compete with each other more for access to women, so their political power drops. Society thus becomes more aligned with what women want.
How does that alignment happen, and what does it affect? Basic commoditization of the compliment predicts it. Each gender will instinctively use their power to erase the distinction between members of the other gender and enhances the distinction between members of their own gender. So, women will want mass male immigration and men will want mass female immigration- women prioritize safety, emphasize feelings, and prioritize capital to protect their source of worth (and that denies the worth/framing of the mechanisms upon which men compete with men, rendering men interchangeable); men prioritize freedom, emphasize rules, and prioritize labor as ways to protect their source of worth (and that denies the worth/framing of the mechanisms upon which women compete with women, rendering women interchangeable).
If AI devalues female labor more than male labor, the future will be less progressive.
If it does not, the future will be more progressive.
Simple as.
If AI companies manage to send the US into the next Great Depression society will (as a response) change just as much as it did in the 1930s, but it is the effects on the relative power of the average man and woman at that time (and not their absolute power) that will determine how things actually go.
More options
Context Copy link