ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
11hr ago
If you want an all-boys club, you can make that too.
Observably, no, you can't.
There are only two genders: male, and political. The political genders are allowed to segregate as they please. The men are not.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
12hr ago
· Edited 12hr ago
Well, not really. The issue here is that I would have to admit to being beaten, and the admission is just as bad for men as it is for women in the spheres men and women are "supposed" to dominate.
You really want to fuck [the distaff counterpart of] a man who just got home from being mugged or losing a fight, even if in the moment they enjoyed being in the fight (worse if they rated the experience positively re: bike_cuck.jpg[1])? Can't imagine that's particularly attractive; really, a man being robbed or beaten is probably about as much a turn-off for women as a woman being raped is for men.
They're both instances of being required to admit you're a 'failure' of your gender, as having to revisit it requires you tell a bunch of strangers that you were easily tricked or bullied into giving away the resources that [the other gender instinctively believes] yours is supposed to guard.
Thus, I believe either one constitutes a task of identical emotional difficulty (and exposing the same liability), and men are simply underrating the negative effects being stolen from (or not reacting to having been stolen from) has on women in the same way, and for the same reasons, that women tend to underrate the negative effects of body count (including and especially due to rape) on men.
Which is why I can't accept "well, women are inherently less able to do this because gender"; the burden of having to overcome one's own instincts to submit to the legal system that depends on evidence rests in equal measure on the shoulders of all.
Remember, privilege is simply the mechanism by which one escapes this mismatch between instinct and duty/fairness. Let's take the Clancy case- your instinct tells you to kill your children, and your privilege would let you get away with it, so the tension coming from you needing to deny your instincts is gone and you may kill at will. What relief from the burden of resisting yourself.
(And to think men believe women have less emotional fortitude, when women are infamous for using everything they think men care about to manipulate men into granting women more privilege. That is why they scream "racist" and "sexist" at you- women don't truly care about those things, they just know that men can be convinced to, and men fall for it time after time after time. To state you're completely immune as a class to the way women observably function is arrogance at best and stupidity at worst.)
In the same way, your instincts tell you not to seek redress for rape or theft because it'll be difficult and embarrassing, and your privilege to turn any accusation into an instant conviction lets you escape that difficulty. (And a "double standard" is an area where you get to let your instinct override duty in [implied] exchange for letting your counterparts' instinct override duty in a different area that's not mentioned in the initial complaint, but accumulating a social shortfall owed to the truth in the direction of the party that got the worse deal.)
[1] Men attach negative sexual valence to being stolen from or defeated because they aren't generally thinking about the effect it has on female attractiveness when it happens, even if it ultimately means nothing to give away victory. Men also haven't fully figured that out; ironically it was their mothers, not their fathers, who failed to properly teach them about women.
Women treat casual sex the same way when there are no other negative consequences for the same reason; slut-shaming is [among other things] an evolved intra-female (and to a point, male) reminder that men don't like that kind of conspicuous consumption. It remains an evolved response for women because 60 years of contraception doesn't erase the "sex = death" instinct that thousands upon thousands of generations stamped into their brains.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
14hr ago
Members of a demographic that has dictated politics for their entire natural life due to its sheer size most likely to believe strict majoritarianism is the most just/stable/holy system of government ever devised.
In other news, the wetness of water now in dispute.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
14hr ago
I believe in the freedom to not be forcibly penetrated without legal recourse when I am explicitly not consenting.
So do I. But enough about being drafted into war or being expected to work inherently dangerous jobs to make a living.
But your moral and legal infrastructure has to account for the guy who is fresh out of prison, has children with three different women, smokes on the couch all day and beats the shit out of his wife for a thousand and one reasons or no reason at all.
Well, the solution "moral and legal infrastructure" settled on was just assuming every man is that man. In so doing, instead of expecting a wife we've given literally every opportunity and incentive to leave to do so and categorizing her failure to do so as consent, we beat every other husband and justify it with 'but he might start doing it someday, #yesAllMen'.
There are plenty of ways to encourage the strengths of marriage that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen?
Can I see them?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
15hr ago
I mean if you say "marriage requires allowing your husband to abuse and rape you" then marriage will be banned overnight.
Well, yeah, it was outlawed sometime in the '70s with that exact justification.
The only problem here is that "abuse and rape" were trivially redefined as "doing anything I don't want to do that exact minute" one unit of Planck time after.
Ultimately it sounds like you want women not to have any rights or protections anymore
I fully believe women deserve the same set of rights and protections that men currently enjoy no matter what that set contains.
Right now, that's the empty set.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
15hr ago
It's not that puzzling. Young conservatives pride themselves on basic moral superiority, the old have been established as morally superior to the young, so if you threaten the privilege of the old you are Literally Hitler and must die. (This also works for female privilege.)
It's an in-built instinctual response- I don't blame the young conservative, they were born that way. They're also going to destroy the country because those instincts are wrong, but at least they can say they killed and died for the right side of history, which is what matters to a six-foundation mind.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
Consent is also extremely hard to prove or disprove.
Again, my answer is "lol, lmao even".
Women are always believed, unless the rapist wasn't a native, in which case the police don't care (I figured I'd need to mention that specifically because this is the UK you're talking about, but it's not like it's that different anywhere else).
That doesn't apply to e.g. battery
Nonsense: you "consent" to a bar fight, you're perfectly within your rights to claim it was an unprovoked offense retroactively when you regret it the next morning, or when it doesn't buy you the entrance to the in-crowd you were hoping for.
Just like sex.
"But diseases, emotional trauma, and the risk of an 18-year-long injury" also apply in the same measure to losing a bar fight- sadly, there's no Plan B or DNA matching for black eyes.
Guess we'll have to let that inequality slide.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
they managed to lose a Ukraine war's worth of military deaths a generation later and still turned out no more worse for wear.
Well, 1920 France didn't have a population pyramid like 2020 China (looking at the 18-34 set). Indeed, there were more women than men, because the country just went through some event that killed a bunch of said men.
Ukraine's gender imbalance is worse than China's, and it was normal before. This is not meaningfully distinguishable from genocide.
At this point I'm pretty sure every Ukrainian man, especially those who didn't instantly flee the country on invasion, are just actively suicidal, perhaps even more than the Finns are. No actual organized resistance to being sent to war, nothing awaiting you when you return except for a smoking hole in the ground, and a convenient enemy to kill yourself fighting.
The way the men behave in the drone footage is compatible with this conclusion.
The dominant position is a third option: freeze the war on roughly the current line, without legally giving up territory or disarming.
So basically, it cost a few million lives for Russia to annex the part of Ukraine [that observably were unconcerned with who governed them] just because some old decrepit dulce-bag halfway across the country couldn't fucking let it go.
The complete and utter lack of unionist-on-separatist violence in the areas currently occupied isn't helping my assessment; lots of rooftops, lots of angles, lots of opportunity for novel autonomous weapons systems placed in book suppositories. They had nearly a decade and not once did "devise a way for a Kiev-friendly operative to deniably deliver an explosive device straight up a separatist's ass, or buy that from a sympathetic nation" cross their minds? Kind of painting a picture there- they're not a serious country either, but at least they'll have fun playing with the West's cool toys that we were just about to send to the boneyard.
Who knew that World War III was mostly going to be a non-nuclear redux of trench warfare, just with loitering mortar shells? I sure didn't have that on my jingo bingo card.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
I think rape victims who don't report it do so because they don't want to relive the experience again and again, that they are doubtful that anything will come of it (often true due to the nature of the crime), that they blame themselves to some degree or that they think that putting the rapist behind bars won't undo what happened (which it won't, of course).
Of course, but these dynamics are in effect for literally every other crime.
Rape is not different, you generally have evidence that isn't just "black eye" like it is for every other type of assault, and the demand for rape [to punish] vastly exceeds its supply.
Men have to suck up "living through it" when they report assault or theft. Since women are equal to men, the notion they're "too re-traumatized" is special pleading.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
They might be able to do that indefinitely, but this seems to presuppose the framing of "they literally start a D-Day assault on day 1", and I don't think that's what would happen. Just because two 'nations' are at war doesn't require them to do the equivalent of immediately running full speed at each other with spears.
It turns out that it's really, really hard to invade by sea. The last time a state that could reasonably claim to be a European Union conquered North Africa you only needed 2 digits to write the year, and the EU SPQR had pushed their territory so far east they could literally just walk from Rome to the [ruins of] Carthage without crossing any borders. It would take them a while, and you're better off by ship, but you could do it.
I think the best Africa could hope for in the limited time (and with the limited number of modern weapons) they have is a quick conquest of Spain. Spain has been conquered [via Africa] before, and 1939 Spain has just been (quite literally) decimated by a civil war. Toppling Franco might be all that's needed to extend Africa's borders to the Pyrenees, and that's easy for the weapons modern Africa has.
Once they have that, theatre goes cold (and now Africa can disrupt shipping in the Mediterranean). Maybe Britain's crazy enough to try landing but I think they get Dieppe'd if they do.
Come to think of it, if there's any "run with spears out at each other lol" going on it's happening in the Near East, because invading through Macedonia doesn't require a navy Africa doesn't have. Though even being able to blockade at Gibraltar creates one more problem and requires answering "is the rest of the world in 2026 or 1939"? Because a 2026 Israel is nuclear, so game's over for the side they ally with, which is probably going to be 1939 Europe mainly because 1939 Europe would let them get away with conquering the entire Levant in a way 2026 America (or 2026 Africa) would not tolerate.
Or maybe that's moot because the other nuclear powers all agree to turn 1939 Europe into a wasteland for the exact same reasons they went to war with 1939 Europe back in 1939, so...
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
but only if the claim is proven false, which I suspect is practically never
lol, lmao even. The "victims" in this case tend to leave evidence that they didn't believe it was rape until it was a convenient cudgel to wield, as in the Cornell case, or leave evidence of active collusion, as in the Ghomeshi case (the aftermath was to make that evidence much more difficult to use, by the way- it embarrassed the privileged).
Every rape case that makes it to national media is false.
because who's defending someone who would actually rape?
Half the country defended a child-killer simply because she was a woman, including 11/12ths of the jury on that case. This is just a proxy for "who's defending someone who is male?", and the answer is, well, apparently nobody.
not to mention the woman must be careful for her own safety
She has the privilege of tens of millions of simps; why should she be careful? Even the notion that she should be careful is offensive, and you don't even believe that anyway [why would someone want to put themselves in harm's way to "entrap potential rapists with real evidence"?].
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
So this isn’t just a female accusation
Yes it is, because the claim isn't "punish the drug dealers", it's "punish men for the crime of being most likely to be drug dealers".
Revealed preferences are that women don't actually care about the 100k+ fent deaths (most of which are men, by the way- this would be "hideous femicide" if it was, of course); this is just that "no I'm not Christian, so this argument won't work on me" meme.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
Executing drug dealers on the spot is an unmitigated good for society.
Only if the gender breakdown of drug dealers is 50/50. I'm in favor of affirmative action for anti-social behavior preferred by each gender here because the alternative to doing that is "ban all male spaces, any attempt at reducing rape is an unmitigated good for society".
So no, I'm actually not in favor of executing additional drug dealers. Fix the slander problem- which is as destructive to my society as your drugs are to yours- and only then will I permit you to destroy the drug dealers.
I am 100% in favor of executing these drug dealers. Also 100% in favor of executing anyone selling fentanyl as it’s really bad stuff.
I am only in favor of this if at the same time we execute those who falsely claim rape.
Female anti-social behavior is just as destructive and socially corrosive as male anti-social behavior; you are posting about the results of that now, yet are still only willing to punish stereotypically-male bad behavior.
The reason sex-segregated spaces work is because most men are psychologically/evolutionarily incapable of holding women to the same standards: removing themselves (and forming a mirror image, though not a copy, of a sorority) is simply the lowest-effort, highest-return strategy.
And it's fine to criticize the lowest-effort for being lowest-effort (and indeed, early 20th century boarding schools are famous for being lowest-effort), but when the average human being isn't capable of constructive criticism... well, that's the ur-justification for censorship, isn't it?
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
If Employers are behaving poorly towards workers on campus, then the proper target for unionist lobbying is other workers on campus. Convince workers not to go work at those employers. This would change the behaviors of those employers instantly and completely. That the
CommunistsUnionists can't or won't do this indicates either that they're lying, that they don't represent all workers, or that they're stupid. It's probably all three.
Sororities are (quite literally) a union of women, so their actions are identical to what we see from other unions.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
And a weak Europe more generally. Their neutral nations haven't fared any better, though.
If there are HBD implications of killing everyone who cared enough about the country to commit ritual suicide by Maxim go to war to defend it, it should be visible here. (And the other half that were smart enough to stay home proceeded to emigrate to the US for the same reasons Ukrainian women left at the start of the war.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
I'm confused by those who can't see that.
Probably the people being packed off to die by a nation that is wholly incapable of offering them a viable future even if they win. I'm familiar with the WW1 literature that explains this in great detail.
I don't give a damn about "how the people of that nation voted" for that reason; you rule well, and the treasure's good enough, maybe I'll consider it. If you bring war to my door without those things...
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
What, and have the car crash that causes my possible death be boring?
I'm more just annoyed this isn't the convertible I was hoping for. The original Roadster is arguably the best car Tesla ever made for that reason and it'd be nice if they'd stop launching them into space for the meme.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
In fairness I was going to add that- the old have a lot to do with why the academic-managerial complex is dominant in the first place, with outdated cultural outlooks that were harmful back then too.
But I'm too angry to talk about it at this point and I have no idea how best to exploit it (and am to a point the wrong identity; the progressives already have that exploitation on lockdown, as they embody the fantasy the old always wanted).
Playgrounds are too much money
And if you send your kid there we'll abduct them and destroy your family. The future is too unsafe.
I am aware that there are still a few places where the spirit of the West lives, and maybe if I can get to one...
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
They do have naval forces, surprisingly
You're not unloading troops or tanks from a frigate, though. You need lots of landing craft and a place to land at for that, and it's apparently geographically unfavorable to land in Europe on the Mediterranean coast (Spain doesn't really count, by the way; you're not driving through the mountain border to France).
If you want to conquer territory and impose your law, you have to get your men there so they can occupy it (and enforce that claim). If you can't get your men there, you don't control the territory, simple as, and that's as true in 1939 as it is in 2026.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
There's about 250 million North Africans in 2026, the Third Reich had only 80 million people.
I think the real question is what the UK decides to do. (The USSR really isn't "Europe"; if anything, they'd be on the side of Africa- how do they benefit from a strong Europe? Not that they're in any position to attack in '39.) If they intervene on the Continental side, Europe wins; if they intervene on the African side, Europe loses.
Europe has all the manufacturing power but no resources; Africa has all the resources but no manufacturing power.
Nuclear weapons make manpower irrelevant and they can be delivered ballistically into North Africa from European positions (and Germany is famous for this capability); in a world whose neutral countries do not know what they do, there's no taboo against their use (outside of the Africans, but they're at war, so their protests don't matter, not that they would to the average European in 1939).
Once European scientists figure out that it's not only possible, but relatively trivial, to build them (especially if they have colony resources to draw on) the war goes cold the minute Cairo and Tripoli are erased by atomic power. The Africans will have a harder time with it even though they straight up start with a reactor that has already been used to do this, but that has more to do with South Africa than anything else (and the defection of any remaining sympathetic South African scientists will be a huge problem for the Africans- a joint UK/NL expeditionary force securing modern scientific knowledge would be catastrophic for the African position- and European survival is also dependent on who else recognizes this, and by that I mostly mean the Americans).
Something people forget about modern Africa is that currently they have literally zero ability to actually invade Europe (currently their idea of an 'invasion' is a civilian vessel or a Castaway-tier raft; scary in the Bronze Age or maybe Europe ca. 2026). They have no naval forces, no heavy lift aircraft, and very little ability to build them. Sure, they could do an air war as a Pearl Harbor-style shock and awe campaign, but once they're out of ammunition (and more importantly than those things, jet/diesel fuel) they have zero ability to replace them.
By the time they've built that capacity, 1939 Europe is a nuclear state.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
Basically, southern Ontario is being punished for voting wrong with complete economic destruction. All of the "deals" are bullshit cope; Europe won't permit Canada to retain its industry (or sovereignty, honestly) any more than the US would have.
It matters not one bit to LPC voters who will gladly turn anywhere west of Toronto into the next rust belt (especially those in provinces who exist solely because of government welfare, which is everywhere east of Toronto) just so long as they believe they've successfully thrown their weight around because Trump was mean to them on the internet. They're the embodiment of every single complaint made about MAGA.
LPC voters think it'll all go back to normal once Trump is out of office. It won't.
To be fair, this is because 'whore' unpacks to 'sells [your gender's fundamental value, dictated by the other gender's instinct] for money or other benefits as if it was an incidental'. Not unique to sex or women, either; compare 'corporate whore' or 'mercenary' (because for men, their gender's fundamental value is their capacity for violence).
'Slut' means 'enjoys the process of buying and selling so much they fail to care about optimizing the value extracted from that fundamental exchange'.
The difference between a whore and a slut is that the slut would still seek the sex (or the violence) if the mating dance was completely free and doesn't need to be paid to go away afterwards- sex-positive feminists are basically just an overgrown version of that one girl in middle/high school. The whore knows what they have and would prefer money up front.
More options
Context Copy link