ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
No bio...
User ID: 822
Is it really that disgusting for a straight man to think about having sex with a man?
I think that's generally a comorbidity with being straight, yeah (complaints about miscegenation have a similar root back when race was a purity thing). I get that the enterprise world has tried to tamp down expressions of 'yeah that's disgusting', and it's not, uh, PC to say it- but(t) in places that don't care about that you'll still hear expressions of it.
It's definitely a queer thing to even consider much less actively pursue; hell, if most women take it as an active cost to have sex with men [and I'm pretty sure most men understand this to some degree], why would a man want to do it if he's not getting the other stuff women are, traditionally, supposed to get out of sex? At least with women you usually get wine'd and dine'd, men just hear the Grindr ping and proceed straight to the bath house (or whatever- I get that's a simplification but, like, is the stereotype that inaccurate?).
The only time it's not gay for a straight man to think about it is if they're 2D and pulling off the female uniform well, but that's also purpose-built superstimulus. Most men don't look or act like that (outside of the rare femboy, and attraction to those is generally waved off as "anything that makes my dick hard is a woman"- like, we get it, that's why it's funny to fluster each other over "traps are gay")[1].
it really does push you a decent % of the way towards the opposite sex in terms of physiology and psychology.
This is where you lose me, because of the people that I know that are on HRT, none have changed in this way. Now, I guess you could say that "well, doesn't that just prove they have female brains all along?", but their general mannerisms do not suggest that was true to begin with. (Which is why I generally tend to think of them as, well, ex-men.)
[1] Though I will point out that, especially if they're tall, easily-flustered, and have a cute face... I mean, it's not like I wouldn't consider it (and I suspect that the emotions I feel when considering it are closer to what women [are supposed to] feel about men, though I am suspicious enough of the "euphoria boner" effect that I'm unwilling to say the mental pathways being activated here are not just projection). Not like I haven't been exposed to it from some other ostensibly-straight guy being attracted to me for what in hindsight may have been similar reasons, either, but then again most LGBT discourse/definition is so incredibly selfish and destructive that the categories have no explanatory power beyond a means to justify the same so I can't in good faith claim any of this fits the bill.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
11hr ago
tend to be espoused by the people least disposed to impose those restrictions on themselves or hold themselves to that standard
You can just say "moral hazard".
What the LARPy version does is it breaks that by making everyone focus on what they were supposed to get and ignoring the requirements for how they are to behave
Yes, but what else do you expect from those people? The people traditionalism didn't need to force responsibility on to (or for whom that force would have had a negative/redistributive impact) are already happily married under the current system.
The market floor of "how much conscientiousness do you need to secure a marriage [in addition to the other things]" has, simply put, gone up. And the unpleasant reality is that enforcing traditionalism for the benefit of these people would be nothing more than a forcible redistribution of conscientiousness from those who have it to those who don't, because virtue is its own sort of capital.
That's not even saying it's wrong to do that, or that it is not necessary (because it very well may be), but any neo-traditionalist thought that fails to understand this is just selfish noise.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
11hr ago
Sure, it runs on boys suck it up; girls suck it up.
Well, no. (Actually, I'd argue traditionalism really doesn't "run" on anything so much as it is a mostly-blind adaptation to it. But this is also coming from someone who sees [the kind of person who becomes a] traditionalist and [the kind of person who becomes a] progressive as the exact same thing, in their hearts.)
The problem here has always been economic. Before the advent of the "energy wherever we want it"- hallmark of the early 20th century- that was literal man power. There's a concept called "primary and secondary goods" that explains this pretty well- men extract primary goods (sexual dimorphism gives men an advantage in this area), women turn those primary goods into secondary goods (including children, it's worth noting). The problem, of course, is that while not having secondary goods is bad, not having primary goods is catastrophic. Sociofinancial power, then, is naturally controlled by men.
And so here's where I tap my sign: traditionalism (Abramic religions most famously) simply doesn't have an answer for when [the place men get their power from] is supplanted by technology- except for the null answer which is "turn inwards and die"[1]. And this resulted in two things:
- Men are constantly berated/judged for a lack of progress in avenues to power [which brings with it attractiveness] that no longer exist, and
- Traditionalism had no other significant check on the sociopoilitcal power of women beyond that which was imposed by the state of nature
Which is why traditionalism gave way to progressivism, and was also why the 20th century (and especially the first half) was full of alternative answers to one or both of those questions (what that answer actually was depended on the local conditions: communism is a natural fit for places with a low ratio of people to economic opportunity like Russia or China [or the entirety of the Middle Ages- equally worthless is still equal], whereas fascism is natural for places with a high ratio like 1930s Germany). Technology naturally drives this ratio down, which is part of why fascism really isn't a viable answer today while communism remains sympathetic[2].
Those questions still haven't really been resolved, because the winner of that conflict was the only remaining frontier nation (that didn't at the time, and still doesn't, have any productive way to answer this question beyond "be rich lol") that threw resources at the conflict until it vassalized basically the entire world, and if your society has a more productive answer to that question you'll just get invaded. So it goes.
[1] Now, I get that a lot of men really do like this [even some intelligent ones, on occasion]; especially since the Taliban spent 20 years providing an object lesson to the West in just how successful a strategy like that could be, and the fact the largest cities didn't even bother to resist them suggested that Taliban rule was what [the men responsible for holding up the US-led order] wanted all along. Which is a valid assumption, because the US-led order offers literally nothing to men, and if it happened in the continental US many believe that a campaign of white feathers would be ineffective.
[2] Socialism naturally occurs in populations where the variance in ability to extract that economic opportunity, and the variance in that opportunity, is low (for a variety of reasons both internal, like bad land, or external, like being a vassal state of a greater power); liberalism naturally occurs when it is high (great powers not being liberal is historically unusual).
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
1d ago
that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes
Of course, what people fail (perhaps intentionally) to realize is that traditionalism gave way to those modern woes. Which means that sure- be as Based and Trad as you want- but in 50 years you'll be right back where you started with the same problems Traditionalism failed to answer productively in the first place. This is the fundamental flaw of reactionary thought.
The biggest giveaway for this is the fact that "women don't think men are good enough, women most affected" is literally front and center in the article. Not to bang the "traditionalists are just yesterday's progressives" drum too hard here, but this is a pretty clear example of that[1].
Traditionalism does not have an answer for this[2]- in fact, it's one of its weak points, so weak that it was completely displaced by feminism!
So any productive solution to that problem is going to need to understand why traditionalism succeeded despite its failure to evolve any reason/why it never evolved any reason to have an answer for the modern environment, and which isn't just a barely-disguised way to vent about those said modern environment currently privileges ("muh sinful entitled whores").
But then again, people who are succeeding don't have reason to spend time thinking inventing novel sociopolitical philosophies (or spend time implementing, say, a series of technologies that could push society in that direction), especially ones that will only help the poor at the expense of the rich, and doubly so if it would require more effort.
[1] A meme of "X first" applied blindly/traditionally is destructive when X fail to serve the biological function that result in them needing to be first.
[2] Of course, much like communism, true traditionalism has never been tried.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
3d ago
There are more stupids today than in the past.
Obvious comment about outgroup midwits, aside, no, there aren't. The cost of labor in Western society being so absurdly high is actually an indication of this- there aren't enough people who will only amount to just enough that you can get away with paying them what their work is worth, so you have to pay them more.
The problem is that most of the high-potential (specifically, as defined by Boomer logic) people are competing for positions that pay less and less every day. It's not so much "elite overproduction" as it is an oversupply of people that can do harder intellectual tasks, so paradoxically they're working those more difficult jobs for less money due to market saturation (and it remains to be seen to what extent AI will devour what remains).
It is that oversupply that has resulted in the complete destruction of this group's human rights. Parenting rights? Gone. Right to self-defense in the places you're forced to go? Gone. Freedom of association? Gone. The pretense that rules could be appealed to? Gone. People didn't get less self-controlled (as crime rates over the last 30 years pretty clearly show); what happened was that the people who could control themselves managed to breed themselves into such oversupply that it's not a scarce resource any more.
This is why this group falls all over itself to paean anti-racist causes, and ruin the lives of those who (quite reasonably) object to those policies- there are too many of them to distinguish naturally between them, so self-oppressing bullshit will be invented such that a distinction can again be drawn (and those doing the selecting can feel morally absolved because they can tell themselves it was about Muh Privilege). This is why purity spirals work.
It's basically what would happen if "take a trade instead" was taken seriously by all of the middle class that go into higher education now- you'd have people performing that trade at a far lower wage relative to what they would get as a mere operator (with no credential)- the operator salary might be less, but not that much less, because most of the wage is coming from the qualification of "is butt at workstation", and the marginal value of intelligence for that task diminishes incredibly quickly.
You can't draw a chief's wage for chief's work if you don't have enough Indians.
he deserves the same education as any other kid
Which is an indication that society is at a point where the educated are in oversupply. He deserves it precisely because it no longer makes a difference, and at that point the pageantry of education is what matters: a costly signal from the group in oversupply meant to distinguish themselves as "one of the good ones". Which is important when there are too many of you.
The US hit that point in the '60s, and Forrest Gump is a period piece.
In case you were wondering what the effects of an oversupply of smart/high potential people looks like for a particular region, here it is.
The stupid, disruptive, and aggressive are actually in socioeconomic undersupply, which is why they alone have the privilege to not be similarly forcibly handicapped if they do that. After that it's just a case of rich get richer.
Were the balance equal, the high potential people would have the social power to hit back; if high potential people were in undersupply, beating one would be similarly against the law.
If/when race is an effective proxy for high/low potential, institutional racism is never far behind. This is why South Africa could do apartheid for so long (and it fell apart just like it did for the rest of the world- high potential people stopped being in deficit and started being in surplus, and as such couldn't sustain their social position), and is why progressives are [publicly] racist against "their own" race. It's merely an attempt to ingratiate oneself with they who circumstances have privileged.
This is also why mass immigration and no-human-is-illegal, intentionally importing this class, sound reasonable as a way to fix this issue. But it turns out that doing this runs up against the privileges of the natives who are in undersupply for the same reason, which is why it is in their interest that they vote for someone who will stop the erosion of their privilege!
A right to overthrow the government
Which is in actual fact a right to overthrow the people, which necessarily means it's a right to be a military threat to your neighbor, anywhere you might go. (Blue is correct that "stand your ground" means this.) Just like 1A is the right to be a social threat to them, and just like 4A is the right to not have to deal with your neighbor's fishing trips because he believes you're doing blatantly illegal things (even if it is very obvious that you are indeed breaking the law).
This generally makes even liberals uncomfortable, because it all of a sudden means that they're relying on their neighbor's good will not to shoot them. If the only thing that keeps you from dying on the road is the unwillingness of other drivers to cross the center line and kill you, then "unwillingness" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and everyone generally understands that encouraging deployment of the Final Argument of Kings can/will lead to defect/defect spirals.
Mass shootings (in the case where they're workplace violence) make people very uncomfortable (in a way gang violence doesn't, but that's generally because it's confined to certain areas and considered a lost cause) because it's very clearly their own private civil war. Some fight it for nihilism, others fight it because they're So Oppressed about Current Problem, but this is in fact what they are doing and why. And sometimes the soldiers (on either side) look like this.
People like to say "overthrow the government", as if the government wasn't following the wishes of the people. A majority of people in the US (and most other nations) are of the belief that the people can do no wrong- in other words, they have sovereign immunity. A mad king with 100 million heads is just as destructive as a mad king with one- actually, even more so, because a decapitation strike against the former is indistinguishable from a genocide (Israel/Hamas being a good and recent example).
But peoples have been wrong all the time. The vast majority of peoples of the West (and East, for that matter) were pretty famously wrong in 2020-2022 when they caused runaway inflation and trillions of dollars in economic destruction because they were absolutely hysterical about the uncommon cold. It is possible that threat of paramilitary action kept some People saner than others.
If "people [you] consider subhuman don't get to" is an exception to a right, it's not a right. Remember, these groups are also overwhelmingly victims of violent crime, and that'll be true gun or no gun. They're also, overwhelmingly, the soldiers you'd have for your rebellion.
Also, "subhumans" is "the whole of Red" from Blue's perspective anyway, which is why the complete lack of compromise is optimal for you/them.
Koch types can’t own nukes.
Too late; Elon Musk's business is ICBMs.
race restrictions are easy to enforce
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4d ago
A muscular conservative court would roll it back
True; hate speech as broad exception has been the Dem [read: conservative] cause/excuse for doing so for as long as I can remember, and a good chunk of 1A cases have already gone down that way.
However, the court isn't muscularly liberal on 2A as Red was hoping (for the same kind of advancement and cultural shift that it would force on Blue states as the incorporation on 1A was for Red states back then- turns out a sizeable minority in Blue states actually want guns, perhaps to protect themselves against the obvious consequences of Blue policies?), and that's still the central issue here.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
4d ago
But that's not really framed differently, especially in context of, I dunno, 1A. That's been held to protect citizens of [every] state from State government overreach, which is why it's a problem that 2A isn't treated the same way.
Not that 1A doesn't get threatened in things like the DefDist case, which is Blue states trying to make law for the rest of the nation; I see no reason that an election or an appointment shouldn't have consequences when Blue states lose them and "but muh court packing" is special pleading.
We need an entirely new conservative wing
The Dems are the new conservative wing (i.e. Rightists), whether you like what that is or not. "Slam the brakes on every new development, intentionally make sure problems aren't fixed, keep giving power to the bureaucracy like we've done for the last 60 years" is not exactly a liberal thing, though I get that the term's been redefined away from what it used to mean.
GOP are reformers (i.e. Leftists), again, whether you like what that is or not. This is the "bureaucracy has done fine, but the regulations it's demanding are too expensive" people, which... well, looks like they're a natural complement to the new guys who are also saying this. It's more salient now that the US is poorer; those regulations were passed in a richer time.
It turns out you can't run a country based entirely on having a victim complex and a dream
The entire Anglosphere, and Western Europe, literally all do this. Have been for decades. Seems to have worked out well for the Establishment.
(The victim complex and dream is very gyno-centric; "It's Her Turn" and all that.)
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
7d ago
go all the way, don't just pussy-foot around the matter
This is part of why I can't start playing FC4. I know that the correct way to play the game is the ending where you don't play the game, and I also know that there's no "well fuck you, I guess I'll just kill everyone and become Pagan Twin" ending like there should have been.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
8d ago
But the weirdos need to be given their own private space to work and we need to acknowledge that they're weird and shouldn't be doing things for the general public.
Which is both the blessing and curse of individualism.
The duty of individuals in such a system is that they need to acknowledge that they're weird, and that the general public shouldn't be emulating them if they don't already know they're compatible with weirdness (in contrast to how human nature/instinct normally work). But knowing that in the first place usually requires enough disagreeability that they can't follow that rule.
And after you've cleared that hurdle, "knowing what advice to ignore and what to integrate" is itself very difficult. It might not be worth your time/energy to be special even if you're above-average.
The problem is that, when these people are successful, people start trying to copy their methods without being able to copy what made them able to succeed with those methods, especially when that copying is because they want an excuse to be lazy and get credit for indulging their base instincts. (This is the "Visionary X was an asshole to his workers, so that means it's OK for me to do it to mine" thing- but you are not X, and don't offer the value he does. This is kind of an emergent property of societies where the class structure is perceived/taken as morally good to be flat.)
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
9d ago
Many states
What proportion of those are Blue?
If intended parents matter more to the state than genetic parent, it doesn't make sense to start genetic testing.
Genetic testing in this case would protect the man and bind the Woman. Obviously not going to fly in a gynosupremacist environment.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
9d ago
I have no idea how a judge said that with a straight face as he ordered a child to pay child support
I get that this is rhetorical, but here's the actual answer:
He ordered a man to pay child support.
A man is not a child, and being male takes precedence; furthermore, men can't be raped (their age of consent is 0- no Woman would ever actively want to fuck a man so this doesn't create any downstream problems, especially the most objectively attractive kind of Woman, that being a 16 year old one). The male gender role is to do the fucking, so this was Consensual, thus forcing him to take Responsibility makes trivial sense.
The only reason we pretend men can be raped is just basic gender equality, but that's just a fig leaf: they get the title but none of the protections that being a victim of the same grants Women. If we could get away with it, we would set the age of consent for Women to be infinite, even within the confines of a marriage (because otherwise, a Woman couldn't have Her husband thrown in jail if he displeased Her by retroactively revoking consent -> claiming marital rape, as all sex with Women is illegal).
TL;DR It was base human instinct.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
9d ago
In the Western world, the law is both
"You were the owner/prison warden of your wife, if anyone else had sex with her you were clearly in on it or negligent in your duties as a husband."
and
"The wife has zero duties whatsoever, including the duty not to get pregnant with another man's child. If a husband attempts to assert any duty, he will be punished."
at the same time.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
9d ago
if the man and woman are married
I'm not sure where you're from, but on planet Earth, cheating is generally cause for not being married any more, notably even in religions that are normally incompatible with divorce.
It not being the husband's kid is undeniable evidence that this happened, and further, undeniable evidence that the wife concealed that fact. (The mother is not confused- the baby comes out of the mother.)
The purpose of this law is simply to limit the woman's liability for cheating in a relationship, while leaving it unlimited for the man (any intent behind that is an exercise for the reader). It's consistent with the other laws that limit the duties the woman has to the man in a marriage.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
9d ago
Just reversing the gender roles shows how insane this can be. A grown woman and little kid. The woman wants kids, the boy does not. The wife manages to get pregnant without the kid's consent (since this was is rape by law).
The boy then must pay child support to the woman for the raising of the kid.
Literally legal precedent in the US.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
9d ago
I care about the mother’s and child’s interests
As opposed to, and at the cost of, the father's interests.
"But women > men" is the only real argument here.
Perhaps most Marxists don't want to abolish the family.
But, most people who want to abolish the family are Marxists.
This is generally because they can't get a family for themselves for some reason, and they want [the qualities that make others able to do that] to be taken away from you and given to them. (Or they're academics.)
The way that's accomplished is to maximize the threat each person in the relationship poses to each other. This can range from most of the basic Western stuff that's "only" financially ruinous- no-fault divorce, alimony, child support- to the more extreme stuff like encouraging children to inform on their parents, separating them entirely Residential Schools-style, or mandating them be grown in a lab and punishing all sex as rape (the Demolition Man/1984 approach). Nobody's gone back to this in the modern age yet, but if they did, it'd look more like [1].
In this way, "the capacity to maintain a family" is redistributed by the State, with those that have it paying more of the bill in the form of needless oppression (as spouses and parents lack the moral hazards the State [as an extension of the people demanding redistribution] has in this matter), while at the same time allowing those with less to escape the consequences of lacking it by having the State exert pressure on the other member(s) in legible, pre-defined ways.
[1] The Harrison Bergeron-style handicapping method for functional families, where you're not allowed to talk to each other beyond an AI intermediate that perfectly mimics your [family member] screaming personalized insults at you for X amount of time before you can listen to whatever else they want to talk to you about. Conversations between couples are ranked based on how much you disagree naturally, so it could be several days before you're allowed to speak a single word to each other, in order to level the playing field for couples that can't do that.
(Actually, AI offers so many other possibilities for the virtue-Marxist; this is just one of them. Imagine a system imposed on you whose sole purpose is to cause you unbearable pain until you've abused your spouse or kid comparable to the State average. It's a handicapper general's, or equity commissioner's, wet dream.)
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
10d ago
I hope we are not reaching a point where anything feminine, cute, or pretty is immediately seen as sexy.
No, you're only seeing the connection drawn here because:
a.) angry women on the Internet want to Problematize it and equate "men getting to interact with the cute/feminine" = "pedophilia [as the most effective proxy for 'offensive to Female Privilege']"
b.) angry men on the Internet actually did see it as sexy and are crimestop-ing, or are just simping/pretending to for the benefit of the aformentioned angry women
But it seems like an unfortunate side effect of internet memes that anything that can be sexualised will be
Well, it sure beats only one gender having the privilege to determine what is sexual and what is not. That way lies your "don't worry we won't tell your folks; when you're at school, you're a girl"s.
Or, to paraphrase:
Sarah Miller: I wasn't attracted to this, and she is kind of homely. I'm not attracted to butch haircuts or neotenous features, so that means nobody else would ever be either. By the way, I did not get along with the girls when I was in elementary school.
Diana: I was attracted to this, and that made me uncomfortable. This means other people will be attracted to this temptress too, and that's a thoughtcrime and bad. This is especially funny because of where I'm posting this opinion. Anyway, I think pedophiles would choose this one, 100%, even though I just got done explaining about how this looks nothing like an actual kid.
(This is mainly because I don't actually think "pedophilia" has anything to do with actual kids, and is more about policing men around young women, which my mind tells me this is; obviously this here is an attempt to get around that.)
This isn't really that difficult to understand.
ThisIsSin
Anarchotyranny is when you don't know what the rules are
10d ago
robbing it of what is supposed to be attractive to a pedo, come to think of it, defeating the point?
Yes, trivially.
However, adult features (and behaviors) on children are what the average person thinks pedos like (re: Cuties, etc.), so they get set off on child beauty pageantry, etc.
Of course, how would said average person ever encounter someone who would point that out, given the room temperature around the topic is so hysterical it [approves of] calling the cops on men out with their daughters?
Yes. To be fair, he was pretty girly (and pretty big) before. I guess she smells the part now, though that's complicated by failing to take regular showers and living in a house that has a strong natural odor, and the transition isn't as clear moobs to boobs.
Hmm, I guess the collaborative model should suggest men are supposed to do that as well. (At the risk of doubling down on a poor argument), maybe I'm just thinking the setup for the sex is what's doing the getting off if the partner is themselves not particularly attractive/somewhat obnoxious during the sex.
(It also reminds me that hookup culture is probably better seen as a low-risk way to have a bunch of different glimpses into how this works and not "just a step up from masturbation". I guess that requires nuance or something.)
More options
Context Copy link