ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
No bio...
User ID: 822
Kissing is just cowardice.
And yet we have an example on this very forum of a man who claims that a woman did indeed retroactively decide a kiss was literally rape, and state it in those terms.
How could she think to perpetrate such a slander to all women who might hear? To claim it was "rape" is to claim it was a crime, and a crime has a victim for whom justice must be done, so implicit in the claim is that Something Should Be Done.
The reason she might claim that- be it true or false- is because she knows that, once she does, women (and their simps defenders of female virtue) will take it very seriously and act violently towards him rather than reject her claims until they may be clear and certain that any accusation is correct before repeating the call for physical violence against him. SWATting is a crime for a reason.
I agree that it is cowardice- on the part of women- that prevents the kissing. A guard that stands his post may be many things, but a coward he is not. (In the same way, is it cowardice for a streamer to inform police that this may happen to him, if the only alternative required him to fight the police who have come expecting a violent criminal?)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
7hr ago
I'm saying that when cultures and their personnel deny the inherent human dignity of "being physically and mentally capable of doing something" with the justification that "it's too dangerous for our society", those cultures, and those upholding them, come one step closer to experiencing an outcome that is neither safe nor dignified.
Usually that's death, but it can be some variety of subjugation, too. It comes either from without (by a rival tribe) or within (by the young of your own tribe).
There is ultimately a limit to how safe you can be, and the closer you approach total safety, the closer you are to losing it. Perhaps best to allow a little dignity.
The vast, vast majority of people will never be caught up in a mass shooting.
The sheer number of women destroying (through law) part of the male gender role (men as the martial gender) as collective punishment for a very small number of men abusing that power are indicators that a significant amount of women believe otherwise.
In the same way, the sheer number of men destroying (through inaction) part of the female gender role (women as the gender men fight for) as collective punishment for a very small number of women abusing that power are indicators that a significant amount of men believe otherwise. [They don't have legal power, and men and women are different; so they protect themselves in ways that are mirrored, but not fully symmetric.]
What does historical data show me I gain as a responsible man by taking the high road? Well, I suffer more from female misbehavior ("it is for the good of society that the thing you use to attract women- property- isn't something for you to protect, now let's never prosecute any wrongdoing involving that ever") and destructive women chanting "teach them not to rape" [translation: "it's not our gender's job to fix it, #yesAllMen"] when we take issue with being falsely accused.
What does historical data show women they gain by taking the high road? Well, they suffer more from male misbehavior ("it is for the good of society that the thing you use to attract men- sexual access- isn't something for you to protect, now let's never prosecute any wrongdoing involving that ever") than women who attack at the first provocation as per their legal right and destructive men chanting "fix mental health" [translation: "it's not our gender's job to fix it, #yesAllWomen"] when they take issue with being shot up.
It is unreasonable to expect men, or women, to solve for peace alone. One side can stop defending, but the other will continue attacking, and each has documented evidence of this that goes back a long time. Both are prisoners of the dilemma.
If you wanted to get out of it (and assuming those were the only two grievances, which they are not), perhaps one might consider this approach instead:
When a man does evil with his physical violence, we celebrate the male virtue of those who resisted all instincts of physical self-preservation, and for that reason physically deleted him.
They face the threat their own gender creates through its inherent physical power, and it is dispatched with power and fury as expected of a man working correctly.
The failure of men, and those that are to be prosecuted alongside this one, is they which did not do their utmost in the moment of honor to resist that violence. Those men who, hearing the raping and killing, encouraged it by running away, not subduing it such that it might be brought to justice. [This would be, for example, Uvalde cops- we can check cell phone location records, we know who they are.]
The casualties of this bad man are those that have paid the price demanded by purposefully refusing to lock all men away, such that women may continue to uphold male virtue. For a civil war, against female virtue (of life itself), was waged here, and it was male virtue that paid the price to defend it.
Alternately:
When a woman does evil with her social violence, we celebrate the female virtue of those who resisted all instincts of social self-preservation, and for that reason socially deleted her [basically, a woman who falsely claims a sex crime in this fashion is treated as any other sex offender is now- that will ultimately come down to 'did she scream?', where 'knowingly and intentionally destroyed her ability to do so' is always 'did not scream'.].
They face the threat their own gender creates through its inherent social power, and she is dispatched with power and fury as expected of a woman working correctly.
The failure of women, and those that are to be prosecuted alongside this one, is they which did not do their utmost in the moment of honor to resist that violence. Those women who, hearing the gossip and slander, encouraged it by repeating it, not building a case against it such that it might be brought to justice. [This would be, for example, those who were collaborated with to perpetrate the sexual falsehood, and news organizations that printed the unproven accusation- we can check browser histories and accounts, we know who they are.]
The casualties of this bad woman are those that have paid the price demanded by purposefully refusing to silence all women, such that men may continue to uphold female virtue. For a civil war, against male virtue (of action itself), was waged here, and it was female virtue that paid the price to defend it.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
10hr ago
You can assert what you want. It's not going back to that way.
Many of those who profit handsomely by claiming life was too dangerous for anyone to be permitted to live it said these exact words.
What was the next thing that usually happened to them, and in what measure do you think that reply was deserved?
Which we used to have, but now we can't.
It was destroyed by a legal mechanism permitting mommy and daddy (and you) to bully staff on your behalf to an unlimited degree ex post facto. And I'm not saying all of the BSA rape cases weren't false (nor were the rape cases at other child concentration camps, famously boarding schools, by both administrators and pupils [Eton was famous for this and... to a degree still is, and this is permitted mainly because everyone with the authority to destroy it went there]).
But "accepting that some participants are going to get fucked" is the direct cost of "being real about a lot of facts of life that family and schools can't" (including that some people are out to fuck you), much as it is the direct cost of families and schools more generally.
Indeed, mid-20th century progressive projects were generally heavily focused on abolishing these things as well for that exact reason, and have enjoyed significant success in both; in addition to the destruction above, it's why schools have very few male teachers and why you will be arrested if you let your kids out to play. I explained the mechanism for that in a separate comment.
If you are unwilling, or physically unable, to stare down those consequences, you can't do this.
This reaches the point of unreasonable neurosis.
News of obviously false rape claims appear in national media about as frequently as mass shootings do. The perpetrators are from the same social class, look the same, and are just as unpunishable.
If fear of mass shootings is not considered "unreasonable neurosis", fear of false rape claims can't be either.
Standing down from one can't be done unilaterally- this has been tried, and all that resulted is more unreasonable neurosis. Men and women must realize that and agree to stand down together.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
11hr ago
So they come on your telescreen (by law), are intentionally loud enough to wake everyone up, and 99.99% of the messages translate to "Emmanuel Goldstein is personally raping a child right now, and you can't do anything about it, have a nice day".
I don't think it's confusing as to why a State would prefer that approach at all.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
12hr ago
And, conversely, women tend to be attracted to men who can carry said heavy objects; this expectation creates that opportunity for both sides, not just the one.
(Yes, this was intentionally confused by bad-faith actors; kind of the female equivalent to "no low-cut tops, they're too distracting to men".)
All the more for me, I guess? I dunno.
I guess appreciating those aspects really is rocket science or something. And in their defense it's biologically contraindicated for them to do that, but then again it's also biologically contraindicated for me to do that.
I dunno, it seems to me that marrying far older kind of removes any reason for them to bother to actually adapt, and if you have a sufficient frame of reference you can pretty clearly see where they're headed (occasionally in such measure that you'd want it now). Compared to 'known quantity, take it or leave it, for better or worse'. Which is ironically probably more attractive a quality in women than it is in men, or at least it is from my point of view, when it comes to something that predicts they'll get along with me better.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
and I personally wasn't driving hard anywhere since I respected their inexperience enough I didn't particularly want to escalate to sex unless I really liked the girl and the girl in question didn't really drive to anywhere out of a combination of timidity and not really understanding how to drop the proverbial handkerchief.
Then your parents needed to make sure you respected women in the appropriate measure (rather than respect women enough to disqualify yourself) and in not doing so I honestly think they failed you as hard as 1950-1970s traditionalist fathers did their daughters by encouraging them to be housewives in the face of... absurd unprecedented opportunity to do literally anything else.
It's not like they knew any better, for the same reason parents in the 1960s didn't know any better. And yet.
that complexity generally allows for the support of more human lives.
It allows a larger number of human beings to exist.
It does not allow for the support of more full human lives.
in our environment
Of course, the thing we're debating is whether it's proper for assumptions about your environment to prevent someone else's environment from being suitable for developing such a human being.
I assert that once the physical capacity for this exists, it is incompatible with the dignity of that human being to treat it as if the mental one does not, even if that was the case for most of them.
Because the sociopathic ultimately cares about his power, success, status, reputation.
And this is... unique to the sociopath, somehow?
If you have two different Centers for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too, one run by a sociopath and one run by a relatively reasonable person with sincere love for the pupils, what superseding benefit should we expect from the former?
Well, for it to not go out of business, for one. The purpose of a business is to make money, just as the purpose of life is to reproduce. Whether "going out of business in an environment where such a school is marginally or completely unprofitable" is a moral good or not, I leave to you.
I would expect to see a lot of waste which benefits the owner’s pockets or reputation.
You see waste, I see a price paid to stop him from deciding to do literally anything else. Maybe it's a little, maybe it's a lot, depends on how the market is and his other objectives.
He’ll probably do a lot of worthless assemblies and meetings where he gets to feel powerful, maybe he’ll send flyers to make the town sad about how little they care for the stupid in a bid to bring in private donations, maybe he’ll overstate how much money the school needs so he can pull a bigger salary, maybe he’ll do a whole redesign of the school that doesn’t matter simply because it makes him feel cooler.
In order: 'feeling power' is part of the compensation package, that's called 'an effective marketing strategy' (is it really his fault most people are literally hard-wired to respond to it?), that's called 'negotiating appropriately with government entities' (that either aren't paying attention or don't care), and as for the last one... it's his money, he can do what he wants with it.
Or maybe there’s some “test” that gives him a national ranking so he ignores the holistic needs of the pupils to focus on min-maxxing that one metric, so he can be boastful among his peers.
I thought that was just called "standardized testing". In this case, the metric does not match reality, and so Goodhart-ing is the rational response. And sure, if you actually care, you're going to focus on the other stuff too [because it is good to focus on those things- when non-sociopaths say "give back to the community", this is what they mean- compare car companies sponsoring racing teams, it's not just "drive up demand for the product", these people sometimes like what they're doing if indeed a sociopath is capable of liking anything], but if push comes to shove and the school is not sufficiently profitable otherwise, then yes, I'd expect maximization on the metric.
The 60iq should be trained to fulfill the duties appropriate for his iq, and he should be trained in how to pursue a happy life likewise.
You might have heard this one before.
Let's say you have 3 servants. Let's call them A, B, and C.
You have 800 dollars to distribute between them, so that they will invest those dollars and make you more money.
How should you distribute those dollars to maximize your return on investment, including what those employees cost?
If you give servant A X dollars, and he returns with 2X dollars, should he be honored more, less, or the same amount than the servant B, who you gave X-3 dollars, but returns 2*(X-3)?
How about the servant C, who does nothing?
If he justifies not doing anything by claiming the oppression inherent within the system was too much for him to handle (a point on which he is correct), how would you respond?
Ideally, each person would have the same amount of wellbeing (high), sacrificing his own for another in need
if anyone is to receive an overabundance in wellbeing
Your examples are all instrumental: "an overabundance" is seed money. Seed money for someone who isn't going to work as hard is wasted; it should have gone to the man who could have used it.
If you want to be a wellbeing-maximalist we therefore agree that the transfer goes both ways- that's what the "to each according to their need" part means (otherwise you're paying the guy who is more capable than you less just because he is more capable, and it's fundamentally destructive to do this to the guy who is [in a sense] holding your world up lest he exercise his right to display indifference to that task).
The dirty little secret of Marx and Rand is that, assuming all parties [both the "sociopath" who can see things clearly and the others who are less able] are Christ-like, they reach the same conclusion. The requirements for someone barely capable of anything, capable of some, and capable of much to be Christ-like are all different, and when we decide that "no, actually, they're all the same", we have cheated whoever that reflects least.
I think cheating is bad.
If you need me to bring further receipts for the claim, I can take the time to do that; I feel as if I've been running a little hotter in that respect than usual lately.
However, as far as "no pushback against law that states female abuse doesn't happen", this one is honestly pretty clear. So's the "male statutory rape victim forced to pay child support" one. So was the UK rape law that, for quite some time, was written so that only men could even be guilty of the crime (it requires anatomy women do not possess). Canada, too- "we'll change the law so men accused of rape can't as easily gather evidence of the women collaborating to frame the guy" actually happened, again with zero pushback.
I think men are obsessed with Protecting Women; I think women are happy to say "thank you very much" and pocket the resulting political power differential while at best simply looking the other way when women abuse men (from women's perspective). The female jurors are, as I recall from previous threads on the subject, literally on record stating that Protect Women is why they voted that way.
These have largely replaced long effortposts when people would at least bother to pretend the capability to consider the thoughts being thought by people who are not them.
I've tried, I just get downvoted without engagement. And yes, I'm frustrated by the fact nobody wants to bother to ask then, what's in your head?; it is present here, it is present there, it is present everywhere.
(Perhaps the men and women getting married are doing so simply because they are, on average, the only human beings on the planet capable of asking at least their life partner that question merely at a higher than average base rate. Education predicts that much, at least.)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
But if you let the sociopathic guide the low IQ
You seem to be under the impression that this is not a natural process, and you have control over if it happens or not.
But it is natural, and you are not in control of it. So you best hope you treat them well, lest they remember you.
Seems to be infinite ways for him to ignore the Important Thing to act selfishly.
Why would you think the moral requirements for an idiot and a savant are the same? (Are you a communist?) The system includes both of them, but the moral requirements are not. (Requires prerequisite: 'equality of effort'.)
Every sociopath will eventually be tempted to do what you have described (and indeed, their work will on occasion look like this to some degree); it is their responsibility not to do that (or they suffer one of the worst fates, that being not getting to exercise that ability any more- it's kind of like being locked in, Mr. House style, until they are dead).
And it is incorrect to expect sociopaths to not benefit themselves. That's how they are paid for that unique ability. (See also: US politicians. They're not paid directly, but indirectly through the power to pass policies that will enrich themselves far beyond that measly six-figure salary.)
Their burden is choosing between "right" and "more right", not "wrong" and "right".
That is not the job of the idiot. It is the job of the idiot to contribute, because that is all he can do. Maybe he knows that, maybe he doesn't, but that is irrelevant to what is required of him.
Their burden is simply choosing between "wrong" and "right". It takes just as much effort for them to do the right thing as it takes the sociopath to do the more right thing.
Equality of effort, not equality of outcome. Some people are better than others and thus deserve more than you do, just as Abel was (effortlessly, and in the exact ways you initially described "selecting a sociopath"- he bore a greater offering from natural alignment, Cain brought a lesser sacrifice for personal gain).
Cain, famously, had extreme difficulty accepting this concept. He found the rock easier to grasp.
So 66% of men, n = 3, agree that female abuse is literally beyond their ability to comprehend.
(And the 33% was of a particular demographic whose women are stereotypically maximally hostile to men.)
The teenage laborforce participation rate never really recovered from the 2008 crash.
Teenage labor force participation rate never really recovered from the 1934 crash. There was a brief respite in the '50s and '60s, which is why they were golden years by comparison, and why the generation in charge now, who came of age during that time, still act as if that is reality.
It's because boys are stupid and men are awesome.
Nah, bro. Men are lame, boring, decrepit, and dead inside. Boys might be annoying, but at least they actually bother to live... until men teach them they shouldn't, commonly around the late teens. (Women haven't figured out they need to encourage men yet; it might be as incomprehensible to women as "women can be abusers too" clearly is for men.)
I remember observing this viewpoint emerge gradually among late-teen male peers and not necessarily because they were told, which leads me to believe the willingness to actually live properly for once ends in one's teens.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
I would still argue that less sex is more due to fewer relationships + lower social skills.
And women carrying out their version of mass shootings/abductions- false rape allegations and pedo panic-ing- against men. Rare, but highly destructive, and a crime that's always perpetrated by women of the same social class/race.
And every man knows this. Accusations of sexual impropriety are assault, and the iPhone (and social media) are the assault weapon.
One is just as destructive as the other to the social fabric.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Don't underestimate the appeal of men who have government permission to kill to some women.
Note that "men signalling they can/will kill for you" is the root here. ("Government permission" is whitewashing it.)
Normally, too many women chasing too few men do result in debauchery and lower standards, yet that is not what we are seeing.
So obviously, there aren't too many men relative to the number of women.
Men are in surplus. Women are not. Men can't accumulate enough of a resource surplus in these conditions to be worth it for the average woman. (And no, "women are worse today" doesn't matter [whether that is true, I make no judgment]. Women are in deficit; therefore they are free to enshittify.)
I will point out that in large degree, this is eugenics in action; women who good enough to get along with men are marrying them, women who are not are not, so the next generations will likely be far more psychologically healthy than the current crop of feminists and inherit a world that has enough economic opportunity per capita for men to continue in a healthy way.
Automation makes the "clearing price" for humanity rise. So does pornography (adventure substitute, romance substitute, free for both genders in enough quantity and quality to fill one's entire life- the automation frees up people to make this stuff).
Every woman and man who come in under the clearing price cannot afford to be with each other. And given the divorce rates in the '70s, maybe that's the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (involving the State stepping in to matchmake).
What you are witnessing is the natural population control cycle of post-scarcity humans.
You don't have an example of that ingrained into your instinct because it has literally never happened before; if you're a man, that's why you hate life (and the concept that any man younger than you should have it better than you did), and simp so hard for women and get nothing in return.
Pre-scarcity, this would have precipitated a civil war and the population control would have happened that way, restoring men to the ~10% population deficit human instinct seems to always assume exists. (Can't imagine why that would be at all.)
Post-scarcity, population control happens one natural funeral at a time, because it turns out your chains have never before set so lightly upon you compared to what it would cost to break them.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
I think there would be considerable pushback against a law that is that explicit about stating that female abuse doesn't happen and that only men can be abusers.
How many male jurors pushed back against the Clancy verdict?
I don't think there would be any pushback; I think men would actively welcome this.
and the fact that most men and women enjoy sex with each other suggests that it must be possible for the man and the woman to satisfy each other's desires at the same time
It's the lock-step I'm most interested in. Because I don't think they are satisfied at the same time; I think the mating dance of 'dinner and a show' and then 'sex' is like that for a reason, so when 'I don't want to have sex that way' comes out, it's 'the song and dance beforehand isn't good enough for me to want to have sex that way'.
But if no man can perform well enough to merit the sex because the woman has already separately prohibited dining and shows, then that ask is fundamentally unreasonable [and has to be accompanied by 'back off on the prohibition on dining and shows', and a proper understanding of why that prohibition made asking for less sex unreasonable, to be honored].
What happens right now is... very much not that. You can't convict someone of being unfair if you are unwilling to first speak their language, and since women think it is fair (and have received zero comprehensible communication that tells them it is not), it falls to men to open that line of communication.
Yet, I don't see them attempting this; it's all just "retvrn to veiling our she-devils" or whatever, and then all anyone on the other side hears is "they don't understand and they just want to replace shitty 21st century sexual relations with shitty 19th century sexual relations; selfishness is rational, guess it's back to Plan A".
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
Yet we see that most don't do this... So?
Maybe they're more interested in being the Designated Bad Guy and attacking symbolically (or having specific grievances that cannot be resolved in anything other than the current semi-targeted fashion) rather than wanting to rack up serious body count.
Nobody who can elaborate on how has anything to gain by doing so, and as soon as you become able to elaborate on how, you are now one of those people who has nothing to gain.
So I guess I confess that my observation was based on vibes and anecdotes.
Oh, no- so is mine.
And... sorry about that. /c/ is the 'cute anime girls' board, /cm/ is the 'cute anime boys' board, /u/ is the yuri one, /y/ is the yaoi one, /h/ is the vanilla porn board. (/hm/ is turbo-gay and full of nude men, /b/ is the everything board.)
I actually figure the 'cute' boards are ironically more representative precisely because they're non-central examples of sexuality; there's no nudity on either one (mostly), and it's not generally something anyone wants to admit is sexual mainly because it's really embarrassing for both parties (which I find fascinating and mysterious).
My running theory at this point is that male and female sexualities are mirror images that are supposed to compliment each other, but are not symmetric. So, before one should adjust a visible piece of, say, male sexuality, you then have to back-derive which aspect of female sexuality maps to it, and then ask for moderation in that piece for compromise.
I think "well, stop men from sexualizing us" is more productively mapped to "well, stop women from taking away our ability to perform in a way such that they will be attracted to us". The other way is rejected by both men and women, because running it backwards results in an invalid state (i.e. "why are you saying women are sexual predators? Only men can rape"), and that state will continue to be invalid. In an environment where equality between genders exists- an equality neither gender was ever equipped to handle (and is depending on physical effects to moderate its impulses that was largely automated away 100 years ago)- co-operation is only possible if the right questions are asked.
Perhaps, but you and I are both at least literate and capable of noticing patterns.
But I will remind you that, specifically in a nation that uses the word "femicide", that such a State inherently has a non-negative and non-zero incentive to remind you, in one of the more disruptive ways available to it, to imply that a man (perhaps happenstance they're mostly men, but convenient) is abducting random children to set on fire.
The alarm fatigue serves to reinforce "this is the new normal, here's yet another abduction or 'climate emergency' [even though the tidal waves have even less to do with that]" for those citizens who are so inclined to see them that way.
More options
Context Copy link