ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
3hr ago
it is indicative of a society that doesn't feel a lot of pressure to push older minors into the workforce, not a society struggling to find employment opportunities for its people.
I'm not as sure; I think it's both. That's why the warehousing exists the way it does; it adds pressure to keep the under-18 set (and under-25 set with respect to college for the white-collar professions) out of the workforce.
There's not enough economic opportunity to employ them sustainably. There used to be, which is why their workforce participation was higher in days when there was more economic opportunity for that (and is part of why society tolerates the credentialism spiral that normally consumes the objectively best days of one's life, that being your early twenties).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6hr ago
I would not characterize the ad as 'shitposting'.
Shitposting, saber-rattling, attempting to propagandize a foreign nation/people your economic future depends on for ego reasons...
not having a trade deal is leaving quite a bit of money on the table
For the Canadians, yes, which is the point of Trump loudly turning 360 degrees and walking away. Not really as much for the Americans.
It's actually kind of a paradox, where American foreign policy is designed to encourage a more pro-business/pro-reality elite in other countries, which then results in a stronger country that's then more able to tell the Americans 'no'.
Naturally, the hyper-conservative elite [this can also be voter blocs if political representation is sufficiently slanted in their favor, and the Canadian political system is this way by design] hates that idea, especially because the last few administrations were happy to both let them free trade their way to prosperity so long as they threw Pride parades and DEId. Thanks in great part to the US having kept this up for so long, these ideas are now the baseline conservative position, which is part of why conservative elites like them (the other reason is because it's a way to pretend they're on the side of the young).
Now that a liberal has taken power the elite in those countries feel empowered to keep on keeping on. They aren't as capable of rapid change as the Americans are, mainly because the people who were capable of that emigrated to the US a long time ago (or who never reproduced due to the deaths of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers in the Great European Mass Suicides of the 1910s and 1940s).
I think Ontario is basically well within its rights to use ads to affect US trade policy.
And the US is well within its rights to set trade policy however it likes. The government of Ontario clearly has the money to spend on foreign propaganda so clearly they're not suffering too badly.
Even if the ad was paid for by Carney
It probably wasn't (considering the incentives at play, I think the corresponding denouncement was genuine), and that's actually kind of a big deal. Individual provinces have been more effective at influencing foreign trade policy than the Federal government is, for better (Smith) or for worse (Ford). What good's the Federal government if it won't do this, and has revealed to instead be too weak to enforce message discipline on its constituents?
it still makes sense to negotiate.
This is a negotiation- the corporate arm of the people of Ontario being one of the interested parties. The fact that those people still see fit to go out of its way to shitpost is actually relevant; I wouldn't want to do business with them either.
And sure, maybe the Supreme Court rules it all illegal and everything goes back to normal, in which case Ford can take a win back to his most elderly, jingoistic supporters and not spend much goodwill on the people who had to pay for them. That's the gamble he's taking here; perhaps it'll pay off, perhaps it won't.
Assuming that PM Carney has control over Ford would be like assuming that Trump has control over Newsom.
You're assuming the average American knows or cares about Canadian political structure? Canada is a monolith to Americans, especially those living in the East (that's why the meme is '51st' and not '51 to 55'). But then again, I think this makes more sense if understood as an intra-Canadian political slapfight that more tangentially happens to involve the US.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1d ago
And really, it's so much more ridiculous than even that.
It's perfectly coherent. Just take the initial biological condition that the modal women has to work for a man to get resources from him, then model women as a sex worker's union (employed by men for sex) and marriage as a lifetime contract for that sex work.
Feminism really is just Marxism with "all men" as the collective employer.
but a lot of people are mere animals in this
We call those people 'men'. (Being more animalistic means you can afford a higher-quality mate in primitive circumstances.)
and a lot of other people treasure the connection and pleasure someone else appears to obtain from the coupling
We call those people 'women'. (Being better at this means you can demand a higher-quality mate in primitive circumstances[0].)
Some people are trans to varying degrees (women seeking sex as end, men actively seeking woman's pleasure), and trans is very over-represented in popular media and on the internet (and among certain subcultures, especially classical liberal ones- the Sexual Revolution was trans pride in this sense, and you kind of have to be trans to be classically liberal anyway re: Haidt's Moral Foundations[1] so the two go hand in hand) even without active attempts at banning traditional thought for outer party middle class members. (Even 1984 didn't go that far.)
I think the people who are not trans are far more prevalent than we think, especially if we note it's a fallback mode; I think the people who are not trans are more likely to be the people doing physical work (and women have other options than 'trying to opt-out of environments of physical labor in which you would not be competitive as fast as humanly possible', which is abnormal with respect to human evolution).
And I get that we want to try to erase that past (for various reasons- a lot of it has to do with the generation in power taking the end of that extremely personally re: feminism) because muh End of History, but we function this way for a reason. You can't be beyond male and female without understanding what a man or woman is.
[0] And by "primitive circumstances" I mean the ancestral environment where the typical family's caloric intake is directly linked to male physical labor [or warfare] (and female childbirth, for laborer or soldier). In practice, this means any society of behaviorally-modern humans that didn't keep slaves and wasn't mechanized.
[1] Progressives are all just conservatives, morally speaking; this is a Boomer blind spot. The liberal-as-in-freedom people are the actual mutants.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1d ago
Maybe there's room in polite society to allow men to express their sexuality a bit more, but still restrained. A middle ground, so that we can express ourselves without resorting to these unlimited anything-goes online spaces of depravity.
The 20th century was in part defined by women gaining the social privileges of men.
Perhaps the 21st century will conversely be about men gaining the social privileges of women. (Arguably, that has already happened, it's just you need to be wearing a dress to invoke said privileges.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1d ago
they'll use the only method they know for such problems: turning some weapon against male behavior
Times have changed: women no longer have enough men to pull this off (the men they could convince just turned 70). They'll no longer commit industrial-scale mass suicide just because they started handing out white feathers like they would 100 years ago- arguably the turning point for that was Vietnam- but it's true for most other countries even without that.
Now, there's still the opportunity for gynosupremacists (as in, feminists) to try and impose this on their own, since you don't need as many men to pull this off these days now that you have computers to do it for you.
The elephant in the room about the SR is that it did in fact raise the clearing 'price' for marriage. That's why you have the weird distribution where half of divorces come from people already on their second marriage (assuming 50% of marriages end in divorce, but 75% of first marriages do not). That's why you had the massive spike in the 70s where people who [20 years later] had no business being married, and were never going to get along with anyone, split up.
Doesn't each man taken off the street and holed up in a cave, never to be met in real life again, give women less to fear?
The hedonic treadmill model also works for risk (both are fundamentally selfish and as such a prime driver of anti-social behaviors), so no.
perhaps some tactic other than inflicting fear or shame or pain might be called for at some point
Men had to evolve in 1900-1930 with technology taking away their primary biological niche. Sex got a lot more expensive as a result (markets distorted in the 50s but corrected themselves by the 80s).
Now that technology has done a similar thing to women, perhaps they need to evolve too. Women need to fix this problem for themselves, and step 1 is realizing that it is a problem in the first place. (This probably won't happen while Boomers are still alive, but obsolescence tends to lead social change by some time, and it takes longer the older the mean decision-maker is.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1d ago
It's even more galling in areas that just experienced a forest fire: because clearly a forest that just lost its fuel load is more likely to burn.
(Honestly at this point insurance companies should have their own private air forces of fire suppression equipment. It'd probably be cheaper.)
it's about narrative control, not protecting children.
It's about controlling a narrative that, as a selling feature, increases the rate of child rape.
Sam Hyde is trivially correct about why this is.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
Yet that's still a redistributionist philosophy at its core- to what degree do we limit Abel to serve Cain?
(Realistically, this is generally related to how much murder power Cain has.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
The overwhelming amount of time this is just 'women' (as in, what someone from the 1800s would recognize as one).
Men can be this as well, but they generally need to find the rare [female] compatible with that state or the relationships break due to orientation mismatch.
You're thinking boils down to me to be the motherfuckers and the motherfucked, don't bother getting male and female involved.
Yes. There's really no other reason to do otherwise.
You can only talk about the third category, those beyond that dichotomy, if this foundation exists.
Pretending that top-gays and bottom-gays are the same actively confuses the issue, but we've been pretending top-straights and bottom-straights are the same orientation for a while now so it's only natural we'd use that language/model for everyone else too.
As for "but most other people use these categories", well, most people do what I've described instinctually [whatever they are] and most of the other definitions are intellectual navel-gazing. They don't need to think about it, they just do it.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
I think I can just say "no, it didn't".
if it didn't you wouldn't need a law telling people not to do it
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
I think we can define what a woman is.
Can you really? Because I don't think you can, or rather, what you define as 'woman' is wrong.
A woman is 'one whose social role is to be the bottom in the relationship', as contrasted to men which are the designated tops. This was true up until the early 20th century, though early efforts to limit bottoming to women have existed since roughly 1000 BC (that's what the 'you must only fuck XX chromosome-havers' Abramic law does).
There are some valid reasons to do this; if you force this kind of bottoming on future designated tops (as opposed to sexually mature women only, where the technology to make this state of affairs untenable would come about around 1900 or so) they won't necessarily work properly after that. And you need your future tops willing to die to maintain your society, so if you make it so they won't, then enemy men eventually come and fuck you. So we'd expect cultures with that meme to dominate.
Now, you'll probably complain, and argue that a woman actually means 'XX chromosome-havers', but you'll need to explain to me why that state had to be imposed rather than the default state of nature for human beings. You'll also note that my definition covers all edge cases [including the men who act as women anyway, or fags for short] while you're forced by angry women/bottoms to equivocate about chromosomal abnormalities and pregnancy.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
Oh, so that's why the Brits say "God save the King".
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
The link's broken. If you link to the page the image is on and not the page directly it should work though.
It's situational. Apologies for the Reddit link; pointing at the image directly ends up breaking the link.
Note that, assuming the reactor is a man, there are 2 different "orientations" hidden in here. They're not the ones you'd expect.
First is the straight obligate woman-fucker one, where the fact it's a man doesn't really come up or have much relevance. See girl physical features, fuck those features, the fact he's not a girl is secondary to the experience.
Last is the gay obligate man-fucker one, where the fact it's a man is both not only central to the experience but focuses just as hard on the physical features of the participant(s). It's just that it's focused on the physical features of him being a man. The fact he's not a girl is also secondary to the experience.
The space in between them is the weird one, where the fact he's not a girl is primary to the experience. These works tend to be focused far more on the emotional aspects of the difference (and, like, not actually being a girl) rather than merely the physical ones.
These traps also tend to intentionally de-emphasize primary and secondary sexual characteristics, so you could probably rather accurately term it asexuality (as in, how I'd expect people who don't have the biological 'reproduce now' imperatives running at the forefront of their minds). Sure, it's still sexual in fact, but it's a bit different than that in intent. [More cynically, it's the two-player version of sex where the others are single-player.]
People whose model of sexuality is limited to the first block cannot draw a distinction between it and the second block, and our language of orientation restricts us to talking about the first block. That's why traps can be in superposition between gay and not gay; the term can't answer the question.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
If even a small fraction of this population fit the stereotype of just wanting some breasts around to keep their other attraction toward the male form deniable
Isn't that just because [mechanism of attraction to the male form] functions differently than [mechanism of attraction to the female form], though? Straight men are aroused by penises after all (I don't believe that 1950s-era study measured women in that way, and this is notable for being conducted in a pre-mass-issue-pornography world) so it's not that far out of left field for futanari to be the overwhelmingly dominant meme for men. /d/ is for dickgirl, after all.
By contrast, I didn't think women were aroused by the form itself and were more into a derivative of its appearance/what it ultimately represents, or the qualities those traits suggest. Strength is attractive, muscles on their own perhaps not as much (if I recall correctly, men rate that chad.jpg meme- the actual picture one, not the MS Paint one- as more attractive than women do).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
In a modern context that had to come up with a way to divorce identity from action to convince the [US] Christian-leaning folks of the time to let them do it because their culture was more receptive to claims it was an in-built identity rather than just something you do? Yes, tautologically.
However, outside of that very specific context, I don't feel that's a good use of the term, no. There's a very good reason the medical field says 'men who have sex with men', not 'gay'; it's a tacit admission that the category is bad since if it were any better it would have been adopted universally.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
"He who is penetrated is gay" is obvious to humanity in the general case.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
Finding out a person you thought was a dude, actually isn't, means you lose interest regardless of their appearance.
Yeah, about that. Also, tomboys in general.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
7d ago
you think Europeans wake up every day and go "awe fuck trump is alive, fuck I hate that guy"
If Canada is any indication, the answer to that question is ‘yes’.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
8d ago
And here I was, thinking we had phased out "devouring" with the more succinct "voring".
Honestly, half the problem with trying to use sexy words in this type of literature is that they just come off as... kind of ham-fisted. If I have to read "wow, you're inside me" and "I'm cumming" one more fucking time I'm going to moan extremely loudly scream.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
It kind of blows my mind that people can't get it from text alone. Then again, since I grew up relatively pornless, maybe it's just an adaptation, or I'm so used to holding myself back in key ways [i.e. the reasons for that state] that I've accidentally become transgender just kind of stopped trying to prefer the strictly visual.
Perhaps I'm just more comfortable externalizing the whole thing, which as I understand it is also not exactly stereotypically male. Or maybe it's just because you can't masturbate cuddling, I dunno.
I think that there are tricks to make porn that's strictly visible gratifying in the text way where you... basically just show the emotional effects (or rather, fail to neglect them), but to do that requires some intentionality and most of it is just trying to show off the largest examples of certain anatomy possible. (Text can do that too, but if it does this poorly, things throb harder than humanity's collective mass of stubbed toes.)
yes but how else do you expect midwits to fulfill their need for a label for people that do this
Yes, but friction and difference causes perceived risk that the hippy TV programs never taught their parents to properly deal with, so in turn they couldn't teach their kids to deal with that in a healthy way. So it goes.
More options
Context Copy link