DiscourseMagnus
No bio...
User ID: 3133
There's nothing wrong with a person in their thirties reading YA fiction in addition to reading books intended for adults. It's when YA fiction, fantasy, sci-fi etc. is all that you read that it becomes a sign of immaturity.
This seems like a classic motte-and-bailey situation. I find that I'm put off by this sort of rhetoric not because I disagree that having varied and challenging artistic tastes is of value, but because I at least suspect that I am actually being called to narrow and limit my artistic tastes. Indeed, your OP here is all about how our society needs to be less permissive - how we should permit fewer things, fewer styles, less art.
Another analogy that occurs to me is the dsyfunctionally adversarial relationship between employers and applicants. An expectation emerges among the applicants that it's acceptable to lie while applying for a job. The employers tacitly accept this; they don't punish the dishonesty, and instead act dishonestly themselves, asking for qualifications that are impossible or at least implausible, reinforcing the emerging norm that it's acceptable for the applicants to lie. And so it becomes quite difficult indeed to determine if the applicant is actually qualified for the job. The people have collectively failed. Thanks, Moloch. (There are other factors at play there, of course.)
But modern society turns this into a trap for the men in the relationship! If you ask with the tacit statement that you'll be offended by your future wife "having cheated on you before the relationship even begins, what a sinful broad", what do you think your wife going to say?
I thought I already explained this in the previous post, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm uninterested in nonvirgins as partners, but the moral offense to me comes in when someone tries to pull one over on me. My whole point here is that I'm not cursing the women who honestly filter themselves out for me, as I consider this more honorable than trying to subvert the filter. That can't mean that having a filter is itself wrong; that's an absurd modernist notion, like saying that hiring decisions shouldn't take ability to do the job into account. If you put up a sign that says "looking for qualified drivers" and you get a bunch of qualified drivers and a bunch of liars, then sure, the people who didn't show up because they weren't willing to lie about their ability to drive are far more virtuous than the liars, but that doesn't mean that you should hire them to drive; it means that you should try to figure out which of your applicants are telling the truth.
Here's an interesting question that occurs to me, inspired by this post:
Is promiscuity worse when it's public or when it's private?
I'm inclined to think that we reached a social consensus that public promiscuity is worse than private promiscuity. ("As long as they keep it in the privacy of their own bedroom", laws against obscenity, etc.) But I'm also inclined to think that that social consensus is wrong. Yes, there are special types of damage done by public promiscuity - "normalization", corruption of bystanders, etc. But there are also special types of damage done by private promiscuity, and I'm inclined to say that they are much worse.
Everyone here can laugh it up about the men who'll marry these open prostitutes. But, y'know - at least they'll know what they're getting. It's not exactly a viable secret to keep. This doesn't seem, to me, nearly as corrosive to the social fabric as the general social expectation that even normie religious women will have some sexual history that they don't need to disclose to their husband.
My instinct is that it is actually better and less sexually immoral for a woman to be a clownish slut and publicly document a farcical orgy centered on herself than it is for her to act chaste and traditional but have a single one-night-stand she never tells another soul about. It is better to unconsciously offer oneself up as a cautionary tale about rough living than it is to consciously erode the trust between the sexes. I do not find that the cases like Aella blackpill me nearly as much as women in explicitly Christian/conservative contexts who accidentally let on that their morals are looser than they realize. It's like the difference people point to between Donald Trump, who's repulsive, but openly so, and a more classically dishonest politician.
A car's value plummets as soon as it's driven off the lot. Provided, I have no interest (in this metaphor) in purchasing a used car - but I have no quarrel with used car dealers, per se. It's about the integrity of the thing.
Between Brian Thompson and Shinzo Abe, we seem to be developing a worrying new meta of assassinations in which they can be used to martyr the assassin and move the world ideologically against the target, rather than the reverse.
Here's the main article I'm going off of, although its same claims seem to be reported elsewhere as well:
Ever closer grows the day that the elite are de jure, rather than de facto, completely legally free to do whatever they want to everyone else.
I was curious about the case, so I decided to look it up. As I suspected, it turns out that the original murder was a case of vigilantism against, allegedly, a habitual abuser of women. When it was put in the public spotlight, many years later, by the London Bridge attack, apparently much of the public felt that, lawful or unlawful, he'd done the right thing in the first place. The whole story felt very British.
Have you already forgotten about the Clintons? What about the Kennedys?
I think that this is a very good take, but I would further add that I think "teen pregnancy" as a snarl phrase is a malformed or malicious meme to begin with, antinatalist in itself even before the emphasis is added. We should be trying to discourage unwed pregnancy, while encouraging women to have children inside of wedlock both early and often. Surely our society would be in much better condition than it is now if it was seen as a terribly unfeminine thing for a woman to be unmarried or childless at 16. It might seem gross, backwater, Muslimesque - but what did being liberal and feminist get us?
Pleased to see that I made the QCs with that post. I didn't realize that that was possible with a low-rated one.
Regardless of whether Dumbledore was gay in Rowling's head when she wrote the first book, I think it's worth keeping in mind that she had pretty clearly already decided on it by the time she wrote the seventh, which seems to be designed around the gay Dumbledore even though it doesn't make it explicit. I think the common suggestion that she more-or-less invented it on the spot in the interview where she announced it is clear copium.
Yeah, climate change isn't a "threat of human extinction" type of problem (unless we're missing something big and Venusy, which is far-fetched), but I could see 1 or 2% decrease in total global GDP being a serious underestimate. The theme I keep seeing in climate change predictions is devaluation of land. A large number of major coastal cities having to simultaneously move inland would be pretty bad, even if it was a relatively gradual process.
I didn't used to believe in this, and I'm still, say, maybe ambivalent? But I do think there's a real chance that we start seeing some serious shit in this regard in the near future, trends that happen slowly and then all at once.
No, the public doesn't really care about this and even if they did care about this after they've had a bullhorn directed at them telling them they should care about it,
Bullshit. I wanted a Trump Attorney General who'd round up and publicly execute all of the political insiders (probably hundreds of thousands of them) who participate in the secret organized mass abduction, enslavement, rape, torture, and murder of children and adolescents. (Epstein. Pizzagate. Not QAnon. QAnon was an obvious feint for retard boomers who just want to be told to relax.) It's already been pretty obvious since early in Trump's first term that he was in fact one of those political insiders, but the ridiculously sleazy Gaetz ever getting anywhere near the Attorney General position is one of the most blatant fuck yous to the American public I've ever seen. Rotten, the lot of them.
Geopolitical balance of power, the fall of Russia as a power and the rise of China (as economic powers). Since ~2017, chinese GDP has been higher (PPP) than US GDP.
Perhaps more important than Russia falling and China rising is Russia and China getting friendlier with one another. The Sino-Soviet split was a major factor in the Soviet loss of the Cold War; now, Russia and China are becoming a single anti-American bloc again.
The emerging second Cold War?
I think what people around here are missing is that trans people in tech are more important as a long-term byproduct of feminism than they are as their own specific hot-button issue. There are so many of them in tech because they're an end-run around demands to load he industry up with mediocre authoritarian women and restructure everything to cater primarily to them. There are some women who excel in STEM, sure, but as a demographic, women are so uninterested in the field that it turns out that the easier way to comply with the demands of feminism is to convince a significant portion of the actual male talent (who were kind of incel-y anyway) to take up the trans thing. For culture war reasons (to put it charitably), we get a warpedly negative sample of the trans population around here. In fact, transgender "women" are obviously much more culturally compatible with tech than their cis counterparts; they aren't attractive but they're more pleasant to be around. They aren't going to call HR to have you written up for having an anime figurine on your desk, they aren't going to try to have math devalued as a racist skillset, they aren't going to get pissed off and go scorched Earth on the company and have everyone fired on trumped up sexual harassment charges and replaced with the Gestapo. "Loud exhibitionist Chris-Chan-type autist" is the common model of the situation on the culture war right, but it's the wrong model; the ones who succeed professionally in tech are meek intellectual rationalist-type autists. They think like men and it's a field where you need to think like a man to make money. They aren't a real priestly caste, they're a fake priestly caste, a stopgap to prevent the installation of a female-feminist priestly caste, and to be frank, I much prefer things this way over the way things were going about a decade ago. (Of course it would be better if relations between the sexes weren't falling apart in the first place.)
On a somewhat less culture-war-ish note, consider the other primary impact of the low-time-investment Candy Crush mobile set on traditional gaming - the rise of microtransactions, games as a service, whale hunting, the transformation of the gaming industry into a bizarrely legitimized clone of the gambling industry. There clearly is actually a lot of money in chasing the success of Candy Crush.
I think that there's something to be said for a movie's thinking that it's neutral (because it's part of the hegemonic culture) actually making it somewhat more neutral. Sure, I'd rather that movies comported with my values rather than values I find noxious - but I'd also rather have movies take values I find noxious for granted rather than try to sell their noxious values to me.
Better a movie written by someone who thinks gay people are normal than a movie written by someone trying to make them normal.
It obviously isn't why leftists are offended, but I do think it's why pro-lifers aren't jumping up to defend him. As for the leftists' offense - that's obviously the intent; it's an act of trolling, but more specifically, it's playacting as the cartoon villain that abortionists want. It's the equivalent of "celebrating" a breakthrough against affirmative action by cackling evilly and going "now we can finally keep the black man down forever".
No more than any government policy controls anyone's body. In fact, the slogan is an extreme red herring on the abortion issue, as it's designed to obscure that another body is involved (the child being murdered).
It is obviously the duty of the government to prevent its own people, and particularly children, from being murdered.
There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.
Of course not. The nasty thing is agreeing to and promoting their disingenuous framing, as Fuentes did here.
Such an amendment would discredit the government for obvious reasons. The abortion issue is a reductio ad absurdum of democracy. Apparently the electorate cannot even agree to prohibit the industrialized slaughter of infants.
- Prev
- Next
Because the complaints focus on the cringe art that the targets of the criticism are associated with, and not on the good art that they are failing to engage with.
More options
Context Copy link