MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
There are a lot of violent rapists, but women do not seem to care about them, and they don’t care about preventing that crime. They don’t advocate for harsher sentences and they don’t want to prevent the rape-inclined from migrating here. Neither do they want to introduce norms which prevent violent rape, like you find among the Gulf Arabs with 1/300th the rape per capita as us. It’s questionable whether women even care about justice as a concept: you don’t typically hear about a woman torrenting a book on judicial philosophy or discussing the merits and demerits of retributive justice online. They may occasionally discuss penal theories with their girlfriends but hardly of the judicial sort. It does not appear to me that they want “more justice” as evidenced by their complete and total disinterest in anything approaching an inquiry into matters of justice. I am exaggerating somewhat; there are of course women who pursue these fields in academia and produce important research. But the women yapping about the Cornell 7 are Not These Women but their opposite. They have probably never read the Wikipedia article on Blackstone’s Ratio.
I think the real explanation is to simply ask if the people doing anti-rape advocacy (and I see much the same in race-advocacy) are median women. The answer is pretty much no. Most of them are women drawn from the PMC, and as such they have PMC concerns about rape — specifically college male students and their right to dress and act as they please around them and blame them for the fallout. Other forms of rape don’t matter to them because as PMC females destined to work in the nonprofit industry, they are likely to live in safe neighborhoods and work with properly emasculated male colleagues. Workplace rapes still happen (to poor women, mostly) and local youths in poor neighborhoods still rape (poor women or women stupid enough to go into poor urban neighborhoods). But really, unless you are poor or go out of your way to visit the wrong sorts of neighborhoods especially alone and most especially at night, your chances of experiencing that kind of rape are practically nil. College rapes matter because PMC women go to elite colleges, and want to go to parties with men, wearing slut-worthy clothing and drinking/drugging themselves into a stupor. They want to do this and not face negative consequences.
I don’t think most people follow that advice explicitly. More often than not it runs: Good at X -> Like to do X, Does X in presence of opposite sex -> is seen as good at something, woman desires men of high skill -> dating and marriage lead to kids.
No matter what the specifics of being an ordinary person are, the vast majority of people will by definition be those ordinary people. It’s just going to happen by statistics. And if the vast majority of people in a society get shut out of the basic human rights of having a family and a home and so on, you’re very likely to end up with a revolution.
The modern west in general has a problem with consequences and hard limits. Women are getting it worse only because they have cultural protections that men are not given as much, or not in the same way. It’s still sort of there, but for the rest of culture it’s about allowing a lack of self control and self discipline, but it’s still sort of there, for example when parents just don’t care if there kids try in school, or for college kids when they’re told they can study anything they want in college and it will be fine and don’t worry about the job market or the loans. It’s the same message of “you shouldn’t face any serious consequences for a choice you make.”
I agree with this. What a lot of women seem to want, especially on the liberal end of things, is to be allowed to be as “sexy” as they want, act all slutty, and then get the community to go after the men who treat her like she was acting. Im half convinced that most women, Especially women raised in a sheltered, liberal environment have never heard the phrase “consequences of my own actions,” or if they did, only in reference to men.
They aren’t content because it very likely isn’t Christianity anymore. Christianity makes a lot of actual commitments to the nature of religion, God, humanity, sacraments, behaviors, etc. sooner or later, you either have to drop the tenets of Christian beliefs, or drop the pagan beliefs. Jesus is not one of many religious leaders, he’s either your Lord or you are not a Christian.
The sheer idiocy provoked the crime though. If she’s not there, dressed in provocative clothing, blackout drunk, the rape doesn’t happen.
I think you misunderstood the “all X are like Y” thing. It’s not literal. All men like sports does not mean literally every man likes sports, it means that that the median man will enjoy sports, and most men will follow sports. So if you’re making a prediction about the interests of a human male, sports in some form, whether playing or watching is going to be a pert of that.
Most modern secular women are exactly like the stereotypes suggest. And so if you’re dating a modern secular woman, you can roughly expect her to behave like a modern secular woman. And so as MSW are the most common women in a modern secular culture, you should roughly expect that the women you are dating is going to have those qualities and beliefs. And so you can either choose to look for places where women are religious and raised to be at odds with modern secular society.
I’ve always had that problem with the whole “victim blaming is bad” thing. It’s just pretty well obvious that going to a fraternity house, getting high and blackout drunk, etc. are things that will end very badly for you. I’m sure this is a surprise to absolutely nobody. And I don’t feel all that bad about “shaming” a woman who does that kind of thing and has the predictable happen. Like, why shouldn’t that be pointed out? It’s done routinely for every other crime out there. You would not think twice about “shaming” a guy who walked down a street in Compton in fancy clothing and flashing cash. Of course he was going to get robbed. Nor would not think twice about shaming someone who got robbed after posting that they were going on a ten day cruise. Things that are bad ideas should be pointed out. It doesn’t mean they deserve to be robbed, but at the same time, if you insist on being an idiot I don’t feel much need to feel bad for for pointing out that you are or were being foolish.
I suppose we’re going to disagree here, but I really tend to land on the point that the purpose of having a criminal response unit is to respond to and investigate crimes with a purpose of bringing the guilty to Justice and to keep the community safe by doing so.
When you make rules that suggest the police and law enforcement are not allowed to notice and act upon very obvious signs of criminality (in this case clothing highly correlated to gang membership and thus criminality), in the interest of doing the things we have police for. If there’s a gang connected shooting, I want the cops to talk to anyone in the area who looks like a gang member. I want the cops to notice an increase of gang fashions in my neighborhood, because there are zero good things that come from that, and probably a whole lot of bad things.
I’ll agree to reasonable policing where cops don’t have a blank check to do anything at any time, but it has to be reasonable in the other direction. You have to have rules loose enough that the cops can notice and deal with obvious signs of potential criminality. Or to notice that someone looks suspicious and deal with it.
Prayer and Mantras are not the same thing. A mantra is more internal to the self, and trying to reach an internal state of consciousness. Prayer is a request to a being. If im praying, im asking God for something. If im praying the Jesus Prayer, im asking Jesus Christ, the Son of God to have mercy on me a sinner. If Im reciting a mantra, it’s not directed to a being I have a relationship with. It’s not a request. It’s me wrestling with my mind trying to achieve a mental breakthrough.
I don’t see that as horrific. I think cops should be given enough leeway that noticing and responding to anything that makes a person likely to be committing a crime or likely to have committed a crime.
I mean I just don’t see it. The bar is pretty low, and most people would pass it just by chance. Things like the colored hanky are pretty rare in most places. Doo rags are maybe a bit more common, but really they come off pretty easily. And as I mentioned above, it’s already dangerous for people to walk the streets dressed like a gang member because rival gangs will shoot people who look like members of other gangs.
What I am suggesting is that it shouldn’t be considered authoritarian for a cop to recognize obvious signs of gang membership and act appropriately— which at minimum would be investigating why that person is in the area and whether or not they are armed or match the description of a suspect. I get that you need to have some caution about letting a cop detain or seize someone, but if the only way to solve a crime is for the cops to catch them in the act, there’s no reason to have the police investigating crimes.
I think it does affect the sport you choose. Baseball players especially pitchers tend to introversion where other team sports don’t.
The purpose is to add a cost to just joining. This has benefits especially if membership in a group is particularly valuable. And in some cases, being a frat can give you a leg up in job hunting or provide scholarships among other benefits.
Is it really back door sumptuary laws to say “maybe dont wear gang colors in a gang area”? I don’t think that’s reasonable, as really wearing gang colors and flashing gang signs in the wrong area is a good way to get pegged by a rival gang. This isn’t hard stuff either. Dont carry a colored hanky in your pocket, don’t wear a doo rag, and dont do weird signs with your hands.
That doesn’t seem like a high bar. You can still dress pretty badly
if, based on the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer could conclude that the person was not free to leave, to refuse a request, or to otherwise terminate the encounter due to law enforcement’s display of authority or use of physical force. For purposes of this analysis, an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) in Washington.
I mean this basically would include most encounters with the police that the party didn’t initiate themselves. An armed policeman with a gun is by nature a show of authority. His uniform is his authority, and most people would be properly intimidated by a person authorized to use force, in the uniform that symbolizes his ability to use force, walking up and asking questions about my activities. As such, especially if you throw in the race angle, most police encounters are seizures simply because a person knows better than to walk away from a guy with arresting authority and carrying a weapon.
That and the group is entirely composed of military aged men of high physical fitness. If you look at most political action groups left or right, the ages vary and the fitness level is pretty low. These guys could easily change clothing and march onto a military base easily
I think it’s the decline of two important things: expected church attendance and the single income family. Church was the dominant reason why things didn’t get scheduled on Sunday. But the two income family reduced the ability of families to participate in activities on other days — neither parent would be home before 5-6pm and by the time meals, homework and showers/baths happen, it’s time to go to bed.
I don’t think it’s about losing adherents per se. But I don’t think you can simply rip a practice out of a different religion and incorporate it into Christianity without it changing Christianity. It comes with baggage, philosophical, religious, and cultural. I don’t think you could adopt the Kabbalah out of Judaism without some integration of ideas. It even happens between denominations to some degree. I don’t think you could pray the Roman Catholic Missal without it having some impact on your Christian beliefs.
Rights versus safety is despite the Ben Franklin quote, not necessarily opposed. There are two ways that I can take your freedom. The first one is the government arresting people arbitrarily and framing them for crimes. The other is allowing crime to go on and get bad enough that ordinary citizens are unable to go about their lives. The second becomes even worse if the government also limits how a citizen can protect himself from crime. When that happens, the citizens are deprived of their rights just as surely as if the government had taken them.
Some rot more slowly than others. Monarchy has worked in England I’d argue from the fairly early Anglo Saxons to Victorian times. That’s a thousand years. 300 years seems to be a hard limit of democracy.
The big issue with democracy is that it by design tends to replace feedback loops with fake feedback. The common game is to insulate the mechanisms where the real decisions are made (the administrative state) from both electoral processes and from the consequences of bad decisions and failures. The steering wheel and the sensors are both disconnected and the driver has been told over and over to want to go wherever the car happens to be going at the time.
If you’re careful about it and actually enforce the rules, sure. If I can join the church and get away with bending or breaking the rules and codes, then no. That’s kinda what happened with the episcopal church. They officially have Cramer’s 24 articles. They just ignored them until there were more rainbows than crosses.
Im gonna blow your mind.
These kinds of things — they are, in a sense, the important stuff. Caring for yourself and your family, and figuring out how best to go about it is how real life works. Real life is jobs, chores, family and home care and so on. The ordinary stuff is where you care for yourself and the people and community you actually care about. Fake shit is the global type issues like international politics where you have no control over, culture war stuff that’s happening far away from you, AI stuff being done in companies you can’t control. They’re interesting to talk about, sure, but you have no control over it, and obsessing about it is not going to make your actual life better.
Im a woman, and a lot of older female conversations are about cooking, cleaning, husbands, and child care. Why? Because this is what adult female humans do with their time. Adult male humans deal with mechanical issues of the home and car, the yard, kids’ sports, and careers. And so you talk to your older relatives, you’ll get that, weather, and sports. Weather and sports are fun ways to connect to people around you, and the rest is real life.
To be honest, especially as I get older, I find the people who obsess over politics, culture war, fandoms, and so on to be the boring ones. They obsess over things like that mostly because their real life isn’t all that great. They don’t care about normal everyday life because they have nothing in their real life worth caring about. They don’t care about cooking because they live alone in an apartment and have no boyfriend or girlfriend to cook for. They don’t care about their career because they work in basement level restaurant or retail and thus they don’t have a career to care about. Their car is a junker, why worry about upkeep? In order to have time to obsess about politics and culture and viral trends and fandoms, you have to have the kind of life only a Redditor could love. They don’t have anything going on in their real life, so they can sit around and argue about non-real-life stuff.
- Prev
- Next

I see most of the modern west as currupt and morally bankrupt as most of it really has no reason to exist other than nothing has replaced it yet. European civilization doesn’t serve much of a purpose, it doesn’t see itself as anything worth protecting or with any missions worth accomplishing. It’s just a political system that exists to manage whoever happens to be there while not protecting its natives from harm. If Europeans still believed in their own civilization or values, or saw themselves as something worth protecting, there’d be hope for the EU. Americans still see themselves as a people and a civilization worth working for. They have residual Christian faith (most are at least nominal) and residual belief in their system even if the government they live under barely resembles the government the Constitution describes or the founders intended.
NATO doesn’t really have even a pretend reason to exist. It’s supposed to protect Europe from Soviet communism. But given how much of European society has embraced most of the tenets of socialism, they wouldn’t have much to fear from communists. And the Soviets haven’t existed since the early 1990s. It’s basically an institution that has no real reason to continue, and other than the US, no serious military to speak of. Nobody is afraid of European military intervention, German tanks or British aircraft are not the enemy that would make anyone tremble. Only the USA has a military worthy of the name. Increasingly, however, we are afraid to use it, especially afraid of putting boots on the ground to occupy territory and destroy the enemy.
More options
Context Copy link