ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
20hr ago
due to have no intrinsic worth
This coin has two sides: they must work a job to be of value, but evolutionary reality ensured they always have a job (and are generally well-paid for it relative to women because their work wholly depends on the man).
This is the reason why traditional/evolved double-standards of behavior really weren't unfair. Men always have a pathway to acquire what they want, so their stealing or taking shortcuts to access women (as in, what the resources that job buys you are to be spent on) is logically treated much worse as a consequence.
[The way it is for women is mirrored, but not symmetric. Women were not generally paid beyond a dividend for selling their services to men, but in exchange men provide the ultimate in job security. "Double standards" that treat women better than men are fair in this context.]
Automation (and the practices of on-shore or off-shore slavery to a lesser degree) throws a monkey wrench into the works specifically because it largely disrupts that second tenet while leaving the first intact.
Which means that, in the wider societal context, that in all highly automated societies that weren't already predisposed to communism[1], men will eventually bear all the responsibilities without any rights and women have all the rights without any responsibilities.
Which is the exact root of the problem. (And per @faceh, the quantity of women (and men) who are naturally evolved enough to both realize this and detached enough from their own instinct [education can help the marginal cases] to take advantage of the situation is way smaller than it needs to be. They'll still be who the future belongs to, and evolution will mean this is less of a problem in the future as a direct consequence, but that's beyond any of our lifetimes.)
[1] OG communism makes way more sense once you realize that it was all about why men fear AI today- only a very small minority of men would hold that kind of guaranteed job ever again. Remember, communism equalizes men's wages with women's, and equalizes women's punishments for anti-social behavior with men's, so it destroys the ability of all women in all generations to sort men based on wage (yet in practice also incentives women to get married anyway) and forces them into the same punishments for the same crimes (and drafts them both in times of war).
It's very obviously a first draft, and the countries that implemented it were generally far too poor to make use of it, and the people who parrot it today are (as always) too stupid to figure out it wouldn't actually help them (hunger jokes aside, a fat bitch will still be a fat bitch under communism).
Elite fears of what a second draft will contain are warranted.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
The damning part that exudes the ick is not when you don't follow the advice correctly (which to be fair also happens), it's the very fact that you need advice in the first place, or generally heed any sort of external information to improve your chances
Which is where the fundamental anxiety comes from in the face of an environment that's so complicated that you can't just know it all (and to a point, that your competition will destroy you without warning for failure).
Perhaps the parts of your brain that function as the inference engine for this, more than previous evolution could ever have prepared it, must now run at full power all the time (and anxiety and a particular kind of burnout perhaps comes from it not being enough).
Maybe that's why these sorts of people tend to require stimulants to compensate for that.
that seems to often be taken as deception of the most craven sort whenever it comes out
Women in general were prepared by evolution to wait on men, so being waited on is (naturally) unattractive. And yes, there are trans-gender women out there that don't (one notes that this kind of woman is still intentionally suppressed; it's a big Mean Girls-style joke entertained by women as class that if you're like that, you are a man, and should become one surgically). They're just rare.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
Which is why the most ardent feminists are also the ugliest.
Men could have evolved for an environment too unlike the one we inhabit today.
The consequences of sexual dimorphism are:
- Men have evolved for an environment where they were automatically useful.
- Women have evolved for an environment where they were not.
Automation has displaced men and destroyed that automatic value.
It has not done the same for women. Therefore, women's power has increased relative to men's, and furthermore, the constraints on the use of the limited power they did have no longer exist (and automation helps them enforce that more, not less).
This is why, from the male standpoint, women are correctly modeled as a monolithic bloc; this is why members of that bloc are, correctly, modeled as inhuman sociopaths (I submit the Clancy trial reaction and jurors as exhibit A, and will note that when this was true for men the exact same dynamics applied). At a group level, there is zero co-operation to be had; it's purely a power game.
The reason you're frustrated with most of what's said on the Motte is that most of it only discusses gender relations on the macrosocioeconomic level. Do people actually act like that on a micro level? If the posters are to be believed, perhaps, but everyone makes compromises and the strategies for "maybe move if you can't find anyone that isn't pathologically mercenary" are (again) micro, not macro. (I'm not sure if that's usually taken as a given, and question myself whether or not it is per-poster, but given other effects like how people against immigration on a macro level tend to date foreign women... and noting that further down you yourself do this.)
On a macrosocioeconomic level men are in oversupply, which inherently means that men are overpopulated. That's why the macro posture is overwhelmingly "wait until shit kicks off and be ready to survive the ensuing gendercide, but don't do anything that would disrupt the current system; we will accept never having a woman as the condition of living in a society that has largely solved scarcity until we die of natural causes" (most of the authoritarianism in the past 30 years is just the logical consequence of seeing how far that can be pushed).
Men are acting in accordance with their (extraordinarily poor) socioeconomic position and their natural incentives, and to me, that's what Motteposts confirm (culture war is by its very nature a macrosocioeconomic issue). I'm really not sure what else you can take from them.
means the extra money spent on oil just disappears from the economy
The oil is destroyed when you use it as a consequence of what oil is.
That money is recycled throughout the economy.
By what mechanism? Oil companies don't want to increase production capacity now because they are, inherently, long on oil (and perhaps short on Iran). So the money gets kept- and while sure, oil companies do invest in other areas (as you'd expect them to), they're going to maintain a buffer, so the economic shock of increased profit for oil companies (and decreased profit for everyone who uses oil) is going to take some time to propagate.
For relatively cheap we were able to almost completely neutralize
I think that describes every modern US conflict, including the intentional provocation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict; jury's out on what was actually more expensive. (It's certainly very expensive for Europe, and one might argue the current admin's strategy of continually blaspheming European powers is one way to bolster domestic American will to wage this type of economic warfare, a strategy also shared by his opponents.)
I think the main question about the reorganization of Rome's America's east-most provinces now is whether it's going to turn out Antony (where the East is successfully reorganized in a semi-co-operative fashion), or Octavian (where the East is openly dominated).
European elites obviously prefer the Octavian approach, preferably under a Blue consul, and believe they can simply ignore anything a Red consul dictates until they're out of office. The Antony one would germinate a rival power bloc in their nations (as in "you have to, in relative terms to everyone else, reward the people doing the work")- again, something they'd rather avoid.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
The question the Inquisition (or whatever the Belgians are calling it these days) is tackling is whether dissemination is malicious intent.
To the power structure and those whose meal ticket wholly depends on the power structure, the answer is obviously yes.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
If she’s not there, dressed in provocative clothing, blackout drunk, the rape doesn’t happen.
Or in other words, if she's not wearing a billboard that says I'm ready to sell and taking the actions that declare the bargain is drugs for sex, that transaction doesn't occur.
Again, the problem is privilege taking this far more seriously than it deserves. Sex offered at a bargain price was accepted; it's the female inability to accept that some women aren't maximally mercenary about sex that is the fundamental problem here. (Men can't figure that out either, but they have no power to enforce their inaccuracy.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
It is deeply unfortunate that sexually predatory behavior from women is treated even more lightly than the same behavior from men.
Yes, the male version of sexually predatory behavior is not treated as seriously when women do it.
The entire problem here is that you have no concept for the similarly-exploitative female behavior; given men and women are morally equal, we should expect this to be 50/50, so where's all the crime from women we're ignoring, and what does it look like?
(The answer to that question has a lot to do with "intentionally suppressing men from trying in the first place", of course; were the world fair then every single progressive teacher would be in jail for sexual interference, but we prefer feminism instead because it's easy.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
since the show at its core is a comedy and parody of the Isekai genre, not something with any serious intent
Yeah, the worldbuilding of Interspecies Reviewers was much more serious. (Konosuba isn't actually that thoughtless though I stopped watching it after S1.)
That Megumin "wins" in the end is probably just a reflection that there are a very large number of paedophiles creating and watching Japanese anime.
Yes- by the social conservative and feminist definition, "wanting a decent-ish relationship with a relatively-close peer at any age where you'd actually be attracted to said peer" is absolutely indistinguishable from pedophilia. She was only barely post-menopause, you sick fuck.
The reason men tend to watch anime is mainly because it's free from this bullshit. Even though their birthrate is relatively poor Japan really doesn't seem to be a country whose men and women hate each other. Perhaps it's because women look way younger for way longer, so there's correspondingly less temptation for the collective of older women to re-enact Snow White on everyone younger.
Which, it turns out, is easiest to do simply by pathologizing natural attraction to them (by any group whatsoever).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Come to think of it, this means that
The legal definition of robbery is theft plus assault
Which I think kind of proves the point that it's specifically the assault that makes the theft notable, where theft itself is boring, abstract, uninteresting, and provokes "well, didn't the victim deserve it a little?".
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
I do not believe that there is any amount of 'deterring inchastity among consenting adults' that can outweigh 'preventing one instance of rape'.
You misunderstand the purpose of slut-shaming (which is generally [collective] women vs. [individual] woman, not men vs. woman). "Deterring inchastitty" is not its goal.
Somewhat counterintuitively, the collective benefits from more instances of rape, not less (though only to a point).
"See what happens when you price yourself too low, or give your only worth away for free?"
And yes, it does result in scratch-and-dent models having to sell at a discount, but it reinforces the idea that collective bargaining for the worth of sex is collective bargaining (and the rape is simply justification/encouragement to be maximally mercenary when selling), which benefits all women except the raped one. Who, naturally, deserved to be raped for working outside union protection.
In that case, it's natural the woman in question would then proceed to attack targets of opportunity to recover some of the damage. Her product can't be repaired, but she can, correctly, tell herself it was all the buyers' fault. (The only weirdness here is that the collective will attempt to back her up when she does this, but then again, buyers tend to fall over themselves claiming rape devalues the collective so maybe that's not as weird as it sounds. It'd be in the buyers' interest to lie.)
Men doing this is kind of a legacy thing. Their moral opinions fell out of favor around 1900, but so long as people believe in them, they can be used to launder the above operation.
Cartels coordinate.
That's called an in-group bias. Women have one, men not so much.
Since the amount of available product on the market depends on women and not men (also for biological reasons), we put women on the selling side and men on the buying side.
If sellers co-ordinate, then it's a cartel, by definition. Slut-shaming (a classic practice among women) is kind of the basic example of this: given women form a union, that is scab behavior [it's working at a discount from the cartel's perspective, defeating the power of collective bargaining], and discouraged accordingly. See also the concept of a "pick-me", where the woman throws in some other value-adds to gain an individual advantage, and the chain is similar: why would you do that, unless you want to sell -> you're trying to undercut everyone else = slut = scab -> punish.
If you honestly think that "all women" are in a sort of cartel where they determine the cost of entry for "family formation" or engage in "resource siphoning,"
The idea that there is some grand war in incentives between women, as a class, and men, as a class, is precisely the mindset that I think is fallacious.
This isn't really a conscious thing; it's merely human instinct. Revealed preferences by the relevant actors (as buyers compete with buyers, as sellers compete with sellers, and as both negotiate between each other) demonstrates the collective negotiation between men and women has the character of a market, so economic analysis is the correct framing with which to make predictions.
perhaps your attitude has not shifted with the majority
'What the average market participant is willing to afford' is actually kind of the central issue here, so 'attitudes' are inescapable here (and again, this has biology/instinctual roots). Sexual attraction obviously has a lot to do with that, and that's something you simply don't get to decide.
In this case, the clearing price of the sexual marketplace has risen to the point where it's created a much larger proportion of men and women who are either unwilling or unable to afford each other; even when they can, they have far smaller families as a result.
Feminism is to blame for a little bit of that (in the "why bother buying into someone they're only marginally attracted to" and "government-enforced wealth transfers from men to women handicaps buyers and frustrates price discovery for sellers"[1] senses- this also matters on the seller side, particularly when considering [2], but inherently affects buyers far more than sellers), but a lot of it is that the substitute goods have become far better and cheaper than they used to be (and the cost of everything else associated with supporting a family has become far higher), so the value each party must bring also must be correspondingly higher.
Which means that, at the clearing price floor, attraction (and perhaps the compromises thereon) is making most of the difference (and perhaps providing more of the buyer's remorse upon purchase), so the fixation on it at that point makes sense.
[1] Forced-diversity initiatives as well as intentional subsidy of college degrees increase a seller's perception of their real value; once they realize they're overvalued, their more advanced age has devalued them further (again, this is a thing men value, and no, you don't get to pretend they don't). Discovering this is more likely to lead to their leaving the market entirely, creating further distortion.
[2] Divorce laws in the "she took everything including the kids" direction result in buyers perceiving more risk than there actually is. This should actually decrease the price a woman can charge due to fewer buyers willing to take that risk, and can lead to sellers competing with each other in ways like "known adherent to a religion where divorce is a sin".
The idea that there is some grand war in incentives between women, as a class, and men, as a class, is precisely the mindset that I think is fallacious.
feminism [exists], continuing significant political split between men and [particularly unmarried] women
If you can't agree on the facts there's nothing further to discuss. Having interests is not inherently malicious; good and evil are not life's concern.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Even if they did, it only impedes automation of low-value labour.
Oh, so that's how mass immigration serves the lower/underclass.
So why isn't it being practiced, then?
Because the State has incorporated most of Christianity's community-building aspects. You don't make the choice to donate your time to the soup kitchen any more; the government simply confiscates your time (through a process known as "income tax") and runs that program itself (at times it will pay religious groups to do this). Same thing with permitting crime, actually- the way Western society donates to the poor is simply by permitting them to walk into any store, take what whatever they require, and the cost of that is redistributed through something called an "insurance premium".
they have high youth unemployment despite an enormous pool of well-educated young people
The education, of course, was mostly just to dissuade young people from dealing with unemployment the traditional way. Education to those who can't use it provides no bonus.
My armchair theory is that this is because the prototypical crime people imagine is entirely gratuitous.
It's the same effect whereby people imagine the average robbery to involve a gun and the words "stick 'em up", and ignore the fact that most of it's done through means diffuse (white-collar crime, embezzlement, contract violation, etc.) or direct (scams, fraud). They even blame the victim, usually saying "well, they should have noticed the signs/paid more attention" or "people who fall for get-rich-quick schemes deserve it".
Rape, as a subtype of theft, is exactly like that too. Forced entry is obviously criminal; but that's more because it clearly involves assault. The others, as you mention (and for the same reason), are far less clear; justice in cases tackling who consented to what is arguably best handled as a civil matter as well.
(Perhaps surprisingly, this is also a feature of Deuteronomic law; "pay her father some amount and must never divorce her" for casual sex the woman feels wronged by has the character of a civil violation, not a criminal one. One notes the modern standard for this is 'preponderance of the evidence' rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.)
nearly as bad as murder, if not worse
This is more downstream of an human instinct to Protect Women more than anything else. In an environment of equality, this is wage theft.
reactionary-reactionary
You have correctly identified that DreadJim is a male feminist. Feminists take the posture that women are better than men and tend to take "well, what are they good for" for granted. So does DreadJim, with the valence swapped.
Anyway:
Further, women suddenly getting careers, delaying childbirth, or even having more sex doesn't make them fundamentally unattractive
Yes, it absolutely fucking does.
It does in the same way and for the same reasons as the listed behaviors make men unattractive to women. You're making the same tired mistake the social conservatives and feminists (though I repeat myself) do where they fail to weight the desires and worth of men and women equally in an environment where they by all rights should be.
Which is why the assertion it's a double-standard is correct: what you've listed are all the ways men want to skip the bill for providing what women want, and you claim that's bad, and then you list all the ways women want to skip the bill for providing what men want, and you claim that's good.
Now, in the before times, "it's worse for men to skip the bill" was OK because there were external factors that balanced it out; mainly that, because women were not capable of primary resource extraction, women were dependent on those resources and had to sell (which is why you correct observe marriage is an economic bargain).
But, exactly coincident with the dawn of feminism, men destroyed that constraint in a massive wave of automation. So the instinctual double-standard remains, but now nothing else exists to moderate the impulse.
The nugget I can share is this: paying attention to the behaviors of "women" and "men" as a whole, when examining the dating world, is an incredible fool's errand and bound to produce resentment.
I really don't believe you are as free of resentment as you claim to be. Systems design begins with observing the users.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
maybe it's been politicized to mean something like "an attack done by the bad people".
Always has been.
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
The problem with this, as you know, is that there's a really, really easy proxy for this: evaluating based on the gang colors you can't take off. (Unless you're Michael Jackson, I guess.)
That's the classical liberal concern with doing this: that targeting gang colors is already accepting this should be done (and in so doing destroying the noble lie that profiling is useless), and are back to haggling over the price. Skin color-ism lives at the bottom of that slope.
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
I consider it authoritarian when a progressive recognizes signs of my "gang membership" (I can't really hide being male) and acts "appropriately" [or, were I an appropriately tomboyish woman, would consider it authoritarian if a traditionalist saw "woman" and does the same], and I don't [and wouldn't] like that, so per veil of ignorance I feel I would have to consider this authoritarian too.
Whether I care about not being authoritarian is another matter given outgroup consensus is to do it to me.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
6d ago
Taking a guess: must be a race riot.
It was. The 2020 BLM riots were technically larger in scope, but a lot more distributed.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
6d ago
I learned my lesson with Goatse
Stare into that abyss, and that abyss also stares into you.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
6d ago
It's leveling the playing field the same way retards of all walks of life can demand accommodations from the cradle to the grave, and push all the externalities of their misbegotten existence on the schmucks around them who are still dumb enough to try to be productive.
Which is why an elite cluster that wants to survive maximally unenslaved needs to hurry up and establish (or retain to the greatest extent possible) an aristocracy of the Abel-bodied those who are dumb enough to be productive on their own before their own AI puts enough of them out of work for said people to [have to] force this kind of settlement on them.
Perhaps such an elite will come to the conclusion that they must subsidize the conditions required for classical liberalism far beyond the point they economically make sense. That is the best way we have to create such an aristocracy, for in such a system, it is the worthless who are forced to subsidize the worthful by their disproportionately suffering real, measurable harm to their psyches created by the existence of things they don't like.
I remember being told not to touch any of them because they were dangerous
This is the thing I can't properly parse yet- where being able to obey "don't touch, that's dangerous" doesn't necessarily imply "now that you, without questioning or arguing, accept "it's dangerous", you may now know why it's dangerous" (and move on to that stage where you blow up a bunch of soda jugs and watermelons). Then again, I don't have kids yet.
You do a lot of staring down the metaphorical barrel with this stuff and it's odd nobody ever fully acknowledges that. Because yes, them being motivated enough to get to the gun and using it is always a risk. Doubly so because it is a technological terror of a mechanism not found in nature; we don't do that calculus with knives or rope since they're everyday items yet have to consciously do it with guns (I believe hanging ends more kids with a death wish than guns do even when they are available, but I honestly don't feel like verifying that).
It just occurs to me that maybe accidents were more common when the physically smaller guns were the standard home-defense fare simply because they were guns perfectly sized for a kid to use in the first place (and hence more closely resembled the size and weight of their toys at the time). Yeah, revolver triggers are really heavy in DA, and a shrouded-hammer DAO design might be safer because of that, but if my hands are that size I can see me getting enough of a grip on the gun to be able to yank the trigger hard enough to fire it. (With an exposed hammer, I could use my entire hand or some other object to push the hammer down if it's too stiff for my thumb.)
That said, those exact firearms are arguably ideal for actually teaching a kid to shoot. I'd rather give them a pawn shop .32 than a full-size handgun or even a .22 rifle simply because it's not this boat anchor of a thing... which inevitably lends itself to said kid (who is indeed paying attention) getting dope-slapped unnecessarily because they're using so much of their strength to hold the damn thing up in the first place that they can't pull the charging handle back without the gun tracking off to the side. The adult does not know they probably should have told the kid to do this because they're inherently strong/tall enough to never have needed to do that.
Of course I think the real correct choice for this application is a vz. 61 Skorpion (with the shoulder stock) simply because it's harder for that to point the wrong way and easier to actually use, provided you also put one of the really big charging handles on it. But that's also an order of magnitude more expensive than "coincidentally child-sized old revolver" and it's not as simple a manual of arms as "finger off trigger, break it open, loose rounds in, double check finger off trigger, grab cylinder area and close it up, left hand back on grip, [cock hammer and] shoot", so...
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
Democracy only works in an area where consent of the governed is equally geographically distributed.
In Washington, it is not.
a curious infant goes and shoot himself or something else
Even a 5-pound trigger pull (the average full-size handgun, compacts are generally worse) requires some significant finger strength to actually fire, and you're at a mechanical disadvantage if you're trying to shoot yourself (that's really not how guns naturally point- you can only really pick it up one way, where the dangerous end faces away from you). We know that 6 year olds can do this because they've been in the news for shooting teachers before, but before then, maybe not so much.
Revolvers and guns with exposed hammers are more dangerous because the hammer on the back, when cocked, makes the trigger pull light enough for any infant to use- so if you're investigating the device like a very small child might and are properly fuzz-testing the controls, a 3 year old could easily fire it.
The most dangerous age is the one where the kid recognizes what the device is, points it at another kid, and pulls the trigger- for all media with a gun in it that a child is likely to see, and all of the [toy] guns they may themselves possess... well, that's how guns are used, right?
It's not like the other kid is likely going to do that characteristic side-step that gun people do if you point a gun at them; they don't fully understand the implications of "loaded gun is pointed at you" either. They might understand it means "danger", but it's in the abstract, or kid with the gun does that so quickly you don't actually have time to react. (Kind of like how deer will just wander out into the middle of gun ranges.)
And this is indeed unique to guns; injuries caused by play-fighting with knives tend both to be self-limiting (it hurts before you are fatally injured, whereas with the gun it only hurts afterwards), rely on the physical strength of the user to work (not a limitation with a gun due to its nature as a self-powered tool), and the danger is obvious to any child who has ever cut themselves.
It's perhaps more accurate to say that the exercise of political power is automated by guns, in the exact same ways (and with the exact same effects) that conventional warfare is automated by nuclear weapons [so the outcome is generally "don't even try"].
When each man is his own nuclear-armed nation-state, MAD doctrine applies and thus limits the scale and scope of conventional war. The Khmer Rouge or the Hutu don't rack up that kind of body count if every man, woman, and child can simply shoot them. (Genocide doesn't discriminate by age, and under those conditions, you probably can't kill them all. But in the dawn of the decade, in a particular Western country, a nationwide Kristallnacht-style movement was killed in 3 rounds. Even a revolver holds more than that, and if everyone has one...)
(The typical "but does 2A cover nuclear weapons" question is far closer to the mark than I think either side realizes. It's just a matter of degrees. One notes the same question will apply to AI usage in the long run.)
A literal translation of his name is "Good times". Nominative determinism strikes again, perhaps?
More options
Context Copy link