ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
19hr ago
Most women reading (read?) the magazine called Seventeen are in their early tens, too.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
1d ago
I've never seen anyone in-ernest complaining that disparate conviction rates on the basis of gender being a sign of "Systemic Sexism".
Even though that is, of course, exactly what's happening. We more often do that for conviction terms since it's more measurable there.
Female anti-sociality takes a lot more work to root out and is a lot more plausibly deniable than male anti-social behavior, due to a variety of factors (some evolutionary, some not). So a legal system that only sees on bright lines only punishes them when they act out in ways that match male anti-social behavior, which is called that because men function more along those lines.
The ways in we used to tamp down on this behavior in an equal way is what feminists mean when they say "sexism": fuzzy social laws designed to deal with the gender whose anti-social behavior is inherently harder to police in an equitable way compared to the way we punish male anti-social behavior (which we can at least gather evidence for).
Just because you aren't looking for it, or don't have the words to describe it (because they have perhaps been erased) doesn't mean the intent isn't there. Defining rape in a way only men can commit it doesn't magically make women incapable of it.
but the takes aren't typically "eliminate the women's restroom completely" or "repeal Title IX to have a single sports league again".
What's good for the gander is good for the goose.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
with the woke cancellations it was mostly twitter mobs pressuring private companies
But beyond that, it was governments pressuring banks. Like, Operation Chokepoint was a thing, and arguably it continues to be a thing with the credit card companies still being pressured by plausibly-deniable paragovernmental organizations (that whole porn ban thing).
I don’t think it changes much that it’s blatantly public, though it certainly does for others who are not aware that their pressure wasn’t just the people power they think it was.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
enforcer-transgressor dichotomy
A thought on this: the definition of 'conservative' is being on the enforcer side (the act of enforcement is tautologically conservative), and then you have the reformers and reactionaries on the other side.
Progressives have been under the pretense that they were in the transgressor role (and to a degree inherit a movement that is axiomatically transgressive, which is why they, and traditionalist-leaning reactionaries, erroneously call them 'liberals'), but transgression and entrenchment are indistinguishable to any faction that depends on entrenchment.
In general, they seem much more inclined to pushing forward a prescriptive vision of American culture than other factions in American politics.
Progressives have had them beat on that front since at least before the Civil War. (Why else do you think the faction opposed to them still uses the stars and bars?)
It is useful to be able to point out that even classical liberals will act like conservatives once they manage to get into power. "Maximally correct" is not a viable political identity because as soon as the conditions are right to enable rent-seeking on what was a mostly correct answer, that is what gets entrenched, and it remains that way until enough social activation energy accumulates such that it is pushed back by a new truth. Which then entrenches, and like the tides, the cycle repeats.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
Apparently there was a meltdown at/coming home from/because of? school that had something to do with going with the other boys to the bathroom.
And so his authority figures, on a hair trigger for trans, see trans in every GNC behavior a 4 year old exhibits. They're in a hurry to validate it, partially because they've been told they should be, but also because having a social token is just the greatest, isn't it?
that had something to do with going with the other boys to the bathroom
What, did he decide to take a piss sitting down and the other boys made fun of him for doing that? (Or for the more obvious 'being present in the boy's bathroom while looking like a girl'[1]?) You know, opposed to the way you are Supposed to, which is to casually whip that private part out, piss all over yourself and the floor and otherwise make a big mess, and that's assuming you don't have other people actively fucking with you. I don't remember if they mount the pissers low enough to be used by a kid of that height, though maybe it doesn't matter.
using backwards pronouns for himself and others
And maybe if we didn't spend the last 15 years playing stupid social games about this, this wouldn't trigger that absurd overreaction. Yes, I'm sure a 4 year old doing that means the same thing as it does when a 24 year old does that. He's not even old enough to natively know why writing "yes" or "no such luck" in the form that asks for your "sex" is funny yet.
He's not even that girly
And yet from your description he has hair long enough to 'wear it like a girl', and is not only patient enough for someone (probably a girl he gets along with) to paint his nails, but not be troubled by what it means. Sounds pretty girly to me, and perhaps more importantly, [1]I bet it probably sounds pretty girly to the average teacher, and the average 5 year old boy.
But then, it's not like that's really a bad thing... until you put him an environment that's actively trying to "encourage him to express his true feminine identity" as a consequence. That's just plain old sexual interference, and his folks really do need to protect him from teachers who insist on doing that, because they are as incapable of policing themselves as the Church was.
There's a difference between 'I think I'll wear [girl clothes] because I feel like it today' and 'I think I'll wear [girl clothes] because it validates my identity as a girl'. (There are some sensory considerations here that will result in boys actively preferring dresses under certain conditions, so that may be less connected with some sense of gender identity than might otherwise be apparent. Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
the child is likely experiencing social contagion
Another +1 for the "adults are all Last Thursdayists" hypothesis. I get that it's very convenient to model kids as basically unthinking robots but they do have their own motivations and internal reasons for doing things. Those reasons are usually simple enough to be trivially back-propagated but that's naturally difficult when your robot's also giving you lip.
The follow-on comment to that one kind of confirmed my suspicion. Just because he's likely pretty girly already doesn't make him a girl, for various reasons; and there's a productive and unproductive way to handle that fact.
The relevant authority figures have selected the unproductive, destructive, and selfish way to deal with that, and "being too stupid or actively going along with those things for social reasons"... well, that's what molesters do and how they work, and pulling back is likely justified on those grounds.
But it's not the kid, lol.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
Is it really so hard to believe?
Western society believes women are (for a variety of reasons) definitionally incapable of molesting children, and as a result we have no words to describe what it looks like when children are molested by women. Parents come up with a variety of justifications to look the other way, especially when they're part of the priesthood (churches and schools/priests and teachers are very similar in their social roles in modern times, and churches have been around sufficiently long to be present in humanity's genetic memory).
We pattern match it to "literally fucking" because of our modern pretense that men and women are the same- and in its majestic equality, the law prohibits both genders from engaging in molester behaviors overwhelmingly preferred by men [be they perpetrator or victim].
It is completely natural that the sex that receives sexual gratification from being an oppressed social token should perpetrate its sexual interference by trying to turn little boys into oppressed social tokens. This is why they believe it necessary to try and induce that identity. It's really not about encouraging the sex, it's about inculcating submissiveness to, and the sexual excitement of, being under the thumb of the patriarchy Big, Bad Men.
In this case, he most likely acted different, and different = submissive and breedable oppressed by default, so why shouldn't he be introduced to the sexual arousal that comes from being in the uniform of different? It's also absurdly heteronormative if you think about it for 5 seconds- it's just that instead of "men can't wear dresses, dresses are for women, it is not for men to wear", it's "men can't wear dresses, dresses are for women, therefore anyone who wears a dress is a woman"- but female sexuality is just as heteronormative as male sexuality is, so...
Then let some UN or NGOs do it.
Yes, let the organizations that are actively trying to secure a Hamas win distribute food. That'll definitely fix the problem.
An explicitly pro-Israel NGO doing it would have better results, because they will genuinely attempt to make sure that does not occur, but their work would be frustrated because of (and by) the above.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
I believe this is a social contagion
But not an organic one. That one's pretty obviously top-down. That'll teach him to get along with the girls and choose the dollhouse or toy stove over the blocks and trucks in centers, I guess- or at least, it'll certainly teach him how idiot adults see those things. Certainly an important lesson, best learned early.
What the hell do I do?
Nothing, or however you'd nominally handle the general form of "but his mom lets him X and Y" if and when your kid asks why he can't be a girl too. Your way of doing that may be productive, or it may not, but that's up to you.
As for "what's he called today?", well, you'll likely be sorting that out with him directly (as will your kids, in their own way). I'm sure you have enough social grace to figure out how to confirm someone's name if you forgot. Preferably when there's nobody to answer that question for him present, of course.
I also believe that kids emulate each other.
Ah, but kids also question each other, especially if it's about something particularly unusual. You might not find the answers to those questions satisfactory, but I assure you they do eventually get asked.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
I also want an overwhelming number of guns (specifically pistols) airdropped into Gaza too. A Tokarev for every man, woman, and child.
Hamas is already as armed as they need to be and wouldn't benefit from more guns (and these personal defense weapons aren't really suitable for waging a non-civil war). I want everyone else to be, so that when Hamas tries to seize the food or set up forward bases in places in which they are not welcome they get shot the fuck up. Israel already has to assume every Palestinian is armed because Palestinians and Hamasi look the exact same, so it's not hurting them.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
5d ago
people in denial about the situation
Honestly, I'd argue tapping non-Israeli radicals for this makes the most sense here for that reason.
See, to win this war and get the best outcome for Palestinians, you don't need to kill all the Palestinians (obviously). You just need to kill enough of the Hamasi until the Palestinians can subjugate them on their own.
This is what the UN doesn't get (the leftists who make up the organization adore the Hamasi for political reasons and their defeat would harm them back home[1]), and it's what the IDF no longer understands (because they are far less willing to draw a distinction between Hamasi and Palestinian, and also because their interests are only minimally served by a denazified de-Hamasified Palestine that recovers and proceeds to actually make something of itself).
[1] The destruction of the Hamasi would show that violent parasitism won't be tolerated, and because it would prove that having a certain skin color won't save you. Both of those things are explicitly policy goals of the left, hence the proxy war in the West over it.
Is it, though?
The law courts of the US had a pretty lazy response when it came to the Left doing this with respect to threatening to sanction online platforms. Why should this be different?
(I'm not a fan of licensure being abused in this way, but then I remember debanking. This is one of those things that could and should be fixed with legislation.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
acting with blatant corruption
By that you mean "moral" corruption, and that appears to be the root of the disagreement. Conservatives (and the average leftist is motivated by the same things per Haidt- after all, they [perceive themselves to have at least perpetuated if not] built the system, they are interested in that work meaning something) correctly observe that people who are unwilling to respect their prerogatives of decorum are probably unwilling to respect conservative framings entirely.
For instance, if a conservative redefines X to mean Y "because it's what decent people do" (read: because I make money hand-over-fist; business always marches alongside honor), a reformer might then redefine word X as Z and reject definition Y with prejudice, which will disadvantage and destabilize conservatives that built their fortunes around definition Y.
"Where my country gone?" is a conservative statement, it's just coming from the left now.
We had this really great thing going being not just the most economically powerful but also the most intellectually productive country in the world, and we acted as a vacuum sucking up all the intelligent and ambitious people from around the world and having them come here to build things with us.
Well, as long as they were the correct color. They had quotas for that, just like they did in the '50s, for the same reasons they had them in the '50s.
we’ve destroyed science funding in the country
Science that doesn't replicate isn't science, and the initiatives to do R&D were also suffering from the "so long as they're the right color" problem. I guess it's the age-old dilemma where you can either do science or you can sacrifice it to be anti-racist, just from the right's definition of anti-racism instead of the left's. Naturally, this is moral corruption to the left, just like ending racism the first time was to the right.
we’re letting China and the rest of the world
No, only China. Nobody else invested into the tooling to manufacture the panels for the same reason the US couldn't- too expensive. The West has already lost the battle for renewable energy sovereignty (and already won the battle for forcing Europe into a dependence on American natural gas by successfully provoking a war in Ukraine); the only question is whether we want to pay now to redevelop indigenous green energy generation capacity, or pay later by having to do that anyway when China starts making diplomatic demands in exchange.
Now, are tariffs the right way to do that given how long it takes to spin up manufacturing in a country that has largely forgotten how to do it? Well, maybe not (annexing the country with a good chunk of high-tech manufacturing immediately to the north is likely to be the better long-term plan here). But it does strike me as interesting that the Rs have pivoted into being the party of bad ideas and the Ds into the party of no ideas.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
It doesn't apply here
Sure it does, if you consider the Right marginalized and the Left privileged. Sure, "enemy's tools, enemy's house" and all that but one side being completely and knowingly self-serving in the implementation of that concept does not reality deny.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
6d ago
What leftist movement has been obsessed with concepts like purifying the racial makeup of the country?
All Progressive movements have been trying to do this for at least the last 30 years.
Of course, to them "purifying" means "needs less white" rather than (or perhaps as a reaction to) "needs more white", and have mirrored justifications for this ('stolen land', 'be charitable', 'black lives matter', etc.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
7d ago
Personally I'd say both are lacking in the broader culture and so we have more broken people now than ever.
We have a societal oversupply of people that Know Better. It is difficult for a young person to be pushed to become stronger because the elders say that's too dangerous, things that get broken over the course of developing that strength are too expensive, wait until you're older, "not a human being until 25", blah blah blah.
The problem with the youth is not that they don't listen; the problem with the youth is that they take their elders far too seriously.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
9d ago
Wake me up when you have women contributing to the survival of your Viking overlords.
to entice and trap men
You're proving too much.
While a young woman whose chest inflates to an absurd size while she laughs maniacally is a really funny mental image (compare that one Wojak where the guy is sitting on his brain), it's also kind of silly.
The root of the matter is that sexual dimorphism [and hence division of labor] is, from an evolutionary standpoint, superior to the alternative. That's why it persists in most creatures, to some degree, including humans.
We could go down the modern academic route of "well, then obviously evolution was intentionally sexist", and that said dimorphism was established and imposed by a genetically-inbuilt plot by men, but you will notice that women were (and are) emancipated [from men] relatively quickly after a particular society's technology level makes that feasible, a tipping point the modern West crossed around 1910 (and completed that project around 1970; though note that 2 world wars, a famine, and [so far] the depression may have slowed that down some).
That's a remarkably quick turnaround for a gender inherently programmed to oppress women. What's going on there?
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
10d ago
Has cancel culture blown up in the woke's face yet?
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
10d ago
People afraid of anti-immigrant or white supremacist or anti-LGBT violence are far more reasonable in their fear than people afraid of anti-conservative violence
No, they're [objectively] not. There was that year where anti-conservatives (or at least, those marching under the banner of anti-conservatism) set fire to basically every major city, caused billions in property damage, and murdered a bunch of people for shits and giggles.
If [violence the left likes] and [violence the left doesn't like] is a ledger that should balance then [the left] have vastly overspent, and have no right to complain when the standard they set turns 'round on them.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
11d ago
That's part of it, but not all of it.
See, the thing about [the sum of the factions that currently call themselves the modern left]'s violence is that, inextricable to its nature, it's done by proxy. They work by convincing people, overwhelmingly men, to do things on their behalf and otherwise uphold their interests.
This is the whole "people power" thing. When a leftist pulls their phone, what they're really doing is pulling a gun by proxy, which is why they think they can face down actual guns when they do it (warning: murder footage, but there's no other way to get this point across). The guns actually firing- their social power in the situation being ignored- is their nightmare scenario.
Leftists want gun control specifically so that what is shown in the video never happens to them. Or their [morality] pets[0]. Or innocent bystanders (children in school or postal workers being the most salient example; most of these incidents start out at least vaguely targeted then spill over into "well, my life's over now, what's the worst that could happen to me?").
And naturally, it's hard to defend that as a rightist: what, you want to maintain the veto of violence so you can blow away couples that argue with you? If there was gun control, maybe that argument wouldn't have boiled over and they'd still be alive, and [leftists] may well be objectively correct in that assessment. (Is "well, he could have run them down with his car instead or burned their house down" convincing to you? Because it isn't to me. And before you argue "knives/clubs/fists are everywhere", leftists want those gone too by extension.)
The rightist counter to this is "an armed society is a polite society"- just assume everyone has a gun, don't feud with them unnecessarily, and you won't get killed (or "FAFO" for short). But for a political force that inherently depends on nagging to get its way that's a non-starter- it severely curtails their power, and cripples the ability of the leftists not blessed with subtlety to get their way while making their job [who to petition/criticize/call out such that their objectives get accomplished] much harder. After all, they could just decide to start shooting, right?
So it's basically a version of "just trust us bro".
But the problem is that their own side is, objectively, very much not trustworthy with the gun-by-proxy (we've had 60 years of abuse, and cellphones and the Internet have severely worsened the problem), and now that untrustworthiness has graduated to murder of a person trustworthy Rightists might consider an excuse to impose a compromise upon them (and not just the fake ones).
[0] When a leftist complains about officer-involved shootings of people who aren't rightists by default, that video is what they see. This can be out of ignorance ("why didn't they shoot the weapon out of his hand?") or because they see their totems as "speaking truth to power" by existing through adversity. Which is the origin story for all the groups that comprise the [modern left] today.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
11d ago
I’m not sure I entirely buy her thesis
I do. Gynosupremacist thought (erroneously called "feminism" here) is legitimately terrified of straight men doing this to women. "Kill all men"... before men kill all women. This is existential, instinctual, foundational, horrible anxiety.
Some humans are more driven by raw instinct than others.
the dynamics I’m talking about manifest at timescales larger than a generation.
The dynamics I'm talking about manifest at more immediate timescales. Men are strong enough to do the heavy lifting that is required to secure better sources of food; women are not, thus women die without men. I believe 'helper' was the term used in Genesis.
Interestingly, in places where you can't take two steps without literally tripping over food and game animals, women rule precisely because they have little existential need for men. Their cities consisted of these long houses: the earliest arcologies. This typifies certain civilizations historically native to North America because, prior to 1800 or so, those were the conditions on the continent.
I don’t think one can reasonably call a gender relationship “parasitic” in any biological sense.
Sure you can. The problem comes when you turn "parasitic" from description to prescription, and it's not acceptable to do this for the same reason it's not acceptable to cheer murder of your political enemies. It's a fundamentally symbiotic relationship where one part needs to not be [seen to be] exploiting the relationship, either in reality or in the eyes of the other.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
12d ago
Also, note that 'left-wing ideology' forms the 'traditional female' role in society (creates secondary goods, thrive/idealistic mindset, sets morality/cultural aesthetics), where 'right-wing ideology' forms the 'traditional male' role (creates primary goods, survive/realistic mindset, executes on morality/cultural aesthetics).
Remember that
Men can survive just fine without women; women cannot survive without men.
is the state of nature, and what humans have spent the last 200,000 years evolving alongside, and that
Men and women can both survive just fine without either parasitizing off of the other.
has only been true in Western nations for only about the last hundred years. We're still in the evolutionary transition period from the former to the latter, and most left-wing actions are perfectly sane if you view them as "women getting revenge on men for the crime of being utterly dependent on them" (and "the unproductive getting revenge on the productive for being utterly dependent on them" is an excellent explanation for why there are still communists in Western countries).
The problem, and the growing pains now, are that women/leftists perceive (and they are correct) that the Nazis were the last male/rightist attempt at a State. So anything that grants men more power is, in a very literal sense, Naziism to a leftist. [The fact this definition is self-serving, and exists as a conservative force to avoid a more equitable distribution of moral power in society, is by definition irrelevant to leftists.]
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
12d ago
You make left-wingers sound like retarded children who can't grasp the basics of cause and effect.
That's the mistake theory explanation, yes. People think this because the conflict theory explanation- where when pressed, they pretend it's a game, then pretend they weren't serious, then attempt to remind you their inherent moral worth deserves your leniency, then make it clear they know exactly what they're doing and proceed with the destructive thing anyway- is just not something humans have evolved to deal with.
We don't accept explanations of just following orders "actually, I'm just retarded" from the right[0] for deep-seated biological reasons. That we accept them from the left[1] (also for deep-seated biological reasons) is actually a big deal.
"Oh, no! She's going to be insufferable after this. She's going to ride the sympathy and milk it for the next 50 years. She might get to be president now. This is a disaster."
Not that "involuntarily attending a school shooting" isn't a viable way to political power (David Hogg), but I very much doubt that if you get shot like Kirk was, you'll be enjoying anything after that (much less political power).
[0, 1] For rightists, being retarded is never believed because, as human doings [or in modern times, people more aligned with human doings], it's strictly an evolutionary malus (stupidity is a detriment to executing your will) so any assertions you were retarded accidentally are naturally looked upon with extreme skepticism. For leftists it's always believed because, as human beings [or in modern times, people more aligned with human beings], being able to convince human doings to take pity on you while manipulating them when their back is turned is an evolutionary bonus (feigning childishness is an enhancement).
Meh, they’re protecting themselves from the unvaccinated.
Joking aside, it’s also in response to another norm, which is “technological bookkeepers can unperson you at any time now or in the future if you are ever caught enforcing laws they don’t like”.
This wasn’t as much a problem 50 years ago, for obvious reasons, but it is today. And we can write legislation so that that doesn’t happen, but we haven’t done that yet, and we want to start enforcing the law right now.
So yeah, they need the masks.
More options
Context Copy link