@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

1 follower   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC 

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The existential threats to young men who actually absorbed some of the "don't rape" lessons in grade school include:




You go to Room 101.  1984 is literally a book about this exact thing happening.  The English released a modernized version of that (from the Party's perspective, of course) where [a younger] Winston just straight up kills Julia, as was his fantasy [and per his justifications] of doing in the beginning of the book.




Men and women simply can't agree on the rules of flirting.




Men and women will not be allowed to agree on the rules of flirting.  That's what the Junior Anti-Sex League does (the attempts to make all intimate images [implied: of women] legally equivalent to child porn are a pretty good example of this). If they figure out a way to get along the older femcels (and the Chads who find that idiocy useful, since it keeps men from things like "having standards") will lose their power.


Now, if society somehow evolved past the notion that women are more inherently valuable than men- and in modern times they are less valuable due to the way they actively damage society for shits and giggles- then that might change.  But that's going to take some doing, and it's not going to fix the damage that's already been done.






Women have a near total legal control physical control by proxy over sex, whereas men have near total physical control in the moment




It's also going to have to be women that disarm first (and fight other women on that point, and train their sons out of the "don't rape" propaganda), and stand firm against the hedonic treadmill of risk mitigation (or just insist on having more daughters, I guess), though it's possible that this continues forever since a birth rate of 0 still won't imbalance the genders.  We can't retvrn to the 1950s-1970s; we aren't as rich as we were back then, and to be more precise women are [at the same point in their lives] comparatively richer now as compared to men, and therefore [feel, and are] in a better position to make demands like this.


If men are in socioeconomic oversupply, and as we can see clearly from the dating stats that they are, then there's still going to be sufficient men willing to enforce the physical-control-by-proxy (as no law survives an intentional lack of enforcement).  Men can't enforce a fix for moral hazard from a position of relative weakness.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's an artefact of training it on the internet




Well, here's an idea: maybe only train it on literature and transcripts from before the early '90s?  Nothing says you have to train it on Reddit comments and Twitter shitposts, and maybe then the prose would be better.


Of course, a knowledge cutoff like that would obviously have some drawbacks, but in terms of "not being actively hostile to the user" I'm unconvinced it would be worse.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


it's weird that people jump to "so dumb 'em down and marry 'em off by force"




You believed an innovative solution would come from what passed for progressive thought 50 years ago traditionalist thought, especially when parroted completely uncritically?  This is just mostly just men being butthurt.




Thus, the fact that the discourse keeps presuming the latter rather than the former feels like an artificial move to guide the conversation to a place it wouldn't normally go.




You believed an innovative solution would come from what will be traditionalist thought in 50 years progressive thought, especially when parroted completely uncritically?  This is mostly just women being butthurt anyway.






or figuring out why young men are under-socialized, undermotivated and underpaid, or whatever.




There are no table stakes.  We're not interested in investing in youth outside of how much interest that student loan is going to generate, we banned all development that would make their current salary appropriate, and we're too invested in "teach men to not rape" to make sure that those who weren't going to do that anyway aren't getting treated as pre-emptively guilty (we have taxed their virtue to redistribute it to rapist men and stupid women, and now wise men don't want to exercise that virtue or see doing so as too risky?  And now they have anxiety and won't come out of their room(s)?  couldn't have seen that coming).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then maybe college should be intended for mothers who are already more or less done with the 'housewife' job?

That's how the Boomers did it, and that actually worked out pretty well for them.


I'm sympathetic to an argument that posits that there should be an effort to get men established quickly so they have credentials or financial backing to offer women (one always benefits from some seed money to court bigger investors), then try to matchmake them with an appropriately-younger cohort fresh out of high school.  Then, in 10-15 years, they can join the educated/workforce as desired (perhaps subsidized if you had at least 2 kids).


Seems like something that would solve the issues in Korea, at least, so you don't have women complaining about men taking spots at workplaces ahead of them their experience/education suggests they deserve instead (ignoring the fact that men are unable to gain that experience due to the mandatory military service, and that is part of the compensation package).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


and yet the people who characterised it as such are refusing to acknowledge this, or in some cases (not necessarily yours) denying that they ever did so to begin with.




You're expecting a creature who knows naught but naked will to power to apologize for the way that it is?  That denial is still an exercise of that, by the way- "yes, and?" is better phrased as "bitch, you ain't gonna do shit about it".  They may have lost, but you (and reality) are still too weak to hold them to account.


I don't expect contrition from bugs when they appear in my pantry, and as a consequence my opinion that it is wrong of them to be there doesn't matter- only my ability to physically remove them does.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Trump used coerced prostitutes




Everyone knows that's false, though, for reasons Sloot covered above.  And most claimed "coercion" is just progressive/selfish-woman-speak for "he said he wouldn't keep supplying/buying me X if I didn't put out/consent" anyway, so using that standard I'm forced to conclude it's very unlikely the Rotherham girls were coerced either.




The fact that it's continuing means at the very least some of the people were under 16




In a landscape where the media tends to blow its load all at once I sincerely doubt this is the case.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


let alone calculate in their primal math brain that they must let them kill the child for greater reproductive profits




Women are making the same calculus with their daughters when they let stepfathers fuck them: "if I don't whore them out, he'll get bored and leave".  I have no reason to believe that men can't make a similar decision with their same-gender offspring too.


I don't think there's any other calculation going on besides maybe an over-exaggerated fear of having to find someone else.  I also don't think this is something that happens consciously given that "battered housewife" can even be a stereotype in the first place.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Is there any clarification on "by underage we mean 17" or "we mean 13"?




They mean 16-17.  If they were 13, they'd have said 13.


The anti-Trump faction has a significant, perhaps even majority, element whose entire objective is to pretend there isn't a distinction between 17 and 13 in this matter.  Pointing out the adultery adultness of these women works against this goal, so they won't do that.


The pro-Trump faction is well aware of the above, but they also don't have any other effective tools to oppose that viewpoint other than flagrantly ignoring people who claim they're the same.  Saying "well, akthually, they're adults" works against this goal, so they won't do that.


The demand for sex crimes (as with hate crimes) vastly exceeds its supply.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


For all the talk on here about men wanting their own biological children and wanting sons to carry on the name and heritage, that didn't seem to hold true here.




His existing child was actively hindering his father's ability to do this.  My assertion is that he believed that the stepmother was so much a better fit that if her price to have [a greater number of] biological children with her was "kill your son so I [and her children] have more resources", it would be granted her.


From the father's perspective his son simply died from exposure.


Apes kill rival children all the time; this is just the girlboss version of that.  The only shield they have is the cuteness factor, and that doesn't work as well when it's either not your kid, or if you're unwilling to resist the ape urge telling you it's that kid or yours.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


but what the hell was this man doing? "Oh I don't want to make a fuss because she'll just blow up at me?" or even worse "So long as I get laid regularly, I don't care".




It's rare to see the spear counterpart of "he was fucking the stepdaughter for years- so long as he keeps paying my bills, she didn't care", but it clearly does happen.  Stepmother vs. son is typically a murder thing, permitted by the father, since the son is [or will be] a drain on the resources that the father pays the stepmother to stick around.


By contrast, stepfather vs. daughter is typically a rape thing, permitted by the mother, since the mother pays the stepfather in sex to stick around.


Of course, the mother seldom goes to jail in those latter cases because sexism, but still.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


charter schools are vastly outstripping the performance of the public educational system




Yes, because of two things:


    

  • A parent's ability to afford sending their child to such a school is strongly correlated with the intelligence of their child, and mid-to-high human capital still benefits from competent educators
    • 

  • Competent educators self-sort into charter schools and are expected to perform like it; if they don't, they're out
    • 





How the educational system can reconstruct itself around those differences I’m not too sure.




It already kind of has; we just... don't bother teaching about things any more.  Too dangerous, you see.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'm not sure it's relevant yet




Bailouts for the education-managerial complex are always highly relevant.


In this case, bailing them out means "the government aids in forcing everyone they can into paying their salaries".


This is the primary driver for credentialism (and more recently, for handing out student visas like candy in countries with semi-private university systems).  Legal requirements are a form of [corporate] welfare, it's just that corporation is a union of a large cross-section of society.  And yes, it obviously robs the youth of valuable time and money to pay professors and administrators who have no business being there in the first place, just like everything else society does.


I expect other New World countries to nationalize universities as enrollment falls to enshrine the welfare program permanently.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Edit: I haven't ever seen this point made, but classical liberalism is a statement of value-finder supremacy.  This is distinct from communism and fascism, which are worker-supremacy movements (when workers are in oversupply or undersupply, respectively), and monarchism/oligarchy, which are goal-setter/manager-supremacy movements.


This is why classical liberal societies (and those inspired by them) all converged on this viewpoint.






Through this lens, women are "complementary" to men only insofar as the servant complements his master.




Sure, but the excuse made to constantly assert this is that X designates servant, and further, used as an excuse to be lazy about/completely ignore that's a deadweight loss if a master X (or a servant not-X re: Peter Principle) exists.


This is why societies that are sufficiently mercantile tend to be the freest ones, since the base condition of what allows them to be so mercantile is a deficit of laborers to produce whatever it is they sell.  They're more concerned about exercising and expressing natural talents because encouraging more of that makes the society more productive, rather than a dirt-poor society where that would be a net-negative due to lack of resources or market.


(Also, if you're a Christian society there tends to be an associated meme of actively checking for overlooked potential for what ultimately comes down to... better service.  The US is obsessed with underdogs partially for this reason.)




"women are bad at everything other than their biological prerogative, so they ought to stay in their lane while the men handle everything else of import"




to the trads: they already know that, stop rubbing it in, that's only making it worse


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But even for the ones who grasp the scope of traditional feminine obligations, they fail to understand the other side of things. They ignore or denigrate everything men do - often aspiring to literally prohibit them from participating in anything they deem important, or imagining them as a kind of leisure class - and then claim that the things they have reserved to women entitle them to supremacy.




I don't think it was an improvement to replace the sexism and entitlement of men with the sexism and entitlement of women.






I might find your average conservative man to be kinda sexist, but I don't think he




Compare: the popular conception of racism is "saying [slur] to people of [race]" rather than what racism actually is, which is the hatred of anything associated with that race.


And for the most part that hatred actually makes some amount of sense; that's ultimately how it's laundered.  No, wishing the boys in your care acted more like [your favorite stereotype of] girls, and punishing them if they don't act like it, is not guaranteed to be hatred of those boys, but it's functionally indistinguishable from it, even if you can come up with some justification for why forcing boys to act like girls is better.  (You'll notice this is how the wokes define "hatred"; their only problem is that they're selfish pricks that think this is everyone else's problem but theirs and take steps to define themselves out of ever being convicted of it- a classic conservative/right-wing-style move.  Men are correct in pointing out that the academic and managerial tracks for women are where a significant cluster of these people reside; quite literally the "old girls' club".)


X-ism is, in a meritocratic/mercantile/worth-of-a-[hu]man-defined-by-the-service-they-provide-others/Christian? society, a crime of the heart because it's an abject refusal to find value being left on the table for [one or more of the 3 missing "conservative" moral foundations] reasons; but being a crime of the heart is why it's so difficult to deal with.  That was what the standards-based/meritocratic regime of yesteryear(s) was supposed to avoid, but no plan like that has ever survived economic contraction.  That's why modern gynosupremacists take pains to pretend this is still the way the system works, after all.




At the very least, if you claim to value women, treat them adults with an equal say rather than some cross between property and a child you can fuck.




But it takes, like, effort to do that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for November 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, they're all total looser's.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, Americans have a history of going "fuck the Feds, we're keeping our slaves, get off my lawn before I shoot you", which resulted in the only large-scale civil war in the nation's history.  Could have gone either way, too.


Of course, the group currently keeping the slaves, and arguing that there should be more slaves, and doing anything they can to acquire and encourage more slaves has built their identity around "being the people who ended slavery".  So they couldn't be slavers (or "oppressors" more generally) simply by defining their identity away from it.


Besides, what they're doing is only "illegal immigration" and that doesn't mean "growing a group of sub-citizens that have zero rights and is as such more or less wholly dependent on their massa's good graces to stay fed and clothed, and keeping them around because you only have to supply [a proxy for] those things"... right?


Then again, I'm sure the Confederate soldiers thought what they were doing was right too.  Ironically, that is the one thing Blue cannot admit.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Seriously, God is more thoughtful than edgy teenage atheists.




Sure, but a plain reading of the verse that describes it and its surrounding context is still highly infohazardous to Christians, especially the kinds that actually read Scripture.  And then we get the "don't worry about it, it's basically an inkblot" dismissal of the argument which is even worse.


Ironically the reason why it's so hazardous is because what the verse [is argued to] say here is already so solidified in our own cultural context (and has been for the past... millennium, maybe two?) that even the non-believers are aware of "dying unrepentant means you go to Hell."  It's everywhere in their memes, too.


And sure, we can say "obviously this wasn't common knowledge in Jesus' time, so that's why He had to say that", but that realization is very much not obvious (especially on first encounter with that information and the... corresponding mental states it tends to leave one in).


Or at least, that's the claim being made here.  The Church doesn't [know to] just lead with that and "don't worry just forget about it" has a moral hazard in it too.  That is, from extensive personal experience, detrimental.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure, but feminists generally square this circle by going




because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom are men




and note that this is the same as




because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom are black




and the way this is legitimized to a people who otherwise aren't just cartoon-villain evil is with varying other justifications that center around how being X is the best proxy for "lacking the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes".  This usually takes the form of some scientific justification (melanin, testosterone, brain development, etc.).  It generally works quite well for people of not-X, and the moral hazard for continuing that state of affairs leans in their direction.




By contrast,




because there always are, and that some people deserve to suffer not because they're morally or ethically bad or whatever, but merely because they lack the wisdom/intelligence/etc. to make choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves when given the freedom to do so, compared to the alternative where they were not given the freedom




is the liberal view, and liberals who still call themselves feminists are pointing at a legacy where this was at one point true for their group (or are low-information enough to believe it's still a problem especially thanks to those who work to generate the above justifications), but because they're just better than average human beings, their tendency to be sympathetic to those who claim to be on the low side of that moral hazard until they are crushed to death by a literal army of concern trolls.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the sexual code for robots?




It's just a blatant attempt (and a successful one) to criminalize any sex anyone would actually want.


If you view women purely as sex workers/providers, a point on which feminists/progressives and traditionalists already agree, this makes sense, since "only criminalize buying" is the ultimate veto over any action the buyer makes in the future.  Get famous after 50 years and think they didn't pay enough?  Believe it or not, straight to jail.


What, you thought the Junior Anti-Sex League was fiction?


It's literally the same law we use for AoC violations, just with a fig leaf over the whole "well, technically women can consent, so stop complaining, won't you Think of the Children?".  Again, that's also by design.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Note that there is no real mainstream political figure, ANYWHERE, in ANY country that is able to make these sort of statements.




Sure there is; you need only look north.  That won't get you into political power in that country for reasons that have a lot to do with geography, but at least the solvent half of the country will vote for you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I suspect you know the issue was forced surrogacy, through ritualized rape.




Perhaps that's why it plays well with women who have a sociofinancial incentive to claim all sex is rape and all childbirth is surrogacy.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They ask questions like would you really shoot a man for attacking you on the street or trying to break into your house?




The correct answer to that question is "no, I wouldn't shoot a man for attacking you or breaking into your house; we don't owe you masculinity".




because it makes them feel in control




Feels?  No, is.  Those supporting rioters burning neighborhoods do that specifically because those rioters will never get close to theirs, and as such permitting and encouraging rioters is how they exercise control over everyone else.  They're shock troopers, backed up by the rest of the army that is the judiciary, to perpetrate random violence on the rest of the citizenry because it's funny.


Just because the cruel king is now "a significant portion of the citizenry in general" and not "one man or a few men" as it was in times of old doesn't make them less of a cruel king, and even a king like that has supporters simply by virtue of being the king.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Honestly, I'm still hoping for something novel on this end, like a triple-barrel rotary cannon that uses ammunition like this to emerge as the best solution to this problem.


A similar system has been used for a cannon with an extreme rate of fire before; I suspect it probably scales down better than your typical minigun, doesn't need to run the mechanism as fast for the same amount of projectiles coming out the end, and the rounds can be made of cheap extruded plastic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


but unlike the latter, they actually get around to trying it.




What do you mean?  The most effective way to improve things for a prisoner is simply to release them rather than putting them in prison; progressives have been wildly successful at doing that.


Sure, it's worse for the community, but criminals most often target men so women have at best (1/how often men are more targeted) the incentive to care.  In the event a criminal does target a woman, it's the job of men to die in their defense (preferably unarmed), that woman will find another.  And in the very unlikely event a woman does die, well, less sexual competition.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Both are perfectly coherent.


The traditionalist view of this is man vs. man.  Criminal women are still women, and as such still retain their primary value to [traditionalist] men.  Thus, we should avoid actively enabling men, and above all criminal men (they claim to be women, but that's not relevant beyond the surface culture-war that raised the question) to damage that value.

That society holds a reserve of otherwise perfectly-functional women is supplemental to this group's power.


The progressive view of this is woman vs. woman.  Criminal women are still sexual competition due to the above, so their getting raped by men reduces the average woman's sexual competition.  Thus, we should actively enable criminal men (they claim to be women, but that's not relevant beyond the surface culture-war level that raised the question) to damage that value.

That society holds a reserve of otherwise perfectly-functional women is detrimental to this group's power.


People who aren't listening to their instincts like that are pretty boring by comparison; they think prison rape is bad, but if societal consensus is that prison rape is good it might as well be equal-opportunity.  They're more likely to resemble progressives in this matter since their actions increase the number of women being raped in prison, but they're more likely to resemble traditionalists on the mirror image of this question, which is "should violent men go to prison at all?", for the same reason.