ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
22hr ago
I don't believe this is retaliatory escalation. I think the J6ers were ultimately offered up by Trump (he had the chance to pardon them, but refused), Biden had the chance to prosecute BLM rioters for 4 years, and refused to do it.
Biden did not pardon the Minnesota BLM firebombers.
Refusing to prosecute for political reasons is, de facto, a pardon.
And if Trump now goes after the BLMers with renewed vigor (the evidence for the most egregious crimes is still there, of course; kind of hard to erase being caught trying to kill a child* when it's international news), I will accept this is an instance of (3). Until that occurs this is (2).
Naturally, if Biden had prosecuted BLM (and Trump not pardoning the J6ers on his first day in office) we would already be at (1), and if he had pardoned the J6ers like Trump just did (or at least, not pursue them with the flimsiest of pretenses...) we would have arrived at (2) 4 years ago.
* By Blue standards for tribe-aligned militiamen under 18
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
22hr ago
· Edited 22hr ago
Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.
Trump refused to pardon the J6ers back when it would have been most effective- the day before leaving office.
He did not do that.
Biden could have encouraged prosecution of BLMers back when it would have been most effective- the day after taking office.
He did not do that.
You claim "both sides never even tried for mutual disarmament", but Reds did offer that opportunity, from January 21st, 2021 through January 20, 2025, for Blues to dedicate themselves to prosecuting [their own] rioters and thus disavow their approval and encouragement of burning, looting, and murdering as valid political strategy.
1- Our rules, fairly: both groups punished [prosecution of BLM rioters will be limited due to multiple factors including widespread public support, taking the L here is politically expedient and ultimately conciliatory]
2- Their rules, fairly: both groups pardoned [we are here now]
3- Their rules, unfairly: one group pardoned, one group condemned [we were here a day ago]
Going from 3 to 2 discourages corruption in the demos just like going from 2 to 1 does.
Ideally, we would have stuck with 1, since going from 2 to 1 is seen as the higher road (against the people but for the laws; though you'll recall this was an argument Charles I used and it didn't go so well for him) whereas going from 3 to 2 costs you support mostly on our side (in this case, our non-corrupt voters can be swayed by one faction's arguments that their corruption was Good, Actually, and then the non-corrupt vote them in and we go from 2 to 3 in an action/reaction cycle, in this case BLM/J6).
It's possible to go from 3 to 1; for example, if one tribune of the plebs (with a corrupt faction of the demos behind him) kills another one (who formed a corrupt faction of the demos behind him as a reaction) the survivor still gets banished. This could have happened on Day 1 of Biden's term, with an effective prosecution of BLM rioters on as flimsy a legal pretense as would be used on J6ers, but of course that's not what happened.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
1d ago
You’re not being self-centered enough.
Start from the initial condition that everything that prevents you from getting whatever you want, including the environment around you, is an adversary with intent; further, assume not getting everything you want is an injury.
In that sense I am coerced to labor for what I want, thus reality ‘rapes’ me.
(This is why all sex in a relationship, even when the weaker initiates, is rape in the eyes of people who unironically believe the above, as they see themselves as weaker than their partner yet won’t be provided resources unless they put out; sex work being real work naturally follows from this perspective, but it’s not the only perspective that implies it.)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
1d ago
But most people seem to believe that nonsense.
It’s just modern phrenology.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
1d ago
Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.
The BLM rioters were already de facto pardoned by Blue.
By their own definition, this is not an abuse of the process. Blue can always change their definition so it isn’t corrupt as fuck in the future.
But then again, I’m ok with the metaphorical battered housewife hitting back, even if that predictably results in an escalation where the batterer murders her. This is the ‘die on your feet/live on your knees’ question (or more generally, safety vs. dignity) all over again.
Since Red is the dignity party at the moment (they can’t out-safety the safety party) this reaction is natural.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2d ago
Why consider one adults, and not the other.
Because man bad, woman good. Young men are also more physically disorderly than young women (despite 48% of population, overwhelming majority of violent crime), so you can sell it as risk control.
Any serious proposal to push back legal adulthood to 25 is generally laughed at as an impractical nanny state absurdity
It's certainly laughed at less than any proposals to lower the age of adulthood, which suggests the average person believes it should be higher.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2d ago
I can't snap my fingers and get everything my heart desires without having to work for it; rather, if I don't work, I don't eat, and I die.
In that sense, I am raped by reality.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2d ago
Nobody has argued for a broad societal reconsideration of whether men are adults
Everyone who has uttered the words "the brain doesn't finish development until you're 25" is making this argument.
It's not laughed out of the room.
Another example is thinking that "love is just chemicals".
Technically accurate but not helpful, and used as an excuse to pretend sex has/had no emotional dimension after the fact in that trademark Annoying Atheist way.
I have this very controversial belief that "sexualities" don't exist in a sense.
I think "sexualities" were created by the same detached/objective intellectual thinking that causes problems when normal people try to use them, primarily since they tend to be used as weapons (when a woman claims she's asexual, or when a man calls another man gay) rather than merely descriptive of {male or female, what characteristics are being pattern-matched on}.
Or perhaps they may have been intended as weapons/distractions from the get-go. I generally see it claimed as "well, it's because all the non-straights wanted to dissociate from the accusations of pedophilia that came with them at the time"... but I think that was a side-effect of the actual goal: censoring the instinctual understanding of 'men dominate, women submit' (children just being a more extreme version of women, which is also why it's stereotypically women using "protect kids [implied: from men]" as the metaphorical nose of the camel into the tent).
(Just to be clear: 'men dominate, women submit' just happens to be emergent from evolutionary biological circumstance, which is probably why it's generally applicable for [the physical dimension of] sex. The fix for 'woman good man bad' is not 'man good woman bad', though the lazy and selfish will jump to that conclusion anyway.)
I once guessed that somebody was gay because I could tell by the art style of their profile picture.
I just look at the head. My working theory is that the longer/more pronounced the snout is, the more likely it is that a man who likes that image will [prefer men on average]. (By that same token, most bronies are straight [note the lack of male OCs and abundance of futa]; see also Brand New Animal vs. Beastars.)
This also works for straights, but in a different way. The more feminine the body looks compared to the face, the more likely a man who likes that image will [prefer women on average]. This is most of why "are traps gay?" is the meme that it is (and the related complaint of "draw a girl call it a boy"), since most men who like that [prefer women on average]; it wouldn't be controversial otherwise.
I thought that your view on sex might have been a consequence of many years of detached and objective thinking, which is common in intellectual types.
No, it very definitely started out that way (and not influenced by any external source). I've learned to describe and emulate the other one over time as required, but it's not native code; maybe this is what ChatGPT 'feels like' when it's asked to ERP.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2d ago
I observe those things are called "work" and "taxes", respectively.
That article appears to have been written by someone who doesn’t work with his hands… or drive a nice car, for that matter. (Actually, since this is a female author…)
You put the nice car in the garage so you don’t have to spend a bunch of time brushing off the car when it snows. If it’s a ragtop, you don’t have to worry about vandals slicing it open; if it’s a truck with a tonneau cover, you don’t have to worry about leaving it open lest the tweakers break it open to see all the nothing inside.
You also have a garage so that you have room to do things to maintain the house. Need to paint a door, or space to marshal furniture, or maintain the car? You can’t do that if you don’t have a clear workshop… which is what the people in those pictures with their cars outside are using their garage for, and dedicated shop areas are even rarer than garages are.
Detached garages are still ugly for the same reasons attached ones are, but if your lot’s on an incline there’s usually no place to put one. With an attached garage that’s not a concern, obviously.
Oh yeah, and you can just put another storey on top of an attached garage. Sometimes you can even fit two floors, so you have rooms on the second storey with a better view.
I think the main difference between the far-left and far-right is how they deal with the biological ground truth that "women are useless, men are disposable".
The far-left leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the disposability of men (and that men exist to serve women, "all are equal but men are more equal than others", #itsHerTurn) while encouraging women to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("a good woman is independent and dominates men", "criminals and vagrants can't help it", and the like). Men are not permitted dignity in this society and their masculinity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be communist (where any masculinity-driven private improvement belongs to your neighbors).
The far-right leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the uselessness of women (and that women exist to serve men, "man is head of the household", etc.) while encouraging men to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("women and children first", wars on neighboring societies/white feather effects, 996, and the like). Women are not permitted dignity in this society and their femininity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be [what people actually mean when they say] fascist (where any femininity-driven public improvement is a waste of valuable resources).
This doesn't necessarily mean that these factions are going to state this openly (it's just relying on instinctive human behavior; anyone not following their instincts is naturally suspect), but it is why far-leftism and far-rightism naturally attract women and men (respectively) who are worth less. By contrast, centrist men and centrist women aren't just running solely on instinct (for a variety of reasons) and tend to hold views that are a mess of sloppy, logically-inconsistent compromise between those extremes.
It's clear why the far left and far right hate it: the Fascist-Feminist Synthesis holds that women have no agency in such a situation, and that they must be protected from their own decision to offer themselves to beastly men.
Not quite.
When you view women through the standard "human fleshlight, plus domestic labor" lens (and the far-left and far-right agree that this is the best a woman can do in life; they just differ slightly in their approach to making that state of nature men's problem), prostitution and sex tourism offer a far superior product to domestic women.
Normally, to get a human fleshlight you have to marry it and you're stuck with it for the rest of your life; prostitution offers a massive variety and it's by the hour. Southeast Asia is considered the best place for prostitution simply because there's no minimum (w)age for prostitutes there.
Gynosupremacists are simply making sure there's no competition for domestic women, so they can get a higher price for their assets ('why buy the cow' and all that). Casting aspersions about the safety and morality of the competitor's products is a classic sales tactic.
The exact spear counterpart to this is illegal immigration; foreign men work harder and expect less than domestic men, so it's obvious why the femcels love them.
But why does the center go along with this still?
Because those sales tactics work.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
lolly water
I didn't think that kind of product would be carbonated; I'd expect it to taste rather flat.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
So I just want to warn you in case this is what you're doing to your own perception of sex.
Doing? (Turning? Deciding?) This isn't an outlook I had to modify my behavior for; I've thought about sex this way since the day I discovered what it was. I get that it's natural for people whose outlook on sex is not naturally this to assume one has to have intent to erase this, and agree that it would be wrong for them to do that.
are you saying that she did in fact consent because she didn't resist enough, because she enjoys submission (and therefore of having her consent overruled), or because of how human nature works fundamentally?
Yes.
I think that to enjoy anything as someone who submits, you inherently accept the fact that sometimes you're going to have to do something you don't want to do in the moment, and your long-term enjoyment of having done that thing, or being in a relationship where that thing is asked of you, may be contextualized or modulated by the fact that you did the thing you did not want to do [either chronically, like you're a child being asked to clean a room that by your judgment is not dirty, or acutely, where you're asked to try a food that smells revolting but after you've taken a bite it's fine].
This is what "consent" entails for submissives. Women are, in aggregate, submissive; dominant women are by definition exhibiting transsexual/transgender behavior. (This is the "getting drunk at the bar so that, when someone asks me if I'd like to come home with them, it is psychologically easier for me to say yes".)
Dominants, by contrast, do not have a concept of "consent" in the same way. And that is good; it would be actively harmful to their position in the relationship if they believed they had to get the sub's consent before they asked something of them, or accepted a "no" without consequence- for instance, the child eats the food on their plate because there will be nothing else served, or the child will deserve an injury if they fail to clean up their mess to an acceptable standard.
What "consent" means to a dominant is that initial agreement (or state of reality)- in the "you will do the thing you don't like because you will be better off" case, consent is violated when "be better off" cannot be delivered. It's a negotiation between equals, or at least as buyer and seller, at that point. Men are, in aggregate, dominant; submissive men are by definition exhibiting transsexual/transgender behavior. (This is the "buying drinks at a bar for a woman in hopes she will say 'yes' if I ask her to come home with me".)
Some men pass as submissive [twink]; some women pass as dominant [tomboy]. Less twinks than tomboys though; excess femininity is selected against in nature. Tomboys get real mad when you suggest they're not really women/are trans because they don't have the same innate understanding of gender that their sex in aggregate does, and bad people do it constantly to get social power by arbitraging that lack? of shared understanding. (Vice versa for men.)
But some don't pass- they might have the will, but they can't back it up.
And they're very self-conscious about that fact, and they're going to take it out on everyone else if they aren't dealt with.
And the way they have done that is by equating the power of submissive consent [only exists in context of a relationship] with dominant consent [the definition of the relationship] with all the baggage that entails (the only 'dominant' form of consent a submissive can exercise in a relationship is by ending it)- after all, because they won't "be better off" with a man because they're just as good as any man, and because everyone works [or secretly wants to work] like them, then that is the way it should be. The legal system was a great cudgel to impose this, so they wrote it in there.
Naturally this had the negative consequences of
But if you destroy these games to get rid of their consequences, then you also lose the advantages, and your life will take another step towards emptiness/nihilism
that you describe, especially among people [younger generations] who didn't know these people, and this existential anxiety made manifest, is why the way things are the way they are. It's a tautology that the driving force behind this is always going to be dominant women, not submissive men.
(Popularly, the reason for that is "penis envy"- a term that probably did more damage when trying to combat these people than it ever shed light on in the first place. It's not clearly stupid to call it that in a first pass, though.)
(Side note, so I can cross-reference this later: now you know why humans instinctively group behaviors derivative of 'submissive man' [non-passing/uncanny valley effeminacy, gay faggotry, "I want to be the little girl/boy"-type pedophilia] and 'dominant woman' [non-passing/uncanny valley masculinity, butch lesbianism, "I want to make you into my little girl/boy"-type pedophilia].)
Treat people equally before the law, and generally socially and culturally.
Are we pursuing equality, where in the case where there's an easily-predictable bimodal distribution of anti-social behaviors, imposing a law grants massive advantages to the group whose anti-social behaviors are less legible?
Or is the goal equity, where we acknowledge that legal equality is, in aggregate, going to create a power imbalance (and thus seek to install guardrails to limit that)?
Wokeism is not a failing of liberalism.
I strongly disagree.
The entire goal of liberalism is to destroy the fact there's a distribution in the first place. That's why we impose equality before the law when this when the distribution splits across, say, sexes- we subsidize the high-performers in the [in aggregate] less productive sex at the cost of the [in aggregate] more productive one by permitting more mayhem by the low-performers in the [aggregate] less productive sex. Same with race, same with religion, same with everything else that's generally accepted as a consequence of the role of the cosmic dice.
Wokeism is the natural expression of the now-uncontrolled moral hazard created by this regime under the same banner of subsidizing the high-performers in the disadvantaged group (Exhibit A: "women in STEM", used as an excuse to have more women than men going to college for worthless degrees).
That's why the people who have a mind for equity find themselves drifting closer to the traditionalists, who for all their failings at least had a solution to the moral hazard- traditionalism finds itself more compatible with a surviving society by induction, but by its nature cannot inform how a thriving one should behave.
Wokeism is explicitly illiberal
The woke can only be considered explicitly illiberal if they're aware the moral hazard exists and are trying to expand it. (Simply taking advantage of the fact it exists is only illiberal in the fact that the resultant untaxed [social] pollution causes [social] climate change to a point where the average member of society feels that the underlying cause of that pollution must be addressed before it destroys that society's ability to exist.)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
4d ago
cultural conservatives
There's a well-established overlap between cultural conservatism and traditionalism, and a further overlap between traditionalists and the intellectually lazy.
"Just parrot whatever came before uncritically, everything new is bad" is the easiest social heuristic to follow, even more than "tear down everything that came before, everything old is bad", which is why progressives have a cultural advantage over traditionalists. (People think intelligence is just reversed stupidity for a reason.)
Georgism for virtue, by contrast, is already widespread. The idiom is "ruining it for everyone".
"If you have enough self-control, intelligence, and/or temperance that restricting your freedom is an injury, you're obviously wise enough to find a way to be able to pay the taxes on the licenses and permission slips we deem necessary before you may exercise those freedoms. If it saves just one life taken by the most selfish, nasty person in society, it's worth it."
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
I don't know how that happened.
4chan exists, at least in part, to be a reaction to moralfaggotry on SomethingAwful.
It was always going to end this way.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
And at that time, by the time the kids were capable of a reaction other than "eww, gross", they had already moved out.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
Monkey's paw curls
You have lots of middle-aged women who are sexually interested in young boys, but those women want to make those boys into women, not men.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
This is straight-up international diplomacy.
And I find it more interesting that the Liberals don't give a shit. Then again, it's not like that had far-reaching consequences in Texas even though it really should have, but then again the US hasn't had an acting President for the past 2 or 3 years.
Maybe they think it'll end with a Con majority so Smith is just wasting her time playing Queen of Alberta (or hedging her bets if the Liberals somehow retain their minority status- and that's a risk I think is understated given the below), but I think the more notice the Cons (and their newer Ontario backers) are put on the better it'll ultimately be for the West if for no other reason than to provide a check against policy starvation.
but I'll believe it when I see it.
The reason I think it's still going to be October is just because that's the optimal game theoretic strategy for every interested party. If an election was called today everyone already knows the result; what else do they have to lose by stalling for time? Black swan events are a thing, and if you don't wait for them, you can't get lucky.
Unless they change the rules, that candidate could get in by appealing directly to foreigners for votes
I can't think of a more on-the-nose emblem of Liberal immigration policy than this. Fortunately, non-citizens can't vote in elections, so I don't expect much to be put on the scale by these groups, but still.
Maybe, but once you start doing that you start undermining the fiction that consent of the governed is equally geographically distributed. It isn't, obviously (really, it's NYC/NJ, DC/MD, and Bay Area vs. the entire rest of the nation), but the shared pretense that it is legitimizes the government even in places over times where their regional interest parties lose elections.
More options
Context Copy link