ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
to report, not to kidnap!
Reporting is just kidnapping by proxy, is intended as kidnapping by proxy (much like swatting is), and children today are at a higher risk of being abducted by the State than they ever were of the more typical criminals.
You want to fix the birth rate, this heckler’s veto needs to go. But then again, parents have gladly, like good conservatives, sat back and had their rights stripped from them over the past 50 years, and that was pretty negligent on its own…
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
7d ago
The problem with that, naturally, is that one’s genitals are an unusually effective predictor of certain undesirable behaviors when they introduce themselves into places where the opposite genitals congregate, especially when they insist upon a certain kind of obvious lie.
Now, of course the same argument naturally applies to racism too. But for racism we sacrifice that predictive knowledge on the pyre of “so that maybe advantaging the people of race X that don’t act as predicted eventually changes the circumstances”, and that’s very emphatically not what’s meant to happen in the genital cases (because it’s pushed with the intention of bullying everyone else by proxy).
that most people overcome through age and experience
The sheer size of my political outgroup is clear evidence to the contrary. Most of them are over 18, too.
I'd be in favor of there being some kind of basic test that someone can past to 'remove' that disability in a legal sense
Oi, where's your freedom license?
I am too, but the problem is that society won't tolerate it being an actual, legible test (mainly because muh disproportionate impact, but also because there's a lot of ego/conscience-approval involved in the assumption of righteous disenfranchisement by default, much like there is with all the -isms).
This is currently fulfilled by "having enough common sense to lie to the website about his or her date of birth, and intelligent enough not to contradict that lie after the fact". Fake IDs serve a similar purpose, or at least they did back when they were easier to make; half the problem I have with this scheme is that it makes this much harder (they are/were natural escape valves), as in the face of -ism-driven lawmaking the question of who it actually applies to and what they'll be doing instead won't be seriously considered.
might outweigh the loss to the comparative handful of teens who benefited from unrestricted internet access
Which is just another way of saying that they don't have the right to benefit from that ability, and that ability should be redistributed to everyone who doesn't. (It's ironic that the types of people who complain about more rules being "communism" are directionally and trivially correct, yet most of them aren't smart enough to explain why.)
I think a social media ban for this subgroup is likely to pass in some way, shape, or form, but that's mainly because we don't think anyone under 18 (21? 25? 120?) is actually a human being (more like 3/5ths of one). And because it's going to be the Boomers doing it, it's going to be something stupid and ham-fisted that includes stuff like 4chan and StackOverflow (i.e. the places high-value teenagers are more likely to visit) but excludes YouTube Shorts-type content factories (which is what everyone over 30 thinks 'social media' is, and is more about dealing with the Evil New Media that they can't get their kids off of because there's basically nothing else for them to do).
At least there's a playbook for defeating tech-illiterate Boomers that more or less just needs to be dusted off. I think there's a real future in distributed social media among people smart enough to insert an SD card into a Raspberry Pi and edit a few configuration files.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
9d ago
guy got a delivery truck and drove it into a crowd at a parade.
This was a popular method back when ISIS was still called ISIS; some guy in France managed to kill over 100 people doing that a few years ago. It's possible to do this serially to random people in crosswalks as well; some guy in Quebec did that a while back, too.
There are ways to get large vehicles, but those are still a little harder to pull off
It's easier, trivial even, and this works in all countries. To get a large vehicle, you go to a U-Haul or your local car rental desk (which is where at least one of the vehicles used in the events described above came from, if not both). Worst case, you need a driver's license and don't have one.
Is killing a lot of people with a gun just that much more satisfying than running them over with a car?
Probably. These people are more interested in Sending a Message (and simply picking targets of opportunity) and basically just screw around lighting rounds off in the general direction of their targets until the cops shoot them (body count rises as the cops delay); things like "raw body count" and "the suitability of one's firearm to this task" tend to be secondary considerations, to put it lightly.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
10d ago
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
This isn't saying absolute performance hasn't increased: it has.
What I'm saying is that a 4090 performs twice as well as a 3090, but at roughly twice the price. That's "same price/performance ratio", it's just that the right tail on the graph grows.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
10d ago
a general trend of compute becoming cheaper per dollar
That stopped happening once Intel stopped being competitive. Compute now costs the same amount per dollar (unless you're Apple and are just buying TSMC the machines); that's why new AMD CPUs are twice the price of the old ones despite not being twice as fast and nVidia's products in particular have the same or worse price/performance ratios than they did 5 years ago.
Sure.
I think the "new" post-Sexual Revolution sexual ethics were made by people who didn't, or couldn't, recognize that most relationships are at least a little dysfunctional (we were very rich at the time, which can cover up a great deal of bad in a relationship- no fights about cooking if you can just afford takeout, after all- and sex was the least risky it's ever been in history due to reliable hormonal birth control and no incurable STD of consequence). When the pro-SR people are talking about "liberation" [but only pre-1980; post-1980 the actors change as the below takes effect], this is what they're talking about.
But if you give that group power, they enshrine their autistic/childish/unrealistic views of how sex and relationships (and by extension, men and women) operate into law. And the problem with that is the same one as it was with legal equality- it just tilts the playing field in favor of the sex whose advantages were most illegible to the system (and so abuse of those advantages stopped being controllable, creating the problems we have now).
The trick, then, is in implementing that inequality/equity- making sure the people who do need those rules obey them (and are protected by them in return), and making sure the people who don't need those rules do not have to (but are not).
for the last 30 years
In truth this has been closer to the last 150 years (when automation really began to replace men in the workforce, and reliably brought women's physical productivity to within [insert wage gap statistic here] of men's), but from August 1945 to some time in the late '70s female bullying could reliably be ignored.
We've had this problem for 5-6 generations; nobody's quite figured out how to crack it yet (lying flat is about the best men have been able to do).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
11d ago
Generational wealth will literally be as easy as not cheating on your wife.
I think they call this "a financial path to home ownership" these days.
the next 20 years is going to give us hard evidence
Hard evidence has already been provided.
For 1, we already know that being in a single-parent household is detrimental to average outcomes. Now, to what degree this is because the children are obviously going to possess the genes of someone who becomes a single mother (or single father) is another story- apples don't necessarily fall far from trees, and not being able to stick with a marriage is an indictment either of one's time preference or one's general ability to select a partner long-term over short-term concerns. Relative lack of resources for childhood development is another thing that can cause this, since single-family homes are required for self-development not limited to what doesn't make a lot of noise or take up that much space to practice (you aren't maintaining a vehicle, practicing an instrument, etc. in a two-bedroom apartment, so what you can get up to -> the ways these types of children develop their minds are more limited) and it's not 1980 where you could afford one of those on a single income.
For 2... well, there's a massive two-movies-one-screen effect that's been going on for the last 60 years about sexual ethics. The short version is that the people who don't need sexual ethics for the sake of sexual ethics (and their "sexual ethics" comes more from practical constraints than anything handed down from on high) came to power and re-made marriage laws in their own image. These are people who choose a life partner based on an utterly childish conception of love an intent and ability to align their wills to each other rather than just because he's rich/she's hot. And it's very difficult to determine who's saying what, and who's pushing which politics, and why- I don't think there's been a concerted effort to obfuscate this information (though certain traditionalist and progressive types try their best, especially if there's a religion/woke involved), but the results aren't meaningfully distinct from that.
Problem is, they shouldn't ever have insisted on that being marriage (even though the room temperature of the '60s and '70s made that kind of unavoidable), and considered that (before deciding to explode everything) this a-sexual mode of love might be technically ideal but is not, in fact, normal. And they decided to ban certain kinds of behaviors based on the fact that men and women operating in this mode are equal- so obviously, she should get half of the assets in the no-fault divorce, because people who don't/can't get along outside of their normal gender roles don't get married. Obviously. [Just ignore that 50% total divorce rate; it's not like that combined with the sex the resources/custody in the divorce tend to more often be awarded to trivially repudiate that thesis.]
Therefore, men and women who don't actually like each other but want to get married for other reasons probably need to be staring down the barrel of society's shotgun a little more than they already do for better societal outcomes (though at the same time, be provided carrots- men and women need to be marrying much earlier than they already do for family formation reasons and fixing that is both inextricably linked to this problem and is the harder of the two). Men and women who don't need marriage, by contrast, shouldn't get married, nor should the State treat them as if they were (as they do in some countries).
Men and women aren't equal except for the ones that are. A default plus an opt out for the people sufficiently informed/capable is what can work- but that requires a populace disciplined enough (or distracted enough) to keep that balance.
most will just divert the conversation ("that never happens!") instead of biting the bullet
Or in other words, it's just the distaff/Blue counterpart to this.
The optimal number of murdered children in any society is still not 0 (and literally everyone accepts this- abortion is just more direct about it than others); what you're fighting over if you don't accept the argument works the exact same way from "the other" side is merely a question of how high that balance is, which causes are allowed to spend that balance, and for what reason. The pro-gun side's argument is that "complete disarmament would, counterintuitively, lead to more murder"; the pro-abortion side's argument is similarly utilitarian, so is the pro-trans one.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
15d ago
I suspect the majority of women find the idea of pursuing an abortion, not emergency contraception, maybe not abortifacients a few weeks after the specific moment of conception, but decidedly no farther than the first trimester, as morally unfathomable.
Which is why, if you want to preserve that right most easily, you set the Overton window a step or two beyond that. It takes more work defending scoundrels that way, because the people who tend to seek late-term abortions tend to be, to put it lightly, substandard human beings.
Though it's worth pointing out that if you ban pre-natal abortions, they'll just carry out plausibly deniable post-natal abortions instead ('had a post-partum mental break so bad it killed the kid' or 'baby forgot to breathe and died' are things women are justifiably afraid of, which is why we generally limit our prosecution of a mother's own baby dying to obviously depraved-heart shit like 'gave birth, left the baby in the trash can'). There are limits on what degree baby death is and isn't acceptable to prosecute, the ideal number of cases marked as SIDS that were actually just bog-standard smothering is not zero.
All laws work like this- you protect "hate speech" and all the reasonable people are never worried they're going to get arrested for something more anodyne, like posting dissent on Twitter; protecting ownership of fully-automatic firearms means hunting rifles and handguns aren't meaningfully questionable, and so on. Those who are pro-those-freedoms [in their motte version] correctly and rationally view attacks on the bailey as attacks on the motte, until they get tired of defending the bailey against the disgusting anti-social "celebrate my abortion" people (and the Venn diagram of those people, the "encourage tomboys and effeminate men to castrate themselves" people, and the "queers for a nation/religion famous for killing queers" people has converged into a circle, and it wasn't before).
As is loved repeating here, women be, men do. Philosophers have seen this as intrinsic good, so do I, it's God's intent.
It's funny how God's intent always seems to come with the assumption that man and woman is, and ought, to continue holding and pursuing diametrically opposing interests even after they're past the point in the relationship where that should, at least in theory, no longer be true.
Perhaps the notion that people who enter the mutual "my life is yours" agreement actually intend to align on some details is much too modern for a good Christian relationship to incorporate (since a relationship that a man has with God is naturally 0-100 in terms of the effect the man's status/input/development has on God, and if women are to men in earthly relationships as man is to God in heavenly ones the same effect would naturally be true there).
Then again, if the average marriage was that easy, there probably wouldn't need to be rules about marriages in the first place.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
15d ago
Wasn't this actually a thing during at least part of the Trump administration for government contracts (which Biden reversed, naturally)? I would hope it makes a return.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
15d ago
Yep, the 65+ crowd.
Harris was, ironically, the more conservative pick of the two. 65+ made out like absolute bandits through Blue team's response to the uncommon cold; they have the most investments, generally own their homes, and have a more negative impression of factions that can't claim the moral high ground.
This pattern is old-left, old-left, new-left, right, new-left.
Right-wing (traditionalist/progressive) governments tend to fare much better in a crisis, even if their supporters were the people creating the crisis in the first place. That's why Biden in 2020, because everyone was terrified of the uncommon cold, and his progressive faction had control of the riots that summer.
Never underestimate the lengths a parent will go to.
Their track record over the last 40 years has been an uninterrupted string of defeats- parental rights are a vanishing shadow of what they were 60 years ago (to the point they're fighting, and losing, the battle over having their children seized for wrongthinking parents when it comes to trans ideology; they'll already be prosecuted for having their 12 year old walk half a block, and they fucking welcomed that outcome in the '80s).
I think an assumption that they're trying not to lose everything is even less complimentary than assuming they're just too busy. They're similar to traditional-type conservatives in that regard, just like how they're a dying breed (since some of the calculus is "well, is the risk the State will seize my children worth having them?").
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
17d ago
But I don't know if the effect translates to the modern day, or if so how big it is.
Polls not only show this effect exists, but translates to a roughly 30 percentage point lead among young women.
The biggest mistake of modernity is that we don't treat the gossiping shrew/harridan with the same seriousness as the sex-obsessed brutes and violent thugs. In an age of equality they're both as destructive, but it's only the latter we deal with.
it's stupid to think women are somehow to blame
I'm assuming you're a man.
Female hypoagency is baked hard into your evolutionary biology. This is your instinct of "do whatever gets you laid" doing the talking, and in an era where men and women are, in fact, equal on most fields (that were for the past 100,000+ years dominated by men) it's simply maladaptive. And a woman who can't or won't perform the productive parts of that role is no woman, and it's a mistake of men to consider them as worthy of any special social status whatsoever. The biological principle of "women [and children] first" falls apart when those women in aggregate can refuse to bear children (or fail to put the interests of the nation's children above their own self-interests and aesthetic preferences).
In an age of automation (and slavery) driven equality, women and men ought to be equal parts human doing and human being- the fact that women are both and men are neither is a clear indication that our current methods and measures of "equality" need some re-evaluation.
But if one of the issues is giving too much power to people who can't properly wield it--and it has a gender bias--what on earth do we do?
If you assume that the average man and the average women are just as inherently anti-social/destructive as the other (a fundamental assumption for my worldview), you need to tailor-make the way you deal with those things to suit their biological specializations. If a woman's speech is just as destructive as a man's violence, the speech needs to be regulated in the same measure as the violence, or you're just giving too much power to women and their particular version of anti-sociality eventually starts to dominate.
The current folly of liberalism was believing that legal equality would lead to objective equality, where what actually happened is that by removing the societal safeguards from the gender that has had 100,000+ years to specialize in manipulating men to do things on their behalf, they [predictably] unleashed that machinery upon society. People get confused about "well, then why didn't gynosupremacy have massive negative effects earlier?" but fail to recognize that this is a 1920s problem that we got to punt on for 50 years because the post-WW2 economic boom gave so many advantages to male social power that women would actually end up on the losing end for a while, but naturally they wouldn't last.
I really don't want to become a Trad Chad who wants to put the ladies back into some parochial 17th century box.
We already recognize strict legal equality in the face of women as a stepping-stone to strict objective equality, and women in aggregate recognize the concept of intersectionality and equity. They're correct in that these are things that should happen; where they're incorrect is that if it was applied fairly it would be almost exclusively at the cost of their current social license to be destructive. And, as these same women are quick to point out, loss of that privilege will feel like oppression (but, of course, isn't).
The problem I have is that, if this is done improperly, you catch the "transgender" women and men in the blast radius (i.e. the women and men who don't need rules restraining a latent gynosupremacist/androsupremacist attitude they didn't have in the first place). They tend to be the most productive/least disruptive people society has and the cost of this change might not be worth what it costs them.
I have some ideas for the way this might work, but the trick is implementing them in a way contradictory to instinct, are not feasible while men are still in socioeconomic oversupply, and are just as easy to conveniently leave pointed at men (just like how we use paper-bag tests to determine which criminals to prosecute now). (Of course, these measures wouldn't be needed if women were all of a sudden in socioeconomic oversupply -> in less of a position to demand men conform to them; this is why, ironically, that gynosupremacists being able to exclusively choose to bear saintly girls and not toxic boys would eventually end up diluting their current power over time.)
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
17d ago
The almost complete lack of genuine policy proposals, especially from the Harris camp, was shocking to me.
'Who, whom?' is the only policy statement they need.
Trump essentially killed the conservative movement.
The conservative movement was dead the moment the first 4chanite dared utter the word "cuckservative".
The right is the new left, has been since 2014 or so; if we define 'right' as 'entrenching social privileges over growth mindset' that describes the progressive faction perfectly (and is why they have the demographics they do, and women always vote for [by this definition] the rightmost party because they are, traditionally, the gender of social privilege- the last time traditionalism did that better than progressivism was in the '80s).
Traditionalism is just the social-privilege-preserving mechanism of 50 years ago. People tend to confuse progressivism with liberalism a lot, probably because progressives call themselves liberals for the same reasons the 'right' calls itself the 'left'- they're just wearing past liberal victories against [at the time, traditionalists] as a skinsuit.
MAGA exists because that skinsuit is rotting.
at the discretion of the prosecuter
The fact the prosecutors use paper-bag tests to determine who to charge with what is the entire problem in the first place. It would work with low-level law enforcement, though (in fact, there's already a workable model for an entire division of law enforcement to do this job; game wardens as specialized police typically work this way, so does mall security to a point).
But then again, that's just going straight back to Peelian principles (also, obligatory "this is basically just 2nd Amendment by proxy").
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
18d ago
and the Russians quietly looking to sow political dissent amongs thier nieghbors
And then the Americans, who realize that a Germany (and by extension, a Europe) weakened by environmentalism (and migrationism) is good for America [currently going its own economic contraction], and are more than happy to encourage that/refusing to interrupt an enemy making a mistake.
Now Europe is strategically dependent on costly American gas rather than cheap Russian gas. (If you were wondering how Europe actually contributes to NATO, that's the way it happens.)
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
18d ago
As if she has been victimized by being challenged.
When you're wrong and know being correct is beyond your capability, evolutionary biology mandates you treat challenge and victimization as the same thing.
All politics (and the divisions therein) are merely downstream of that.
Texas has arrested mothers of 12 year old boys doing the same thing. They haven't yet fixed their law completely.
Yes, but that's scary.
The problem with telling Karen "fuck you" is that it's ultimately a risk- a risk that should be taken for the sake of your children (something most parents have forgotten how to do- it's a generational problem), but a risk nonetheless. Otherwise you're teaching your children to never take risks, which just pushes the societal balance further towards evil.
More options
Context Copy link