@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays

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

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for October 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There is literally no way mechanically to prevent people from treating the AAQC report as a super-upvote.




Maybe?  It's not like you can tell if you get blocked and reported outside of what comes back every month, and most of the AAQCs tend to have high positive scores anyway.  There's only one exception this month with [currently] a score of 0, and it is definitely not something that's ideologically aligned with most of its replies given all the others are [organically] pushing +20 - which then raises the question as to who nominated it (I'm pretty sure you can't nominate yourself).


I think a lot of the problem is that, for the moment, [the average poster] is in fact correct about their political outgroup being in the wrong/their desired self-enrichment is more destructive than their political ingroup- that's a consequence of having a community made up of people who get objectively right answers more often than not.  The anti-boo-outgroup[ers] rule exists partially to protect the members of the outgroup that are not holding those beliefs just to be selfish, after all (outside of "the selfish answer and the right answer are the same picture", which brings the people who can't get power from being correct into inherent conflict with people that are more correct than average).  And it's inherently harder to defend those beliefs, because there's never any constructive plan to address the failures other than double down, because having power means you don't need to think about constructive plans.  But this is the just the thesis of "right is the new left".


And a second-order effect of this tension is that it naturally causes flame-outs after a while, especially among people whose political sympathies lie more with the collective outgroup, because that's the problem when you apply 'anti-wrong-answer, not anti-wrong-person' over a collective of people whose replies might be permissible to the forum at large, but not be beneficial towards that goal.  And that line is a lie anyway because a wrong answer from a person actually does give you valuable information about them ['blameless culture' management styles, and 'all men are equal', also suffer from this tension], so being wrong about something puts you in a position of weakness, and people instinctively hate feeling weak, because weakness is death.


Then, the only thing that will prevent you from quitting a competition you're losing [and the disgust reaction/emotion is partially designed to reinforce your body's definition of 'losing'] is a devotion to some other goal.  It's the emotional equivalent to seeing a 100 dollar bill on the street [in the economist's sense], but it's got a bunch of dogshit all over it and people are watching you; are you going to pick the bill up anyway, or is the dogshit going to 'win' and prevent you from doing so?  And then, what are you going to say about the dirty money when others ask you about it- you're going to say that investigating it would have given the dogshit power, because you had to overcome it to get that money.


After a while, people get devotion fatigue and quit (loudly, quietly, doesn't matter).  This place grows or dies based on the rate of old contributors are flaming out- growing if new contributors are 'joining' faster than the old ones are quitting, and dying if the reverse is true.  (Which is why one of the suggestions is 'make it harder for them to flame out by slackening the rules', and balancing to what extent that would be destroying the community's goals to preserve the community itself.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


partisans and guerrilla fighters were very commonplace




And the way they were dealt with was reprisal killings until the population actively rejects the insurgents (and in so doing integrates with the occupying force).  Which is what Israel is doing- you can't challenge a militia like this to a set-piece battle because they'll just instantly lose; they've tried that a few times already (and lost every single time).


You have to beat it out of the population, like the US did to the Germans post '45.  You do that by running decapitation strikes (that's what Nuremberg was for, and that's why the Israelis settled on exploding pagers) on the previous elite and only focus on destroying the elements of the enemy population that are legitimately intolerable or otherwise not useful to you; it wasn't necessary to destroy all of the underlying Nazi tendencies of the German population (and would have been harmful considering the country was to be the first line of defense against the Soviets), just the ones that brought them into conflict with American interests.


So it is with the Palestinians.  They lost the war, now they're trying to avoid being subsumed and, in absence of any competent people, are unable to do this through soft power.  (What Blue states try to do to Red states in the US when/as they have the opportunity is exactly the same; part of the Blue civil religion is to deny they do this, which is naturally why they seek to deny any of their provinces the right to do it- something the Palestinians, as their fargroup, are able to exploit.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


and there still remains a primordial element that people recoil in horror from




All horror about sexuality emerges from the initial biological condition [that, if you never have sex, you're objectively worthless] combined with the Just World Hypothesis (or as you phrased it, the notion that there's a "proper amount" of suffering required for sexual fulfillment).


The incest taboo is naturally derived from this: the problem is that a man is getting more sex than he deserves through nepotism.  This is also the argument against [heterosexual] child sexual interaction; for M/f, it's "he's taking advantage of a female unable or unwilling to price sex correctly" (both of which are theft- the former from the girl herself, the latter from all women), for F/m, it's "she's giving the only asset she actually has for free/in advance to someone who hasn't/might never earn it".  (And m/f is either one or the other on a case-by-case basis.)


This is also why Abramic religion "needs" to set a taboo for male homosexuality, because [despite what its followers will claim] that's not a taboo that comes from biology (including M/m)- because if it's happening, the dom/top earned it.  Sure, it's not going to result in babies, just pleasure/sophisticated masturbation, which is why the Catholic church in particular falls back on "natural law" explanations of why it's bad, but it is natural that the dominant partner in the relationship just gets to do this by definition.  Besides, the women any man of worth has acquired (as property) sometimes aren't willing or able to submit to sex at any particular time.




I don't think that fapping to porn is some great revolutionary transgressive act or something




But that's inconsistent with the fact that, given the above, you're "cheating" the system- you're getting a facsimile of what you are supposed to dedicate every fiber of your being to getting, and sometimes, you're getting a superior product, for free, to someone else who had to put in a great deal of effort only to score a woman so undesirable she couldn't even give herself away.


And yeah, I'd be real pissed off about people being better than me too in an environment where sex is a scarce resource- horrified, perhaps.  This goes double for prostitution, where sex is given an explicit price; men do not want to know how much existential fulfillment costs because their entire instinctual sense of self-worth is built on being able to afford better (and women do the same thing, as their entire instinctual sense of self-worth is built on how high a price they can charge).




The dense network of strictures, rituals, and emotional associations that surround sexuality cannot be reduced to purely rational or utilitarian concerns about its possible harms or effects.




Sure it can; I just did it.  This is identical to the "irreducible complexity" claim Intelligent Design creationists use- whereas I posit the reason most people do this is because it's been true as a property of all life so long as to simply be instinct (combined with the fact that we're the only rationalizing animal).


Some people are able to identify when their instincts are operating and have open enough personalities to point them out, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone to, much less intentionally reject them, much less back up that decision to reject them.  People that do this anyway are "abnormal".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Y.com should be like Twitter, but only for biological males.




You're describing not Reddit, but 4chan.  (Twitter is just 4chan for women, after all.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Remember also that the Geneva Conventions are from a time when war was still something peer nations did.


The world has changed, as has the ways wars are fought- Hamas operates the way it does to exploit the fact that everyone else in the West adheres to obsolete and incorrect ideas of what modern warfare is and are very uncomfortable with reality (example: are women who make weapons for men legitimate military targets?).


Ironically Hamas has done what liberal Westerners only ever dreamed of- they made the average Palestinian women just as capable a fighter as the average Palestinian man (with respect to how their enemy limits itself).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, that's the archetypal liberal male fantasy (the liberal female fantasy is this but with a girl instead, and why you find both of those on 4chan).


The archetypal traditionalist/male fantasy is being doted on by unlimited young women of breeding age; the archetypal progressive/female fantasy is being doted on by unlimited powerful older men who prefer separate beds.


Notice how the former is co-operative in character while the latter are adversarial; notice also how the former is really childish in character compared to the more mature/realistic tastes of the latter.  Finally, note that the women who post about turning their rape fantasies into rape realities online are liberal in character.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


but disease and (for women being raped by men) pregnancy risk are significant




Perhaps for those who also have fantasies of being forced into the OB/GYN office beforehand to remove the IUD, maybe; for everything else, it's not meaningfully distinct from promiscuous gay men, so the same mitigating strategies they use should be viable here for those who are intentionally chasing this.




the bigger reason for the taboo on conversation about the topic, even (arguably especially) in sex-positive spaces




If a space claims to be sex-positive yet has taboos on conversations about the topic it is, obviously, not sex-positive (it's only pretending to be one, typically for political reasons or [more charitably] self-defense).




There's probably some interesting things to be said about the extent that formalizing grief and harm can really augment or concretize it




This is the thesis statement of free love and 1970s-type liberal sexual ethics (as distinct from progressive sexual ethics) more generally.  The answer is "this is obviously true, but leads to Repugnant Conclusions", and is an outright attack on progressive/feminist/gynosupremacist and traditional/androsupremacist sexual ethics because 'sex with women is harmful by default' underwrites them, so they need to preserve that notion [that this sex creates grief and harm] by any means necessary, even when it makes no logical sense.


Case in point:




reflects more concern about how potential rapists would react to prolonged discussion men [99% of 'potential rapists', as women define rape] might use the information to harm women




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Imagine there was a law that rape was legal "if she enjoys it"




This is exactly how "the law" already works.  You really think the judicial system magically detect the small bursts of XXX-radiation emitted every time a penis contacts a vagina (or whatever) like some sort of BBC TV-detecting van?


It's all dealing with what happens after the fact; the risk you take when you break the law like this is that the viewpoint of the aggrieved never changes their mind in a way that's hostile to you- this is usually done through blackmail [or if this is legal-but-frowned-upon, hush money] since it's more lucrative to the aggrieved, but can happen for moral/religious shifts too.  Rape allegations correlate with moral/religious revivals and declines in a man's status [as the "nobody would ever believe you" effect wears off]; that's the lesson of #metoo.




rape is a property crime




Seeing you write this, and the fact you phrased it in this way, has illuminated something very important for me: traditionalist sexual ethics in a context where sex and pregnancy are divorced coalesce to reveal that this is just the male version of the need to play status games with sex, in bitter conflict with progressive sexual ethics where it's the female version of the exact same thing.


I guess that's why sexual ethics that don't account for, or de-prioritize, status are so different and unnatural-feeling.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Things like, not liking it, but also not wanting to think of themselves as victims, not seeing it as the worst thing that could possibly happen to someone




This is not meaningfully distinguishable from men who go to bars with the intention of getting into barfights.


And... like, it's just sex.  You can die from getting into a barfight because that's inherently dangerous, suffer a medical condition that affects you for the rest of your life, or suffer psychological damage (people who get mugged tend to look over their shoulders a lot more often, for instance); sex is not meaningfully or materially different.


Which these women recognize, obviously; this is a simply a consequence of gender equality.  Actually, it's even more noteworthy since it takes an active rejection of the societal privilege women are granted to see unwanted sex as something special and distinct from "standard" assault (in diametric opposition to the women who aren't raped but claim they were for social clout reasons).


This is provided they're telling the truth about what they feel, though criterion of embarrassment and that hard rejection of the "easy way out" heavily suggests they are.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for October 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


anything more serious than simple fixed-location infographics being distracting or vision-obscuring




I think "put screens everywhere" is a clear signal that we don't give a shit any more about what's distracting you behind the wheel.  (They obscure your vision due to glare and, if the company is/was obsessed with the color blue at the time, kill your night vision just as surely as the new LED headlights do).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for October 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If you're really darkness-adapted and under 40 or so, you'll be able to see fuzzy outlines, but not much more




This is what annoys me about the push for full self-driving: instead of spending most of the time on AI, I want that [same underlying] sensor technology to start highlighting things (4-legged animals, 2-legged animals) that I can't see yet using the inside of the windshield as a screen.  I want to be able to see cars through other cars- it doesn't matter if Truckzilla pulls out too far beside me when I'm trying to make a turn because I can just see if there's something coming directly.


I want technology to help me make better decisions on how I should drive; not to replace me.  But I'm one of those weird people who actually likes driving- most people don't, so why would anyone ever develop a system like this?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for October 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why are you driving with your brights on?




Because that is what they are for?  You use them at night, when there aren't any other cars traveling the same way, and when there isn't any oncoming traffic.  [I don't live in NYC, where there are so many streetlights that night driving would be possible without any headlights at all.]




Why do they need to be adjusted




It's not so much that they're "adjusted" as it is that the lights are higher up to begin with.  Thus, unless they're angled much further down than they would be on a normal car (which is impossible if you want to illuminate the same distance simply due to how high off the ground they are), they're going to project a brighter light into any car lower than those headlights.




it's called a Prius. Or a civic hatchback.




So you have a grand total of... six to choose from (the other two being the Mazda3, VW Golf, Corolla hatch and the Mirage, at least, until they get cancelled for the Corolla Cross and nothing, respectively).  I'm ignoring the meme cars like Minis and Fiats because... come on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for October 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't know what the fuck is going on recently




Well, 3 things:


    

  • 

    Ride heights are much higher than they were 10-15 years ago.  "Hatchback with a lift kit", which is what all CUVs fundamentally are, weren't quite as dominant in 2010 as they are now (where you can't buy a non-lifted hatchback).  They make sense if you can only own one vehicle though.  As a result, the headlights are going to be physically higher up on the vehicle than they otherwise would be.  [Aside: people also like these things because being higher up is the only way to regain the visibility that those increasingly-absurd impact ratings costs you; I feel that if you drive sufficiently incompetently as to roll your car at high speed you probably deserve to die relative to the number of pedestrians that lack of visibility kills, and have already put my money where my mouth is on that point.]
    

    • 

  • 

    If you're sitting higher up relative to the road, your headlights will be adjusted up (relative to a lower vehicle) so that you can see further out.  Thus, if you're in an CUV, your lights are going to be aimed from the factory such that you'll blind anyone in lower vehicles.
    

    • 

  • 

    Average color temperature of the lights has gone from 2700K to 6500K.  This might even be a net negative on how far you can actually see, but it's far brighter up close and fucks up your night vision, which is what actually matters.
    

    • 



At this point I'm a lot more aggressive about not turning my brights off when I see an oncoming car (unless I see the telltale flicker of them turning theirs off, naturally), because if they don't turn them off I'm blind when they pass.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Biden, to his credit, also didn't start any wars




The Biden administration had a significant hand in both creating the conditions for the Ukrainian conflict as well as sustaining it after the fact.  If that doesn't count as "starting a war" I'm not sure what does.


I guess you could call it a "police action", which humorously is exactly what the Russians did this time around.  Might as well be the Russians' Korean War, honestly.


(Also, why send Hunter to Ukraine in the first place?  Getting [them] ready for that war was his fucking job.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The one that isn't making any money, that's hemorrhaging users, that runs off advertising that's in steep decline?




And this is different that the situation all legacy media finds itself in... how, exactly?


Twitter is the Voice of America.  Owning it is a big deal, because "allowed to run C&C servers for your human botnets" is what the First Amendment is designed to let you do, just like how the Second is there to make sure you always have the ability to kill your fellow citizens, the Fourth is so that your fellow citizens' ability to discover and prosecute crimes against them is severely curtailed, the Fifth is so that even if they don't find shit they can't torture you into confessing, etc.


Elon Musk has the Voice of America, a fleet of privately-owned ICBMs (and the only company with the ability to produce them these days), and the infrastructure for a parallel worldwide communications network with extremely limited 'lawful intercept' [read: end-run around 4A] capability that is relatively easy for individuals to access yet very hard for any state actor to destroy.


The Constitution, and the human rights it enumerates, are really fucking extreme when you think about them for more than 5 seconds.  It is good to possess those rights.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ah yes.  See, back in my day stupid Gmod animations actually had to earn your view, rather than just "lol, put the citizen's head in the toilet".


Seeing people's limbs completely spaz out will never not be funny though.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Tariffs would be much better received by the D faction if they were packaged as a carbon/global environmental-and-worker-protection tax, which is a big part of why manufacturing moved to China in the first place.


Of course, because the Ds benefit the most from dodging those taxes (in the same way, and for the same reasons, that they benefit from open borders- they suddenly stop being so generous with other peoples' money once it starts costing them directly), you can expect them to pivot away from environmentalism if such a pricing scheme were to be implemented.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


moving them in is just retarded, not ethnic cleansing




If the Left would call the same thing an ethnic cleansing if it were anyone but them perpetrating it, I think calling it an ethnic cleansing is justified.


But it’s all just who/whom at this point.  The intent is the same in either case; and is ignoring what the people responsible say openly.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But I don't think they can ever override the fact that a parent is biologically inclined to want the best for their kid.




Sure they can- just point guns at them.  The self-preservation instinct in the parent can be successfully leveraged in this way, which is part of why there’s no effective resistance to the faction who believes themselves the True Parents.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It’s the preference but clearly not the reality




But if it is the preference, then naturally men will put a higher SMV on women who haven't done that.  (This is simply describing an emergent system property; I'm not making a moral judgment about those things or otherwise Slootposting.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


nobody thought that made them men




Obligatory: what's a man?


(If you consider a 'man' to be a 'human doing' rather than a 'human being' it... actually kind of makes more sense to consider women who do that men in this context- but there's a right way and a wrong way to do that.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Would people (you, or others) lump the 1950s woman in with queers and call her "confused" because she is non-conformist?  Would people not lump her in with queers, because queers gross them out, but she's just a little weird?




Tomboys, especially the older ones, will complain to no end about people doing exactly this.


It's probably technically accurate based on how I've observed them to act, but it's obviously not particularly productive to say that (and they're certainly not "confused"; this is what I mean when I complain about the normies picking up descriptive/academic terms and using them as weapons).  It's also not really non-conformist-with-intent, which is what most people mean when they say that; that is just the way they are, and that is fine.


This can cause some problems for men who want/need to be the only one filling the dominant (male) role in a relationship; we don't exactly publish "how to be gay married in a straight relationship" books... since the only people who would ever read them are the ones that don't need to.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


and don’t seriously expect she never had sex with someone else




Judging by the commentariat here, this is the overwhelming preference; that it isn't expressed in polite company doesn't make it untrue.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't know that "confusion" is the right word there.




"Confusion" is just what a straight person calls it, because everyone is straight, obviously.


I have never been "confused" about who or what I am (even through the time when most straights 'wake up'- that time being puberty, which must naturally be why most straights believe that time to be "confusing" to them).  I find the notion that I ever would be kind of insulting, but I keep that to myself because expressing that is not generally beneficial.


Once you hear that, you have two options- you can accept it and move on (maybe make up some academic-sounding term for people who do that), or you could choose to get turbo butthurt over it, cry to some under-worked authority figure, and take the word the neutral[ish] people used and use it as a weapon because it makes you sound as smart, which automatically makes you better than everyone else.




They're all just varying levels of gender non-conforming behavior with more or less psychological instability thrown in.




Which is why that cluster of non-straight behavior belongs together.  I figure sexuality is probably made up of a bunch of modules, and sometimes some people do not get the "correct" ones.  Personality may then either enhance or corrupt this (or indeed might back-fill sexuality if you either don't have one or are out of a situation where it's relevant); so what might be productive for one group to do might be extremely destructive if another group does it, and vice versa.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


When conservatives express tolerance towards homosexuality




Which conservatives, the classical liberals or the evangelicals?


Which homosexuality, the one that acts like any normal couple except same-sex, or the hyper-effeminate/5000 orgies a night type?




They're separate manifestations of a single underlying ancient pathology




I agree with this, but not for the reasons you think; I think that there are different challenges for relationships that are built on the ancient exclusive prostitution agreement between a man and his wife (and the drives and personality types that make people prefer this arrangement), and those that are not for other reasons.  Confusing the two on purpose because “the prostitution is the telos of a relationship” is itself a destructive and intellectually lazy thing; traditionalists and progressives do it because it’s psychological isolation from an infohazard.


I wouldn’t benefit from constantly being reminded that some people have more secure relationships either- that's kind of why marrying a virgin is really important to most guys, as a signal that the prostitute sees the sex work as work to be done (and her body as an asset), not as pleasurable in and of itself, which from an evolutionary biology standpoint is obviously as disordered as homosexuality is.