ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
30d ago
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.
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.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
by a drawing of the rabbit from Zootopia being subjected to a gangbang
Why can’t it be? (SFW, but loud)
Memes are still human culture, even if it’s sourced from pornography featuring a hilariously overexaggerated orgasm scream. We would as a species be worse off if that didn’t exist, in my opinion.
This complaint about it not being “cultural” kind of sounds like how people launder “natural” to mean “things humans didn’t do”, even though human beings are by definition part of nature so by extension everything they do is “natural”.
It’s like pretending “stop liking what I don’t like” is a valid moral claim in a vacuum.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
No, it’s not a Euro thing. If anything the Europeans just try to implement drip coffee badly by watering down an espresso shot.
Every coffee I’ve had from any McDonalds in the US has been so bad as to be completely undrinkable. By contrast, to the immediate north, they have legitimately the best fast food coffee and have for the last 10+ years.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
US McDonald's definitely serves filter coffee.
Yes, but it's fucking awful. It's coffee-inspired water by comparison.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
But if it's medium fries with ranch, a medium coke and a regular M&M's soft serve
Wait, I could have been getting fries with ranch or buffalo sauce all this time? Dang, maybe I do wish people would upsell me sometimes and not just offer me the pies (which I think have the highest calorie to dollar ratio of any fast food menu item ever).
But no one orders just a burger.
I was under the impression that everyone orders the standard meal. And if you do that, you're still coming in around 1K calories; you could go twice a day if you actually wanted to and be treading water, calorically speaking. Maybe if you get the mocha/lattes you'd be pushing 1400 but their coffee (that is not actually offered in the US locations, so maybe it doesn't apply as much) is good enough there's no reason to bother.
If I had to guess I'd say McDonalds optimizes its meals around 1000 calories specifically because these days it says so right beside the thing on the menu, where other places are usually pushing 1300-1400 for their default meal, which means your other meal now has to be smaller to compensate especially if you only eat twice a day and work a sedentary job.
Bacha bazi is machismo-based homosexuality
You're missing the point slightly, but perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.
In Afghanistan, most of the abusive people are men, and follow male patterns of abuse. Men who are tired of this literally threw their guns down [such an event being the topic of the thread] and let the men who had a better way in.
In the West, most of the abusive people are women, and follow female patterns of abuse. (Most people don't know what they are, especially when the topic is specifically child abuse, so I figured I'd elaborate- "charge the soldier for doing his job because the enemy failed a paper-bag test" is similar abuse along those lines.) Men who are tired of this literally threw their guns down [event topic] and let the negative consequences occur (there are no men who have a better way willing or able to conquer Western countries so this is the best they have).
but the key point of commonality is that it does not consider buggering a man to be womanly, only allowing yourself to be buggered.
That consideration is biologically hardcoded. Forced feminization/passivization subtly breaks down men; doesn't matter if it's an individual man directly buggering you short-term or a group of woman collectively buggering you long-term. (Of course, you have to get to understand 'women can bugger men' first, and most people can't do that for other biologically-hardcoded reasons because never in the history of humanity outside of the last 60 years or so has that ever been possible.)
Given how even Ukraine didn't really have a civil war I doubt Russia will.
Russia and Ukraine are having a civil war right now, it's just one that happens to straddle an existing border.
because in undeveloped poor agrarian societies no one does
My level of reference is "what was it possible for a 14 year old to do in 1900" compared to "what are they allowed to do today"?
Off the top of my head I can think of "get any entry-level factory job that doesn't require advanced education, support or start a family, get laid, move across the country, buy a weapon, have a beer after work" in 1900. At 15-16, provided you could had reached full adult height and weren't cursed with babyface, you could join the military. Even in the 1930s 14 year olds doing menial tasks like waiting tables was normal enough; evidenced by the youngest Hindenburg staff member that survived that incident being that age.
Today they're... allowed to play on the computer, I guess.
[Refinement: "power over women" -> "power over abusers, most of whom happen to either be women, or are acting womanly".]
I think they probably cared less about power over women and more about power over their abusers.
Interesting that the "right-wing" is slowly rediscovering that this is how they need to couch their messaging (and then refusing to back down when pressed, and Trump will be the model for this going forward). Liberalism is a counterbalance against progressivism just like it was against traditionalism, and the progressives are only liberals in the "continue the revolution against traditionalism" sense, not the "continue the revolution against traditionalists" (which is why they're so occupied with fighting a strawman that no longer exists while becoming indistinguishable from the traditionalist tendencies that were the reason liberals opposed them in the first place).
But what happens when it is mostly women/progressives carrying out the abuse? Well...
but ensuring first-world LGBT people aren't smeared as pedophiles
The "global elite satanist pedophile" people have correctly identified that if you're in power, you get to sexually abuse young men with impunity. The specifics look a little different when women do it but "we will take away your ability to develop the things that make you sexually attractive" (either by raping/molesting you directly, or contributing to the cultural effort to chemically castrate you and give you breasts instead express your inner herbivore man where you hide under your bed in fear of offending a woman) is the general form of what that sexual abuse looks like regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing either of those things, regardless of whether they think in the moment it's abuse or not (as you know). And the problem is that, because liberal men and women can and will use different functions to compute sexual attraction than normal people, but don't understand that they're doing that, they won't anticipate that their views on what makes the opposite sex attractive (if they even see it that way) is destructive when applied outside of that "orientation"- they can't defend against progressives because they don't know they need to defend against them.
Note that this is specifically forced feminization/passivization [in the traditional straight sex sense, where your psyche is built on men dominate, women submit] (and note that abuse victims tend to become hyper-female as a rationalization/result of the abuse, and that's true for boys as well as girls). Feminization that isn't forced is... something different, but can look the same way under certain circumstances (especially in all-male environments, like boarding schools [Eton is famous for this] and prisons) or if you're not aware/don't care they're distinct (most commonly for religious reasons).
Also, forced masculinization can be accomplished (Stanford Prison Experiment guards, Khmer Rouge putting children in charge of labor camps, royal families), it just isn't done because making more dominant individuals is not generally to the benefit of those with the power so we don't have good data on what happens. [I suspect the Soviet "strong woman, basically a man" meme is a little more than just a meme in this direction, but I don't have data to back that up; I'm also not convinced it's the cause of most FTM transitions as distinct from its standard social contagion effects.]
Maybe we should have considered not covering up such practices by our "allies"
The Westerners that are in power consider the institutional and cultural abuse of boys/young men to have neutral-to-positive moral valence (see above). I think the clearer examples of boy-raping are certainly things that a government would cover up for the same reasons the Church did- that it would allow their legitimacy to be questioned- more than it is an attempt to protect the LGBT movement (who don't really have to care about being called pedophiles as they now possess the social privilege the Church used to have).
No (wo)man, no problem.
Fortunately for the statistically average bureaucrat, we have an aversion to physically removing them as ancient societies would do (since they’d all be men).
Unfortunately for the average bureaucrat, they’ll be financially ruined. Career prospects for former welfare recipients are not great- good thing they didn’t import a ton of workers that don’t even make a minimum wage too slim to support a decent lifestyle through a cost disease they pushed for… oh wait, that’s exactly what they did.
The Progressive party machine is, quite literally, their only lifeline. And they know it only exists so long as they continue tricking young women into thinking they’ll get a permanent paycheque out of [young] men if they keep voting for it in a pyramid scheme even larger than Social Security.
It’s a faction of Amway ladies.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
And here I thought being in the party of racism supporters would more easily bring himself to quote that directly.
Of course, his massa(s) will beat his ass if he says it, which implies he himself serves in the house.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Yes, but those private school teachers would be (and are) more liable for results, as a teacher failing to teach would result in parents pulling their kids. Same thing with administrators, as they’re strictly a cost center.
That is in stark contrast to what we have now, where they’re functionally impossible to fire consistently for anything less than literally fucking the students.
that adults got spooked by the horrific specter of 18-20-year-old boys getting into car accidents, fistfights, having unprotected sex etc.
In other words, "teenage boys" [and to a lesser extent, men in general- the young men just get it worse as a consequence of how men accumulate sociofinancial value] became the new "niggers" (started in the early 1900s, and would become progressively truer each decade, with a quick pause around 1960 for the economic golden age where they became economically useful again). The prohibitions that were imposed for the latter group would transfer to the former; they'd be charged as adults for crimes committed before that time (for things that wouldn't be crimes if they were adults, even), be prevented from working, intentionally segregated, consistently demonized in the media because melanin hormones, get the phrenology treatment ('lack of brain development') for a justification for making the paper-bag test analogue stricter, etc.
I failed to stop Noticing this one once I was well beyond the age for whom a change in that cultural attitude would have been wholly selfish. Perhaps that's a side-effect of not actually having particularly identifiable "stupid kids" in class but "this is net-negative for at least 50% of the population" is a pretty damning condemnation ignoring that. We are already willing to accept 12/52-type consequences that result by giving rights to every other group and the fact we don't extend that downwards in the age range is... interesting, to say the least. I think it's socioeconomic in origin, for the same reasons other groups gain or lose the right to be considered human over time in industrialized societies (unindustrialized societies consider adulthood to be around 13-14, which strongly suggests that's when it actually happens, but it's not like they have any other choice in the matter; not that Western societies that delay it are being explicitly malicious when they do that, but if we accept that we also accept a lack of malice about race/sex discrimination more generally [assuming and to the extent that our scientific ageism is false], so...).
People generally don't consider long-term consequences in such situations.
I agree; I think forcing them out of any cultural milieu or circumstance that they'd grow up in (growing up is an inherently dangerous activity) may not have been the best of ideas. This is part of why the Amish have rumspringa- you're leaving as a child, and if you choose to come back, you're doing so as an adult.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
because it's transparently dishonest to associate yourself with menial work that you do not do and have never (in my knowledge) done
Yes, but associating yourself with them is the thing you have to do if you want to manage a company filled with the people doing those things regardless of whether you see yourself as above them or not (which you'll recognize as the stereotypical Karen mindset).
That is [one of] your job[s] in that position; Kamala is refusing to do that job.
(And that's completely ignoring the "leader is himself a servant" thing being... kind of foundational to the "Protestant" part of "Protestant work ethic".)
At a certain point such an adversarial relationship results in no one wanting the job
At a certain point such low pay relative to perceived risk results in no one wanting the job. If your paramilitary members (which, make no mistake, is what these particular cops are) have to risk that for every criminal/enemy combatant they kill as part of their job, they're risking sociofinancial execution, it better be paying ludicrous sums. That sum can be social wealth, that can be financial wealth, or they can be a mix (exhibit A: veteran's discount), but they must be paid regardless.
Progressives can never pay them properly because their preferred version of the paramilitary/police are the criminals that the paramilitary is supposed to be shooting, and their core revealed preference is that they just want to force men [and increasingly, the women who work like men] to labor and risk for free (just like Traditionalists reveal preference for free female childbirth and risk) which means they're incapable of fixing that.
I don’t know how to design a process that doesn’t incentive both to claw for more power.
Liberalism was that process, but we are unwilling or unable to afford it any more (which resulted in people being able to claw for more power, and ripped it apart in the process).
Replacing gynosupremacy (current regime) with androsupremacy (ancien regime) is known to fix a security problem in the short term (which is why the Traditionalists feel, correctly, that they can fix this by "retvrning") but at the cost of everything above Security on Maslow's hirerarchy (which stops being a problem when the average man is priced out of everything above it anyway).
So yes, that means that the rough men will use the fact everyone else requires their protection to angle for more power (or must become rough men themselves, which is a victory for the rough men). If the ruling party is unable or unwilling to negotiate they get Battle of Baghdad'd (and the soldiers protesting here is a nano-scale version of that) as the soldiers throw down their tools and cheer for the Taliban... because the Taliban will give those men the power over women that the former society could or would not and every soldier or potential soldier knew it.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
What is anti-ABS? While I do know that being against mandatory anti-lock braking systems is a sure sign you vote R, for some reason I don’t think that’s what you mean.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
I’ve always figured that weed is a drug that imposes a heavy underclock on your brain and allows direct access for parts of your consciousness that aren’t meant to talk directly to each other.
Alcohol, by contrast, just removes some impulse control and makes motor functions more difficult, but those things turn off “silently” by comparison (and re-enable themselves quickly by comparison, whereas weed has a day of latency).
You don’t think slower on alcohol, you just have a harder time executing. Stoners, by comparison, are very apparently down-clocked.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Polls are destructive tests: once you conduct one and announce the results, the value changes.
preteen children
Every adult I know consistently underestimates age by 2-3 years when asked to guess, even those that deal with children on a daily basis. With a little effort, that can easily become 4-5, and you don’t even need journalist math to get there if you’re starving because your parents fed you to gave all your food to the soldiers.
And you really don’t need to be that big to hold a gun. This also tends to shock people who intentionally ignore what someone of age X can or cannot do (typically because their culture encourages that) but I’m not at all shocked if a population that radicalized its citizens from birth has a non-zero number of unacceptably cute (by Western standards) enemy combatants, which even so much as “be a distraction, go set off some firecrackers” qualifies as, realistically.
So while the number of blatant-war-crime deaths (even if these kids are actually receiving fire directly) is almost certainly not 0, I question the default assumption of “they weren’t combatants”, just like and for the same reasons I question their practice of putting their HQ in a school.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Of course that doesn’t account for Alberta secession/prairexit or any number of Canada doomsday scenarios which seem to get more likely and not less with increasing US chaos.
I think the economic interests are one piece of that puzzle, but the other one is infrastructure.
A good chunk of US power centers are wholly dependent on the surrounding rural areas for power and water (especially out West) and so the strategic circumstances there disproportionately favor the rural areas for reasons that are shaped like rivers, natural gas pipelines, and electrical transmission towers.
This is a strategic nightmare for urban areas that most depend on that power for their survival, and I really don't see them solving that one. The Northeast, Southeast, Texas, Upper Canada/Ontario, Lower Canada/Quebec, and California might be self-sufficient and individually productive enough to pull that off, but I think the map of the US in case of Federal collapse would most likely end up looking more or less like this (extend Texas, or at least its sphere of influence, all the way up to the Arctic Ocean, leave Quebec as-is, truncate Ontario's territory at Thunder Bay, and add Vancouver Island and Vancouver to California).
And yes, this also means that only Texas would have custody of the former US' nuclear arsenal.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
They can and have been beaten into submission.
The people who still believe in academia are currently at the highest seat of power: everyone whose parents benefited from the GI Bill (which was itself a horrific "eating the seed corn" event because it would precipitate this problem- and yes, that was passed under FDR, of course), and for whom academic credentials still meant something.
Those generations that came after academia transformed itself into a destructive welfare system won't rise to power for another 20-30 years; you'll never convince the Boomers that universities or management tracks need to be destroyed because they were the generation who primarily benefited from both the credential boosting their station, and the fact it served as their meal ticket into a new welfare system. These people are responsible for things like high school education rates being targets, and they'll never see the results of Goodhart's Law (that has resulted in swaths of illiterate populations), because illiterates can wipe Boomer asses just fine in the nursing home (and if they die due to medication mix-ups, they'll be too old to do anything about it).
The problem is that academia has stopped producing accurate results, which means it will eventually stop believing in itself.
Academia still produces welfare checks in a time of economic contraction; it is continuing to produce results.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
The whole “groomer” discourse on the right demonstrates conclusively that the queer left is still successfully scandalizing normal people.
Yes, but note that the normies pretty conclusively don't give a damn outside of that temporary shock. You can get them to give a damn once the left starts explicitly defending rapists, but they don't press the issue. It's the "well, why aren't Republicans bombing abortion clinics any more?" argument all over again.
The "groomer" discourse is a failure for the same reasons the longhouse is inevitable: simply put, Western society is unwilling and unable to control female bad actors. The LGBTQuestion is just the latest instantiation of "man bad woman good", after all, and the HR and education departments responsible for pushing it are majority female.
and that actually our society would be far better off if we stopped valorizing the archetype of the “individual genius standing alone against the close-minded majority”
European society (that does this) is significantly less wealthy and its individual citizens less powerful than in American society. And that didn't save them from progressivism; in fact, it made them more vulnerable to it due to lacking the inoculation that American society has against that very thing.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
"AI safety" needs to focus less on what AI could do to us and more on what people can use AI to do to each other.
It already is used for that- what did you think the censorship was for, if not cementing power?
that you can't open source physical power.
Fortunately, the country leading the AI push also has a law that, in theory (though not necessarily in practice), gives private citizens the right to do this. That is the sole reason that law exists.
Judging by the commentariat here, this is the overwhelming preference; that it isn't expressed in polite company doesn't make it untrue.
More options
Context Copy link