ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
saying that the reason for pick-me shaming is that it is simply fundamentally embarrassing to see a woman debasing herself for a man
Discussing how salespeople negotiate deals puts the salesperson at a disadvantage, hence her refusal to entertain the notion. Of course, I already covered that too.
to see a woman debasing herself for a man
Which is why my entire thesis is "the women who don't see it as debasement aren't normal". That's why I have to cut a line between the two; most people seem incapable of acknowledging such a distinction even exists (then proceed to bury it in the term "women").
Can you?
You posted (either intentionally or unintentionally; I legitimately cannot tell) one of the replies to the comment where I unpacked this. In fairness, my replies to this topic are starting to get fragmented, since I make a similar post every few months rather than just copy-pasting.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
I think it's a shame that trendline in technology was abandoned
Pebble somehow managed to go bankrupt.
Their products were far and away superior to anything Apple (to say nothing of Google, who gobbled up Fitbit, who owns all the old Pebble IP) offers today in terms of responsiveness, software quality, and battery life; they were even working on a Raspberry-Pi-fication of their watch.
I still believe that an open (as in, "not restricted to what the app store pushes") wearable computer connected to the cell network combined with a watch would have been the next frontier of personal computing had they survived. Sadly, it was not to be.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Manufacturing of renewables is not my area of expertise
It's not an area of expertise for any Western country, either. So in 20 years when China has figured out that "hey, now that they're completely dependent on this product, and most of the PV panels we've sold have dropped below the replacement threshold for power output, time to jack up the price", now that cheap product has become a massive liability, just like how the natural gas supply in Europe was sacrificed to further US foreign policy goals in Ukraine.
the domestic security issue is presumably not going to apply equally to every Western nation
Considering the US goes out of its way to encourage that domestic security issue in other Western countries, I agree- it's going to affect them more.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
but the question you have to ask now is why?
Because the West is a culture of engineers, and we should play to our strengths. (Also, the environment is too important to leave to the Greens.)
Renewables are already there.
Not from a national security or domestic security perspective, they aren't. For the former, no Western country controls its own supply chain of solar panels or [to an extent] wind turbines; for nuclear, you can reprocess fuel (and don't even need much of it in the first place) and construction can't meaningfully be outsourced.
For the latter, I don't trust my political enemies not to intentionally destroy the alternatives to intermittency (because they're already trying to destroy the ability to build new natural gas turbines, which is the problem they're meant to solve) and turn the West into South Africa in service of their death cult. Not that nuclear isn't immune to this (since it's been done many times before in the US), but it's not something that obviously funds my political allies like coal/oil/natural gas does, so even if those things go away I believe my enemies are more likely to feel forced to continue funding a power grid that still works after 5 PM in the winter.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
When emotions come into play over large numbers of people things can get pretty wonky.
The US just fed 5 trillion dollars to the fire because of mass hysteria over an uncommon cold and only suffered 20% inflation as a consequence.
If we actually wanted to build out nuclear, we would. We don't, because we can afford not to, and by the time we can't afford not to the US will be sufficiently Brazilified/South Africanized that it won't matter anyway.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Yeah Europe is really shooting itself in the foot, when it's already stumbling economically.
Well, they have American Fifth Columnists in their country without the cultural antibodies against American Fifth Columnists. Not that the Americans themselves are doing any better resisting them, but at least they're not stupid enough to listen to the watermelon environmentalists in military matters.
The only non-Combloc European country with a major nuclear buildout is the one that had the most cultural antibodies against the US, and remember that they started it under a military dictatorship (though the fact they followed through with it is significant as well).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
But if the bedroom simply isn't dangerous anymore, because our liberal tolerant society has declared that everything is acceptable now, then this opportunity for political agitation is lost.
Well, aside for that one group that it is much more dangerous to take to bed than it was in the '70s (or any time in the last 100 years before them). Which, speaking of political agitation and old-style repression, consider the following:
"There will be nothing but curiosity and enjoyment of the process of life. No competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always, do not forget this, Karen - never will be the intoxication of power, never increasing, but constantly growing more overt. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of elevating a friend who is worthy. If you want a picture of the future, imagine an attractive woman pressing her breasts into a little boy's face - forever." (SFW, enough)
You'll recognize that "stare at my [metaphorical] goods, and be enriched simply by their existence" as the promise of liberalism. We don't tolerate expressions of that any more because we are no longer liberal; instead, the women who should be encouraging young men to develop properly by doing that are instead invested in [quite literally, in some cases] cutting that expression off right to the quick. It can't be permissible for people to give sex or commitment outside of what biology dictates because there's serious money to be made instead- the organism needs to exists as an instrument of alienated labor, not as a subject of self realization.
(Which is the steelman context for the above. There's literally zero benefit to older women [traditionally: extracts zero resources while not benefiting from looking pretty] matching with younger men [traditionally: provides zero sex appeal while not benefiting from being able to extract resources]; which means that if they do it and stick together, they do it for self-actualization: because they want to. And if you squint a little, you'll notice that "this is ultimately what I want you to have, here it is, I know you're not quite ready but your wanting to be is enough" is exactly how God operates. I'm sure that's a total coincidence though.)
KulakRevolt made an interesting point a while ago about how society is dominated either by the scowls of bitter old women or the howls of laughing young boys (along with a few posts about how old women abuse young boys in the public education system); and I think there's something to the prohibition of the latter in a society as the former starts to take over, starting with the pathologization and assumptions of bad faith in everything they might do, making sure women who are psychologically closer to men are marginalized/suppressed or outright mutilated, disrupt the pipeline for people who don't have sex-magic-soul-bond/see sex as merely a means to an end goal to realize that about themselves, and the like. It's trying to cut the people who see sex and commitment as described above off entirely- they can't be allowed to exist, because how would anyone be forced to buy their sexual labor then?
Maybe Hlynka was right after all?
Yes, but you have to distill the initial conditions and sociobiological incentives of the groups in conflict to figure that out because our language is insufficient to explain that. Much like how I use "straight", for that matter.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
then the species will die out
If you're dead, what use is the species to you? Sex to straight [men] is not only a scarce resource, but is fundamentally a self-enriching endeavor ('selfish' is not a good word for it; this is a neutral to positive thing, not malicious).
Again, women seeking sex as self-enriching is a malfunction (where the self-enrichment they're supposed to get is the resources and exclusive supply agreement on the man), because sex damages their ability to do that according to straight men (who have to be forced to pay that as a cost- since if they're straight, those things are contrary to their biological interest).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
It was saying that more and more white men growing up have lived their entire lives being told the world meant for them put them in charge (and that's problematic) and to not believe their lying eyes (scholarships, or that most boys' authority figures are their female teacher)
It's not feminism, it's gynosupremacy. Just as destructive as racism, comes from the same place as racism, the practitioners are the same personality types. The social dynamics are the same as what allowed racism to exist in the first place.
The feminists are trivially correct: discrimination is power + privilege. It's why their entire movement is built around denying the obvious truth (that it applies to them)- and I can't reduce it any more than that, nor have I ever heard a correct refutation of that point (other than "but androsupremacists also exist").
Are you literally trying to suggest that certain individuals, who are having a lot of sex, are actually asexual in some sense?
Yes. I think that to do this and not become worn down over time you need to not see sex that way, and I think that's a qualitatively different orientation from the people that do. Asexuality is the closest label that fits- in the "sure, they might even get laid a lot, but the otherworldy-special significance normal people put on sex is just... absent somehow" (in the same way that sociopaths tend to be terrible human beings unless they have other reasons not to be).
Which is what makes them so fucking weird to deal with in the first place. They don't get the magic special soul-bonding for free, and thus act in a way that assumes the soul-bonding thing doesn't exist (and taking that to its logical conclusion leads you to start asking the progressively edgier questions sex-positivity is historically known for). I suspect this is a birth defect, because the notion that sex is Very Special is advantageous to have, especially in marginal relationships.
There's a contradiction in simultaneously believing "women don't actually want sex that much" and "young women are absolutely out of control with how much sex they're having and we need to shut it down NOW".
When you have a job, it is in your interest to bargain for the least demanding job at the highest wage. The weird ones are those who intentionally sell themselves short because they actually like the job, and that drives down the maximum wage for every other job.
Slut-shaming is a market force: the union [of all women] imposing a minimum wage. Is it that surprising a sorority (a union of women with the end goal of being a union of women) would be interested in enforcing that?
As union membership becomes more powerful, sex becomes less free.
I'm not entirely clear from reading your post where you fall on this particular question.
If I wasn't limited to observing it exists, I'd call it something different than "magic special soul-bonding". However, I also believe that people who have that property should seriously avoid having sex with people that don't (because they really need that bond to be taken for granted and bad things happen when it isn't- it's like you already cheated on them), that people that don't should not offer sex to people that do (because if you do, they'll just feel used if you don't tell them this or patronized if you do), and most importantly, that people that do have it aren't lesser than people that don't (and the people that don't should under no circumstances act like they're better).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Yes. Or rather, that if you're straight, your interests converge on nobody but you having/accessing sex (your ideal society is that you're the only one of your sex present, male or female- since if you're male you can demand an infinitely high price for commitment under those circumstances, and if you're female you can demand an infinitely high price for sex in the same way), and if you're ace, as a property of not having that drive, it wouldn't matter if everyone but you was having sex [at least, not for reasons that directly have to do with sex for the sake of sex- this would/could still be existentially crushing for other reasons, but not in the same way it would be for straights].
I think a lot of people have a hard time processing/coping with the reality of sex; the meme about "I was forever traumatized by seeing this" is too common to all be lie and I've heard enough "I wasn't ready to do it then and regret the sex", "getting laid changes you", "too many penises", "don't you regret that/wasn't that a stereotypical grooming relationship?", and "you did this mostly for self-gratification, right?" (a question I'm still not allowed to answer, because it would reveal this kind of orientation mismatch to someone I don't want to reveal that to) to think the people who say those things must be telling the truth and not faking their orgasms.
Obviously that has to come from somewhere, should be taken seriously, and starting from initial biological conditions seems to make the most sense. But I think there's a big gaping hole (one held open by 2 hands, with a gold ring on one of the fingers) in the understanding of what the sexual politics of the last 60-100 years were really caused by, I think that what caused it wasn't fully understood in that time (and is now misunderstood on purpose by different people, in different ways, for different reasons), and I intend to discover a reasonable way to explain what it is and why.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Why don't you try to put it in words?
Because it's as fundamental to each person as one's personality is?
From observation it looks like a mix of "I remember her as a little kid so it's forever icky to think of her having sex, but I can abstract it away if it's marriage" and "mildly incestuous possessiveness".
If you're capable of thinking of it in those terms you might just be asexual.
From observation, it's normal to think of your kids as never having grown past the age of 13 (and thus it be forever icky to think of them as having adult desires), and every parent I've ever known does this (except for one, maybe two). [The Jewish rite of adulthood doesn't happen at 13 for no reason.] It changes when you get married because the opposite-sex parent becomes permanently subordinate at that point (and also your kid has backup when dealing with you). I'm not sure how they see grandkids.
It's normal to think that sex with men is dangerous and bad, and that women desire nothing else but to have a marriage without any sex whatsoever if they can get away with it. Which is in their finely-honed evolutionary biological interests to do for obvious reasons; note that lesbians aren't immune to this reflex, which is why the majority of definitionally lesbian sex that has ever happened has been in front of a camera, not in committed lesbian relationships.
There are memes about this from the distaff side as well- give seldom, and above all, give grudgingly. Straights unironically and fully believe that "while sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced through it." Men and women deal with this differently, and take advantage of this differently, but they both agree on this fundamental point. And now you know why women/bottoms/betas conservatives are just men/tops/alphas progressives driving the speed limit in sexual matters; the only reason it's through a progressive lens these days is because women have more socioeconomic power than men do for other reasons, so the power politics are a lot more naked from the male perspective now where it's usually the women staring down the barrel [which is why when that wasn't the case, the average woman was more traditionalist than the average man, even in cultural milieus where wife-beating was the norm].
Again, this has strong and extremely important biological underpinnings- humanity hasn't had enough time to evolve to deal with the fact that women can just have sex without any major consequence at their leisure. We solved this with technology in the '50s and what we got was a 20-year-long society-wide orgy... until AIDS [and Boomer women hitting the wall] killed that society dead. Women were screaming and throwing their panties at Elvis because it turns out that, shock of shocks, some women actually like having sex- this continues to baffle straights to this day because casual sex is literally the most counterintuitive and physically dangerous thing you can do as a woman!
And now you know why some people who can't deal with this make themselves eunuchs (Skoptskyists, modern transgender movement, etc.): for a straight man looking through the lens of how a straight man sees straight women, it's the ultimate gift to a woman [to have a relationship but never have to have sex- this is "respects women" to a pathological degree, and now you know why the most visible ex-men are usually autistic, and also Like That more generally] and for a straight woman it's the ultimate safety blanket [ruining their body's sex appeal as the price for joining a religious community frees them from the need to sell their body for sex- which is the definition of a straight marriage per the above- and from the perspective of an ex-woman seeing that, because she's already in such a community, that mutilating herself has no downsides].
Christianity is appealing to men and women who find that resisting ancient instincts is very hard, and so you'll find a disproportionate amount of men who do consciously want to resist them are Christian, because it's a cultural milieu where they will be praised for doing so (it's also a place for people who aren't getting any, because that's also virtuous)- so naturally, you'll find them to be a lot weirder about sex than the general population. Their complaints about "oversexualization" and "promiscuity bad" are best viewed through the lens of how alcoholics who consciously need to resist relapse would see constant ads for beer- why the absolute fuck should a Healthy Society not only tolerate that, but encourage it (in the "silence is violence" way), given how many alcoholics [they believe there to be, and not without reason] are out there, even if they're aware they're in a filter bubble that consists solely of alcoholics?
More generally, this is where the "I don't want a woman that had forty penises in her- that's as many as four tens, and that's terrible" disgust reflex comes from. Excessively promiscuous women have something fundamentally wrong with them as they're not performing their gender role properly- they're not gatekeeping sex- in the same way that multiply-divorced men have fundamental problems with commitment. And we should expect that to be extremely visceral for straights (in a way that it isn't for gays/lesbians/asexuals, who have different problems).
So, straights/traditionalist-progressives can't fully understand free love Ace Pride because their mental model of it is "first, be very aware that sex with men is bad and has immediate life-ending consequences for women, then act as selfishly as you possibly can under those circumstances", which you can see an excellent example of as a related comments to this one. And it's not like Free Love didn't have elements of that, because it couldn't really reject straights poking their... noses where they shouldn't have and took the claimed Psychic damage (or purposefully inflicted status effects on others out of selfishness, like certain gay men with AIDS and monkeypox).
The reason Aces don't take Psychic type damage is because they're Dark type, and while Dark types might not take Psychic damage they're not immune to status effects [like 'disease' or 'pregnant']. Even if it's permissible, it's not really beneficial (and 'but don't you have anything better to do?' is the argument I never see Christians make, even though it doesn't depend on first-century sexual morality to be valid, but I think the reason why they don't feel the need to is explained sufficiently above).
Also, conversely, asexuals don't usually try to understand straights (or are blinded by Pride, just like how straight women are now, and how straight men used to be) so they tend to propose solutions like "maybe we can do some conversion therapy by encouraging little kids to fuck, if they grow up thinking casual sex is normal then so much the better" [which I'll point out is the exact same thing that Proud straight women do to little boys/girls where they encourage them to be the opposite instead, for the same reasons, coming from the same sexual place as I explained above, and it is just as Psychically harmful to them- victims of both cases appear to develop hypersexuality as a coping mechanism and so I think it hurts the same place in the same way] and "if we plaster sex everywhere, we drive the marginal value of sex down to zero; when sex is so ordinary as to be trivial there will be no more sex abuse, and there are very definitely no knock-on effects from this whatsoever" [as a response to straight sexuality's natural impulse to drive the marginal value of sex infinitely high that nobody will pursue sex any more].
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Declaring wars is for peer nations.
By contrast, empires ‘conduct police action’, as they claim the entire world as their own sovereign territory (aspirationally or otherwise).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
and they cannot be trusted as a class with power to do whatever they want.
And in an environment of strict legal equality, women are granted this power.
It's only a solvable problem in a totalitarian system, where the computer actually knows what he-said and she-said (and where this is already the case, usually when the text message logs enter the court record, the case gets thrown out... and then the laws get changed to make text messages inadmissible), but if we had a totalitarian system equality wouldn't be a thing anyway.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
The history of the entire fucking world is that of men finding new ways to acquire resources to impress women and women finding new ways to siphon those resources.
Or restated, at a population level:
When the men have an easier time finding those resources, insulation from women's desires thus increases, and society enters a golden age as parasitism/corruption is less viable. Men marry and create families earlier, women make homes, TFR exceeds replacement.
The last time this happened was the mid-20th century in the US and the West more broadly.
When that becomes harder, or technology makes siphoning those resources easier (or obviates their gathering altogether), that insulation disappears, and society enters a dark age, where parasitism/corruption is more viable. Men marry later and create families later, women focus on other things, TFR drops.
The last time this happened in the US was the early-20th century (rural birthrates are hiding precipitous urban birthrate decline in TFR)- the largest jump in women's rights happened at that time.
Certain populations are affected by those shifts faster or slower than others.
There's just one little problem.
When the latter conditions occur, men turn inward. And men can remain turned inward/lying flat much longer than women can remain fertile, especially since modern distractions are far better than they were in 1920. Usually the antidote for this is that war comes, a bunch of men suicide-by-enemy-action, and if they win the survivors have less competition for women -> social conditions improve... but there's a lot of knock-on effects such that this isn't a silver bullet.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
which spurred cultural backlash
Note also that the 1910s and 1920s were perhaps an even more woke time than the 2010s and 2020s; Prohibition and sufferage being the most famous wins for that faction, but Charismatic Christianity has its roots in that time as well. Indeed, the opinion of women was indeed taken so seriously in the WW1 years that they could get men to kill themselves [by signing up for some stupid European war] simply by performing certain gestures, which is not yet a power woke women enjoy quite so directly today.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
This assumes that authoritarian societies will be able to match open societies in harnessing new technologies and making them available to the public
Until there are no open societies, at which point it doesn't matter, and was 1984's premise.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
gay cars
I dunno about that one; EVs and Priuses were still relatively common on the road coincident with the uncommon cold.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
You really think someone would do that? Do the wrong thing on purpose just to spite their enemies?
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
Why should a mistake costing one life shatter the government?
Keep in mind that the last 4 years have taught us that even intentional mistakes by the government can cost millions of lives. Nobody seems to bat an eye at that (probably because it raised their socioeconomic standing)- whereas the death penalty is not, has the disadvantage of being showy and dramatic, and the media class can't make money off of it.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1mo ago
just buying the things is the better deal
You're paying for the ability to ditch the bike literally anywhere, and someone stealing it or wrecking it is not your problem.
In places where property crime is actively encouraged that is an underrated part of the package- and people don't bother stealing them anyway, because even if they weren't all GPS-tracked, they're very obviously stolen to pawn shops whereas private e-bikes are not (and if you want to be more cynical, the police will go where the local rental company tells them the stolen scooters are, where private citizens don't generally enjoy that even if you can prove it with an AirTag or similar).
Some people who have served in the military also do this.
As for parents, perhaps we should treat them the same way? I say we thank them for their cervix.
More options
Context Copy link