ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
No bio...
User ID: 822
It's also simply a solved problem
It's not about the children (it never is).
It's about making sure that if a young man wants to experience sex with a woman, he needs to buy it from her, preferably with his life.
Traditionalists and progressives are in agreement that this is how it should be; that is why it keeps coming up.
Porn puts limits on how much women can charge men for sex- in other words, it [by definition] devalues women. It's also very important that teenage women be kept from having sex, because women (especially the most desirable ones) merely wanting sex for the sake of sex (or worse, putting an explicit price on it) in opposition to Polite Society's attempts to make sure they're exploiting their only inherent value as hard as is humanly possible (rather than treating it as a fun toy) causes that scheme to break down.
People who see men and women as more equal in worth don't generally have as much of a problem with sex or porn, but they're too busy being distracted by said sex and porn to enforce that former consensus.
(It's probably noteworthy that the race of people whose women look like teenagers for longer than average is more liberal than average with their sexual politics- mainly thinking about Japan and Thailand here but the others are kind of like that too. People blame Abramic religions for this, but I think it's just because Asian women don't hit as much of a wall for a decline in looks, so they don't have to be as insecure about bagging a man before losing them, so their society is less neurotic about it.)
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
Software development is weird because you start running into the inherent limitations of how much logic the human brain can even process in a way human beings haven't quite figured out how to surpass (amphetamines can help, but not that much) outside of just trying to build better tooling (and we haven't actually attempted to do that in a long time).
This kind of job is actually really hard, and it continually amazes me that software in general works as well as it does. And it doesn't even work that well.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
They could have instead made a deadlier higher-velocity flatter-shooting round.
Honestly, no, they couldn't have done that.
They couldn't have done that because they didn't know to do that. There were clues they could have paid attention to- the Federov is chambered in what is basically 6.5 Grendel, after all- but 2400 FPS isn't exactly slow by WW2 military rifles standards (to the point that the British thought ~140 grains at 2400 FPS should become the standard general purpose machine gun round for NATO). And militaries, especially ones that thought their next major war would be fought in Eastern Europe (and the Soviets were indeed correct on that point) do want that little bit of extra range- because that place is all plains.
In fairness to the Soviets it's not like 5.56 is particularly well-designed either considering it's just stretched .222, forgetting that you actually need to leave space for a properly-designed bullet. You can hack around that by loading the cartridge to the fucking moon, which is why the US has to replace its M4 bolts now where it didn't with M193.
I don't know enough about 5.8x42 to shit-talk it.
No design process or attempt to optimize for performance.
No cartridge in modern use was truly a clean sheet design. Even the Tround used a .36-caliber (9mm) projectile.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
The SKS is the ultimate successor to the Winchester 94- all the same fundamental limitations, same form factor/overall size, same power of cartridge (.30-30 is far weaker than its case size would otherwise suggest).
The AK kind of fits that description too, but only in the sense that it technically has a Win 94 compatibility mode (the Saiga rifles being the best example) rather than having been designed solely with that mode in mind.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
"muscle cars" as such disappeared after California and other US states enacted all sorts of emission regulations in the name of protecting the environment and so on
Muscle cars simply became their own segment; they simply stopped putting V8s in everything.
What does more HP have to do with luxury?
Past about 300-400 you don't actually need any more. Stuff you want and don't need is generally 'luxury', like 500 screens, massaging seats, etc.
Anyway, I find the concept of a "non-V8 muscle car" sort of laughable.
Larger turbo-4s have at this point totally eclipsed the V6 (even in trucks). I think the only company that still offers one is Nissan (and that's because they're reusing an old design- the Z is not a new car). Most cars that have V8s are turbos now too (trucks not so much), so instead of 300-400 HP you're getting 600-700.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
As to not duplicate from the other comment:
- Compact utility vehicles, the turbocharged 2-litre 4 cylinder engine, and plug-in hybrids having more performance than non-V8 muscle cars of 15 years ago
- All new cars are ludicrously luxurious by the standards of 15 years ago (performance models now have 600-1000 HP)
- Small trucks made a [limited] comeback
- All new construction is ludicrously luxurious by the standards of 15 years ago
- Grocery pre-compilation for later pickup is cheaper than the cart rentals; delivery not much more expensive than that
- Food delivery at very reasonable rates; ride-sharing limits what taxis can charge
- Board games have gone through a renaissance; RP (D&D, etc.) is much more popular and approachable
- Credit card skimming was 100% solved via NFC (UX of terminals notwithstanding)
- Android phones more likely to be supported for the physical lifetime of the device
- Holosun and Primary Arms drove the price of a good rifle or pistol optic down dramatically
- Optic sights on handguns now widespread, and the variety and capabilities of compact and subcompact pistols in particular has increased dramatically
- The collapse in price of good AR-15s, Kel-Tec in general, Palmetto State Armory in general, (US only but has knock-on effects worldwide) NFA being completely trivialized means innovation can continue (shoulder braces mean short rifles mean cartridges designed around short barrels, forced reset triggers mean full-auto is functionally no longer banned, e-Form 1 filing for silencers mean you get them in 2 weeks, not 2 months or 2 years)
- 3D printing, and the accessibility thereof
- Anti-piracy law is well and truly a dead letter (people were still worried about BitTorrent lawsuits 10 years ago, VPNs weren't yet a thing, Internet Archive didn't exist [for now])
- Indie games (Minecraft most importantly), mature online distribution for games and music (Steam, Bandcamp, Spotify to a point) and books, backwards compatibility for consoles, subscription services for games
- Distributed funding platforms (specifically Kickstarter and Patreon)
- Effectively unlimited cellular data plans, and cell plans having fallen in price by 50% (especially considering inflation)
- Dramatically cheaper plane travel (except for the last year or so)
- People work from home more often
- Computers are faster and consume 10x less power (netbooks finally reached maturity as tablets and hyper-thin laptops)
- SSDs made computers dramatically faster (this was later taken away by MS bloat, but was true for the majority of the last 15 years)
- Functional programming principles make UI development far easier
And that's all I have for now.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
somebody is going to have to pay for the black holes that are state budgets
State budgets, in the administration department, are generally themselves welfare schemes. People who benefit from that will never vote for a party that promises to put the brakes on that, which is why the Democrats are the interest party of those people. They have to be.
Will public employees' voting power to make sure they keep receiving those benefits outrank the voting power of the old (though young men are increasingly catching on) to not pay them? Well, stay tuned...
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
So, that leaves barrels, barrel blanks, and bolts as key components you can't get from Home Depot/Lowe's.
Glock frame rails are probable cause in a way that every other key component is not.
I think it's possible to cultivate people in such a way that you don't need rules.
But you can't control them then. The need for control is a need for rules is a sign of decline; people who love are more productive than people who fear, but fear is the fallback option (per Machiavelli).
under the assumption of course that people above the age of 18 have more self-control
The assumption that people under the age of 18 don't have self-control is actually very, very damaging to those of them that already have it but also take social messaging [a little too] seriously. The people you want to accelerate hold themselves back for the benefit of the people who will never be responsible- these rules are redistributionist, communist even (while the most common person to scream about this won't make this argument they are, trivially, directionally correct).
A more flexible "Every individual should have as much freedom as they can handle" opens up more more interesting possibilities.
Yes, but that pipeline is ripe for abuse. Best example for that is gun licensing in areas that do more invasive checks; they're going to come for that freedom with the excuse of "nobody needs it" and there's strength in numbers.
It requires a more temperate people to do this properly. Europeans can do it more often these days (and have more liberal gun laws than several very populated US states); Americans clearly can't (I think it's a genetic problem with the English). But the fact the freedoms are granted by default is what brings in liberals-who-deserve-liberalism, temperate people who don't want to jump through the hoops.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
The barely teenage groupies who had sex with guys like Mick Jagger were raped.
No they weren't (aside from the ones that 50 years later regret the decision just as it becomes politically convenient to do so). I get that women who want the notch in the bedpost is completely nonsensical from a biological standpoint; so women who get it and then brag about it in the same way a man would do is even more bizarre. It's kind of like when older women sleep with young men- obviously, that's a malfunction (how are they going to take care of the inevitable baby) or just malicious (same thing, doubly so if they're teenaged or less at the time)... except that's not quite how the men see it.
And yet, that's exactly how it worked. Being able to just have risk-free sex is observably pretty great for women who like sex for the sake of sex.
A 14 year old girl is not capable of consenting to sex with a man of that level of fame.
Because they weren't choosing 14 year old you, and you never got over that. We get it. Of course, your answer appears to me to be that it's a problem with men seducing P-zombies women, where my answer is more concerned with noticing that the conditions that allowed the average 14 year old man to get laid (and the conditions that allowed the average 14 year old woman to see the average 14 year old man as a viable option), and the average 20 year old man to start a family if they wished, appear to have disappeared. I'm not convinced the Sexual Revolution is the entire explanation why they disappeared; but I am convinced the Sexual Revolution was an emergent property of those conditions.
This phenomenon can be seen today with Taylor Swift
Really? Her songs are basically all about having male groupies (or at least, the kind of groupie the average woman would want) but I don't think any exist in reality. Contrast the rock groups, where their stock song wasn't breakup-playbook-101 and they were literally drowning in pussy.
Ironically the biggest celebrities that have the largest collection of male groupies are just particularly masculine-coded women that don't show their faces (be that because they're busy showing off everything else- not a particularly feminine trait- or because they're a cute anime girl playing video games- also not a particularly feminine trait). The men throw bags of commitment money at them in the same way women throw bags of sex flesh [i.e. themselves] at their celebrities.
But if you had some method of traveling to 1960 and conveying absolute proof of the consequences of the sexual revolution, it would be unthinkable, and it would have never happened
What, that angry men and angry women would still be angry about it in 60 years' time? The free peoples of the past are just going to call you a square and do it anyway.
Seen the sinful glut of Oreo varietals choking half the shelves of the cookie aisle?
I'm not sure why the existence of such would be sinful outside of their existence being tempting to those given to Oreos. Of course, the same thing naturally must apply to loose women given how much I hear about how damaging their emission of XXX-rays are claimed to be.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
not liberty but the libidinous enabled to sleep with whichever women they wanted
Because it's unthinkable that a woman would ever want to casually have sex with a man.
Those groupies were all definitely raped, and they all regret it and never brag about it.
Sexual traditionalism is nominally about safety, they're practicably about preventing all the work required when they forget to put their condom on and blast STDs and unwanted babies out into the commons.
Indeed.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
I'd like to clarify that I mean absolutely none of this as an attack, personal or otherwise
It is incumbent of those who are on the cutting edge to accommodate for those who aren't. Pretending not to know you're on the cutting edge, or [even worse] being proud of doing provocative things for the purpose of being provocative, is not acceptable.
Liberal Christians (and the gay ones that have relationships following that [what is to me, at least] self-evident visible thread of the way pair-bonding is supposed to work) tend to have an identity of having more problems with this. And provided that isn't for selfish/pride reasons "just to see what you can get away with" [which is the thing traditionalists don't quite understand- because if they themselves were doing those things, it would be in the 'testing boundaries for selfish reasons'/'tricking God' category; this is the core of why some things can be sins for some people but not others], and you're conducting yourself by doing your job (and sticking to what a monogamous relationship is supposed to be) otherwise, there's nothing else wrong with it. Eating food sacrificed to other gods has the same inherent issues- where it's technically acceptable, but doing it thoughtlessly emits pollution that hinders your overarching goals as a follower of Christ.
And that, complicating Christianity in a way the people you're supposed to be reaching can't handle yet, is a sin in the same way and for the exact same reasons as traditionalists misusing "wives, submit to your husbands" (generally as an excuse to be lazy in the relationship).
(Actually, those two verses in their respective contexts have a lot more to do with each other than I think most people realize, as does the 'women leading in church' thing. Leaders should cater to the default, and people who aren't the default should respect that, because the default is what we're after; your job is to work the margins, their job is to not stop you.)
it's possible to discern the overall shape of God's intention for human sexuality
The reason it's written down is because for most people it isn't self-evident. I think there are people who can do this, and have noticed that "wait a second, apart from fertility [which straight couples aren't getting condemned for the lack of, and traditionally at least there are a surplus of babies to take care of], this isn't actually different if it's 2 guys".
The inherent problem with that is that how sexuality between 2 guys [or 2 girls] usually looks (this is the "find me one righteous man and I won't destroy the city" argument) in a secular environment, but the thing about traditionalists is that the people who are doing that correctly are more likely to be hiding from them in the standard filter-bubbly way that Reds hide from Blues (and vice versa). Not that people who don't function correctly if they aren't doing that are common anyway, much like those mythical women-men that won't function correctly when placed in first-century relationship divisions. Which is why liberals criticize traditionalists for "turn your brain off, don't use your natural talents, you don't have a clearer picture of what is self-evident and what is not [because none of us do]", because all they see is the man burying his talent he was given to invest because he was afraid of doing something wrong with it.
You can't remove one part of the structure without weakening the whole house.
If you Notice those whose houses are not weak yet lack a component claimed vital, maybe their circumstances actually are different?
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
I believe the progressive people in question were doing the same thing.
In other words, they lied and used the privilege of being taken seriously to cover it up.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
But that also means that you’re not going to easily find representation of whatever you chose to do instead
And the job of someone who is doing something unconventional is to not resent that fact, and not resent people who want that.
You're already blessed to not have to suffer from what most of the population suffers from (i.e. that condition where traditional ways are actually best for them); so that population is naturally going to be jealous and resentful. The assurance they're normal is all they have left, and it's wrong to insist it be taken from them.
(Correspondingly, it's the job of the traditionalist to understand that people who aren't them actually exist and aren't just lying to get out of the obligations traditionalism demands, which is their theory of mind for liberals.)
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
Do they literally think Matt Walsh is going to rise from his folding chair and physically assault them?
Only as much as it takes for the men they hope will come protect them to take their claims of unsafety seriously. They won’t defend themselves even if he was a threat- that’s beneath them; the most they will do is point their phone cameras (guns by proxy).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
a whole lot less understandable
The Left wants society to be punished for breaking their desired laws.
Criminals happen to be the perfect vehicle for this.
Therefore we should expect the Left to treat criminals the same way [they will complain about how] the Right treats police, and is what we observe.
That's a big stretch to do both-sidesism.
It doesn't actually matter what those desired laws are (or how obviously destructive, corrupt, and selfish that desire is). The fact they are desired is the only factor.
Which mirrors how the Democrats generally don't believe in problem criminals and side with the criminal in all criminal/citizen interactions (rape or murder can make either D or R reconsider, but is far from guaranteed to do so).
In fairness, polite society has basically zero crime [and zero desire to commit crime] to the point that the populace's demand for crime exceeds its supply (and this has been true for most of the last 60 years, though it did spike hard in the '80s; the State filled some of the power vacuum with a massive expansion in regulations, saw that nobody pushed back, and as such continually seeks new and exciting criminals per popular demand). Much like one's choice of beer, traditionalists prefer domestic perpetrators of crime where progressives prefer the imported stuff.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
I was under the impression that that was by design.
There is no loss prevention in stores and no effective policing because it’s functionally illegal to do that, and there is no performance criteria in education because it’s a jobs program for adults (improving kids is a side-effect).
That doesn’t sound like a raw decline in state power; it instead sounds like a major increase in the people’s willingness to tolerate that. Which are not quite the same thing.
It's just a difference in which criminals you're more OK with roaming the streets.
If we grant that these police are themselves criminals, and I honestly don't think the Right has much problem seeing that if presented in a sufficiently neutral way, the Left simply has a different view of which criminals should be permitted to [burn, loot, murder, etc.] and why that is preferable, and use every justification you listed to argue for that.
policing is difficult and unpleasant but necessary for a social contract
Which implies that the rank comes with certain privileges. The reasons people will give the "snarky" answer get at this but I think it's actually the most realistic answer, and is also why there's very little movement on ending the practice of no-knock raids and other property destruction [burning], civil forfeiture [looting], and qualified immunity [murdering].
The Left functions exactly the same way, they simply assign those ranks differently.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
In terms of being a land-yacht I think only the Escalade really compares; their luxury sedans are 12-18" shorter and 6" narrower (or rather, were, as the longer of the two is no longer produced).
I don't really understand why you'd want an automobile that long but market research is quite clear in that people prefer utterly massive cars. I guess they don't like turning corners particularly quickly, I dunno.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
Talk is cheap, and he didn’t have a son or an election on the line for the Lybian misadventure.
He did for Ukraine, hence the war.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
Judging by the results of a Google search, the former was a rather fantastic looking, comfy luxury sedan, while the latter is just an average, plain modern sedan.
Indeed, the modern equivalent of the Series 62, being any upmarket SUV, will run you 50-70 kilodollars now, or a year and a quarter the average salary of 60 kilodollars.
Of course, that's also ignoring that those modern luxury SUVs are arguably more than twice the car the 62 was, in that you're not just sitting on a flat bench, you can put stuff in the back, and if you crash it at 100 mph you'll almost certainly survive. That is reflected in the purchase price.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2mo ago
I was considering adding the Chinese Emperors [specifically, the Mao Dynasty] to the list, but I think Xi is constrained in how he uses/possesses that wealth in a way that Saddam (and the other ME kings to a lesser extent) are not. He is a very powerful man, but I'm not convinced he's very wealthy (for the same reasons, and in the same ways, that most leaders in the free world are not).
The operative word the media used tended to be "children", not "teenagers".
The masses are stupid enough to believe a 17 year old is a child, so it works.
More options
Context Copy link