ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
16hr ago
We can just… not accommodate crazy delusional people.
Yes, but that raises Overton window concerns among the people first in line to accommodate this brand of crazy. If we stopped accommodating obviously crazy delusional people then it becomes more rhetorically difficult for the less-obviously crazy but still delusional people to maintain those delusions.
As far as which delusions they are... well, the modal champion of trans rights is an unmarried college-educated white woman in a education or managerial career. Surely that demographic has no delusions surrounding gender, and even if they did, surely it wouldn't threaten their socioeconomic standing if we started reconsidering our accommodation of those delusions?
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1d ago
A boy is a male of an age such that, if a Karen saw them walking into town alone, would call the cops and report it as child abuse.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1d ago
Well, it’s certainly a shared moral foundation among traditionalists (anti-trans) and progressives (pro-trans), to the point that “man bad woman good” is the root of both positions. Liberals don’t do this as much, but they have their own problems and aren’t as dominant as they once were.
The fact this is maladaptive and contrary to reality (for traditionalists, bad TFR means women are shirking their duties; for progressives, they’re just being turbo-selfish about equity since if their ideas were applied correctly they’d lose all social license) doesn’t generally enter the picture for either one. That said, it’s only been 100ish years since that came true and humanity has evolved in the natural state for 3 orders of magnitude more time, and old habits/instincts die hard.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
1d ago
Or do you think their answers would change if the questions was changed to, "Would you rather meet a 5' 4'' man or a bear in the woods?"
If the question was changed to "would you rather meet a boy [as in, non-adult male human] or a bear in the woods" the answers change, because boys are by definition not capable of being a physical -> sexual threat.
This is the reason why some women accept/welcome ex-men in their bathrooms. They, at least figuratively and sometimes very literally, cut off the part of their body that makes them capable of being a sexual threat- they're no different than a 3 year old boy who needs to use the women's room for pragmatic reasons. Historically, [male] eunuchs had the same kinds of privileges, for the exact same reasons; women have a more limited version of this for gay men.
Women who understand this are currently incentivized (through a bunch of other social mechanisms) to use this knowledge for the purpose of bullying other women who haven't yet figured this out. The cost to their safety, as you noted, does not exist.
and take advantage of all the special rights and privileges we grant women/especially when everyone is aware the law only allows females to use them, and a male would be penalized for trying to slip in, if caught
You kind of bury the lede here, but this is an equity question.
The problem with ex-men and ex-women are that they double-dip in an extremely and intentionally obnoxious -> harmful way.
Ex-men retain the biological specialization for toil while claiming the social benefits we give the people whose sex enables them to birth children. (Men's specialization is general toil, women's specialization is childbirth.) This is why "it's ma'am" and the male schoolteacher with fake breasts so large they'd be a serious medical condition were they real are problems, and it's the root of why their using the wrong bathroom is a big deal (sure, it pattern matches to being a sex pest, but this is the root of why we [can] instinctively only treat men as sex pests when they do this).
Ex-women are a reflection of this, but importantly, not a mirror image- because they become a problem when they assert the advantages men have don't matter, and then can't perform. The mirror image of the obnoxious ex-man screaming "wax my balls, it's ma'am" is not the self-aware/competent tomboy, or even the average ex-woman [that's what the steroids are for], it's the "I'm just as strong as you, that's why I belong on the front lines, there's nothing special about this ability, therefore womankind should not honor men but men should continue to honor womankind".
This is why, instinctively, it's not really an issue for ex-women to use the men's room (especially the ones on steroids), while it is an issue for ex-men to use the women's room. The problem comes from refusing to negotiate this problem in pairs (because we don't understand that men and women are different, or our sociopolitical standing is contingent upon not understanding it).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
2d ago
and 2 of them (Britain and France) are mostly just US vassals
Brits tried it with Suez (until being politely reminded that the only power they had was at the US’ pleasure for anti-Soviet reasons- Argentina was a gimme though), and then there’s the French in Indochina and, importantly, Vietnam.
And regionally, they’re still relatively powerful, as Libya found out in the early 2010s. But they don’t have the power they used to before the European Civil Wars.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
3d ago
because that's when we realised that the seizure of territory by force of arms was increasingly damaging, and thus could not be allowed to continue in the future
No, that's when the American Empire completed its conquest of most of the world, and as the sovereign thus deny lesser/client states the right to wage war on neighboring states. There are 5 countries with the de facto right to do this and 2 of them (Britain and France) are mostly just US vassals at this point anyway.
The Americans and the Russians are in a hot proxy war right now. "We" is clearly just self-serving American bullshit, something they inherited from the English; the "all wars are defensive" stance, by contrast, is straight out of the Roman Republic.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
3d ago
National socialism is still socialism.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
3d ago
It does help that for natural gas generating stations the turbine technology they use is quite mature and has a relatively wide pool of engineers that know how to build them. Nuclear is a... bit more complicated by comparison, since the heating of the water for the turbines is the complicated part, whereas with natural gas even when we're doing fucking retarded shit like this that blows up the entire plant cleaning that mess up is quite a bit easier and cheaper.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
3d ago
It's the north that needs it desperately.
Texas would therefore be wise to ensure the North continues to depend on Texas industry for its energy production, even in a potential post-hydrocarbon future.
It's not like the North is going to bother developing it, given their current strategy of "ban all development with environmentalism as the excuse, then freeze to death in the dark" means they can't advance nuclear technology even if they wanted to (and their best and brightest have already left for Texas).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
5d ago
The main problem with the GPU market today is that you can't buy a 3080 equivalent new for 400 USD. That's what people have been wanting since the 4000-series came out, but what they actually got for that cash was... the fourth release of a card equivalent to the GTX 1070/1080.
The 3070 was always a dead-end product; it was just supposed to be a 2080Ti but for a significantly less asking price than the 2080Ti was at that time. The 3080 was/is quite literally twice the card.
If it makes you feel any better, know that because the 1070 is still a mid-range GPU today, anything faster than a 1070 will work reasonably well. Sure, you might need to drop to 1080p or not get the fullest out of your high refresh rate monitor, but it's still going to work.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
5d ago
They are fanatically bad apologists for their understanding of the Christian approach to gender roles and even for their understanding of the Gospel.
I think people who are bad at relationships in certain ways are drawn to belief systems that can be used to not only justify, but reinforce, that deficiency. Christianity is just how the traditionalists/men do it, and that's mostly because until around 60 years ago there was no reason for women to have their own version.
Because of this, I think people who don't have that problem look at Christianity, see people doing that, come to the completely reasonable conclusion that they are the same, and shut down. Doesn't help that people who aren't Christians for those reasons look or act much different than your average good-quality human being, either (hence that famous Penn and Teller rant about morals), but maybe that isn't "real" Christianity either?
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
5d ago
are far more severe than in the West.
The economic opportunity per capita in the West is higher than it is in the East, and if you assume the Easterners are better workers that only serves to compound the problem (i.e. they need an even greater level of opportunity to function correctly than even the average American does simply because they're more efficient at exploiting it, so a lack of that opportunity is going to be harder on them).
That's part of why the US leads Western TFR (despite the generous terms European countries give to their citizens to have children it doesn't seem to be helping, but remember that the average European is significantly worse off compared to the average American even before the US sabotaged their gas supply). Twice the population for the same regional GDP paints an awfully grim picture and that's been true even before the MENA human wave.
And the Indians aren't a refutation of this, because their urban areas (40% urbanization) are just as bad for TFR, but perhaps it's a different story when your standards are that low? (I'd argue the same for China, but maybe that falls apart considering I also made this point about 100-year-ago US, which kind of had the same thing going on.)
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
5d ago
I am worried about losing the ability to maintain an industrial society.
The problem with highly-automated industrial societies is that you need relatively few people to maintain them. They need to be intelligent, of course- that's why hay gets made about "only the stupid breeding"- but the first indication that there were way too many people for a society to house without serious efforts towards UBI/make-work/bureaucratic expansion came to the US in the 1930s and it's weird nobody seems to realize this.
South Korea has a surplus of people relative to the economic opportunity that can be found there; that's why their education system is a hellscape, that's why women don't feel the need to marry men for resources nor are men in a position to accumulate an attractive surplus (since the average man and average women are roughly equal in industrial and post-industrial productivity, and the men lose some of that through the draft, and the women complain that the post-military men just show up and compete successfully for the same level of jobs).
Their TFR of 0.7, and the fact men can't attract women/women can't be attracted to men in equal conditions like that, is thus natural and probably good for the country long-term, but certainly not beneficial in the short-term (you'll see this effect in Russia after the war even if they lose; perhaps the best thing for South Korea to do at this point is to invade the North, since they've got a lot of resources they aren't using there).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
Strivers the world over generally have lower fertility rates, and everyone in these countries is a striver. Add incredibly dense urbanism and the lack of religious influence to raise fertility, it's not that hard to explain.
Also, remember the last time the [urban] US had South Korean-level birthrates: it was 1910-1920, and people were packing hard into cities to work sweatshop jobs in an economy that was hollow as fuck (and would collapse in 1929). [A TFR of 2.3 in a country that was 50% rural suggest the urban areas were serious fertility shredders.]
Remember also that China in particular is trying to make sure this doesn't happen by limiting the number of people from rural areas that will ever be allowed to take the sweatshop jobs- one could argue the Depression happened in the US because this process happened too quickly.
some of the strongest advocates for gun rights are men who have never and would never [intentionally put themselves in a position to need to] fire shots in anger
The abortion rights debate is literally just a mirror of the gun rights one (especially if you accept the progressive framing that "nobody deserves to die by someone defending themselves over property, because all fetuses criminals are conceived? born innocent and literally couldn't help but being a burden on society"- complete with 'future lawyer or doctor' applying word for word).
Are you just trying to control women?
Are the motives for gun control initiatives primarily conducted with the end goal of controlling men?
They're certainly couched in "protecting innocent children from evil men is worth the violence risk", and so the abortion initiatives have learned to take the same tack (protecting innocent children from evil women is worth the rape risk).
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
If swift use of the death penalty returns
Technically speaking, 2A + property rights is the death penalty. It's distributed (and you'll get prosecuted if the perp fails the paper bag test and you live in a jurisdiction that conducts them), but it's still there.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
Does the HPV vaccine provide any protection against the many other kinds of HPV infections people can be exposed to
No. The line is that it protects against the 2-3 most dangerous ones in terms of causing cancer, but I'm not entirely sure how true that is.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
I don’t know why people want to retcon what happened.
Because academia doesn't want to accept that they were the ones mostly responsible for going full Nazi.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
Aside from perhaps BitchUte and this most recent attempt they have not survived.
The problem is that the restrictions on YouTube still aren't onerous enough to drive channels off it completely. I like the latter because it's an easy Patreon-replacement bundle (and the only two gun channels that aren't "blow up teh watermelon"-tier that post regularly, that being ForgottenWeapons and 9-Hole Reviews, live there; Paul Harrell used to be that way too before he died of what was clearly YouTube comment-related cancer), and there's only so much magdumping MG footage you can watch before it just becomes uninteresting (and 80% guns are also pretty easy to do just by following the instructions).
I think the problem is that the people who are actually doing interesting/envelope-pushing things with guns tend to be off the beaten path and to a large extent would like to keep it that way.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
parents are idiots or don’t care
I mean, this part is 100% true- they have no parental rights, their kids have no human rights, and they for some reason appreciate that state of affairs.
despite not being illegal
Unlike driving while black walking down the street while 10, apparently.
Gotta stay within a few feet of the head of the [long]house; you should be grateful they're not requiring the burka like they did a couple years ago.
That's to prevent sexual crime- don't you know literally all men are overcome with lust when they see a child? If they're not literally on a leash there's no limit to what perversion could happen. (The people who identify with this most strongly even have their own version of making boys into girls.)
It's no different than fundamentalist Islam. For the women who espouse this philosophy, the Handmaiden's Tale treatment would be an improvement for both them and the rest of us. And perhaps ironically, the first polity who have passed anti-Karen laws was the Mormon one.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
6d ago
But CPS is still a tool to "do something about those damn kids"
And it was used to exactly that end in this case.
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
7d ago
We're not explicitly conservative
Yes, we are; that's what the rules of this place do. "Conservative" is far too overloaded a word to really be useful ('progressive' is the same but a bit less so, and I find 'traditionalist' much more useful).
so Conquest's Laws say we will eventually become progressive
I think progressivism and traditionalism are the same thing when stated this way. Of course, because the original design of this place has so far been conserved, the traditionalists haven't taken over the forum (and the traditionalists that are moderators, and there's at least one of these, have yet [as far as I'm aware] to act in a way that privileges traditionalism over those principles).
Why does sex inherently contradict the former?
Seriously, I want to know, because it's very far from obvious to me; I tend to see the latter mostly as an extension of the former, but then again I don't get out much these days and my attraction heuristic has always been more "what body type predicts the former" than anything else.
I, too, consider Japanese sailor school uniforms unisex. Then again, I'm not really AGP either; the reason I don't do this more often is because most of the clothes don't fit/look bad. Girl clothing is generally softer and (to a point) warmer, so if you have the sensory-processing issues mentioned downthread, you're going to identify a bit more with them beyond mere sexual arousal (provided it fits, of course).
I take this one level higher: I think it's a bunch of wicked women (and men, but women have much more incentive to do this) who want to inflict sick perverts on the rest of us as an extension/entrenchment of the privileges they already enjoy. The wiser transpeople [the ones following the golden rule described in a sibling comment] are trying their best to minimize themselves/accommodate for other people (for the reasons below), and as such I don't have much problem with them. Most of the ex-women and ex-men I know are like this, but some of them are not.
I only want the wise ones to be capable of considering it (they're the only ones able to bear the costs, anyway). I want the answer to be "no, because you only want to do it to validate a certain obnoxiousness/only want to validate it just to shock the squares" for the wicked, and "no, because this isn't a productive or healthy option for you" for the simple.
Which is why you need a sensory processing disorder as a pre-requisite (usually from autism, but doesn't need to come from it, and autism tends to be used as an excuse to not fucking control oneself). I think it would be different if your body constantly reminded you that your dick exists, much as I find myself sensorily overloaded when I'm lying flat on my stomach for too long.
No, you just read what's presented to you rather than thinking about why it exists in the first place. It's the safe option. (At least Catholics bother to root it in "natural law".)
The main problem with accepting it (should you take seriously "who on earth thinks getting married and tying yourself to another person is the easiest way to indulge in some perverted sex act; come on" as seriously as you say) is the same as it is when you eat food sacrificed to idols- that it gives the wicked a #NotRealChristian division upon which they can prey, setting the wise (and wicked) against each other and driving off the simple. Which is obviously contrary to what should be one's objectives as a Christian.
More options
Context Copy link