There are definitely people who are sketch and seem like they'd go a lot lower if only it was allowed and those people are pedos
legal vs moral are different questions
I have several questions of my own:
-
Assuming consent and good intentions, what actually makes pedophilia immoral? I remember my days as a horny 14 year old; there were definitely some hot women in their thirties I would have consented to banging. Would even a consensual, non-manipulative act of sex with a much older woman showing me the ropes have caused me irreparable psychological harm?
- I mean, maybe. I'm not an expert in human psychology, so it's possible that giving me exactly what I wanted would've been the worst possible thing to happen to teenage me. But I have a hard time seeing it.
-
And the thing that makes pedophilia immoral -- why wouldn't it make a larger age gap relationship immoral? Imagine a rich 70 year old white man being with a hot 22 year old -- not unheard of here in the third world. I would think he's got at least as much power to manipulate her as a 30 year old with a 14 year old.
-
And of course I understand there is a gendered difference between the scenarios, as much as the left may not want to admit it. A 30 year old man fucking a 14 year old girl produces a much stronger ick than the reverse. Why is that?
What would you say are the "psychological impulses" behind Wokism that "gay" and "retarded" are such effective counters to?
I did ask for a steelman. Thank you for providing it!
To what extent are American Jews in support of Israel? Seems like a very sizable contingent of them think there is a genocide in Gaza, which sounds like they belong right in the D camp. Why should GOP (or Dem) treatment of Israel be influenced by Jewish American voters any more than, say, their treatment of China is influenced by Chinese American voters?
If you have power, real power, you don't care about the public narrative.
Would you argue that Xi Jinping, and by extension the CCP, does not hold "real" power? Why would they care so much about controlling the public narrative in China if it were completely irrelevant to those in power?
And that's in a dictatorship. Isn't the need to manufacture consent even more dire in a democracy?
I'd encourage you to question why so many post-rationalists, like myself, who were deeply involved in the SSC rationalist movement as you were, become Christian or at least religious. There may be good reasons for the shift.
I just got here from a linked comment, so I'm quite late -- but could you explain why and what these good reasons are?
I think we are at a point where Jews/Israel are going to have to decide which party they back and won’t be able to play both sides anymore.
Why would you frame it as "playing both sides" when whites, hispanics, and Asians also voted for both parties last election?
There are many examples of the various attrocities they have recently inflicted on Palestinians (rape, violence, blah blah blah).
Apart and beyond the usual level of such atrocities in any military?
Or how gaza is levelled and the ~2mil ppl there are now pressed into less than 50% of the pre 2023 land area.
What would be a more effective way to clear out Hamas bases and tunnels that are deeply embedded within civilian infrastructure, without putting your own soldiers at risk? I'm genuinely curious -- I have not been able to get a single good answer to this that isn't simply "Well, don't."
What are the steelman arguments for/against using the word "retarded" to describe idiocy?
The main argument I've heard is that actually mentally retarded people are well aware of their condition being used as a punching bag to put down other humans, and this naturally produces feelings of Feels Bad Man. Why would you knowingly inflict such collateral damage on innocents when there are perfectly valid alternative insults to be used?
And yet I can't help but feel that this is what the left would call "tone policing." I wanna express myself how I feel like expressing myself, damn it, and that shit right there is some fucking retarded shit.
Because the inability to meme might result in your removal from power due to your inability to steer the public narrative?
Why not just use browser automation tooling? The frontier models seem to be reasonably good at reading screenshots, and that way you're completely indistinguishable from a regular user.
I can't help but feel like calling China a "poor" country is a bit misleading. The modern parts are wealthy, and the poor parts are backwards. To the extent that China is modern, I would consider it wealthy too, and vice versa.
Why would those in power be unable to meme, when memes themselves are such a potent force for zeitgeist transformations?
Well the comment I was replying to said "Leftism is the king of memes," so assuming that is true, why would it be true?
it was largely a bunch of upper-class male lawyers who did it
So what changed to enable them to do it in modern times, but not the upper-class in medieval/ancient times?
Please actually elaborate on and demonstrate how this one statement shows liberalism to be self-contradicting.
Maybe we're using different meanings for words here, but in my mind modernity (modern cities with gleaming skyscrapers, high speed 5G access everywhere, efficient metro systems, etc.) is directly correlated with wealth. Which modern society is poor?
What would be the most immediate, noticeable effects for Phoebe if Phoebe isn't a trader who is concerned about market liquidity?
Why can't the right meme as well?
Gaza as the omnicause. Many words have been spilled about this already
Where can I read these words? I simply don't see why Gaza would have anything to do with women's (perceived) rights.
for a cause that the majority does not support
And that is the problem with echo chambers, no? For all they can tell, it is the overwhelming majority that supports their actions, at least within one or two degrees of separation of their social circles.
How and when did this form of organized agitation start? If it stretches back more than a few decades, why haven't police tactics adapted?
Is it just might makes right, and the will of the people as interpreted by whoever is currently in charge, or do you believe that the law or its enforcement can, in principle, be wrong or invalid for some reason?
What an interesting question. What do you see as the implications of that statement being either true or false?
these Leftists are not ordinary criminals but rather organized agitators who are there to disrupt, obstruct, and provoke
What is the difference from a mob, in practical terms?

Aren't "barely legal" and "jailbait" referring exactly to the teenagers I'm talking about?
But suppose we lowered the age further. Again, assuming consent -- as in, the child wants to do something with an adult and the adult allows them the opportunity to do so, which I think already implies a minimum threshold for age -- what exactly is immoral about that, and how wouldn't that transfer across different age gaps? Doesn't the hypothetical still hold?
(I say assuming consent because non-consensual acts of sex are obviously unethical regardless of age.)
More options
Context Copy link