@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

Unlike the harem world, men probably wouldn't vote for that one.

This appears to me to be like the thing with "economically viable oil fields". If we run out of economically viable oil fields, we don't run out of oil. We just move on to the next most viable oil fields. Similarly, many jobs appear to employ primarily men at the moment because a) women are less efficient and currently not economically viable; b) many of those jobs are shitty and men complain less about them. That doesn't show that women are physically unable to perform those jobs.

There would be some productivity hit, but I struggle to see how the market that can afford to pay so many people to do so many vastly less fundamental bullshit jobs couldn't absorb that hit without total society collapse.

I suspect that much of that can be handled. Workloads adapting for lifting smaller weights at a time where before the weights were as large as men could afford to regularly lift; using more teamwork; employing the stronger women who can actually lift 50 pounds.

Women would probably get jealous at this state of affairs. Many women would think, "why couldn't I have been born a man?" It wouldn't look like a feminist utopia.

They already say all that. Why should we actually give them the low-status male slave class? Go, 1/10 gender ratio fanfiction made reality!

I recall the Chinese did infant sex selection, and that it didn't require Nazi camps, merely incentives aligning the right way. Their efforts resulted in demographic horrors because they selected against female children, and women are the bottleneck for reproduction. I'd like to hear the actual arguments against OP's proposal without devolving into "that's Nazi shit", or else I would like to see actual Nazi shit such as proposals to expel Jews/blacks treated the same way.

It's hard to explain in unimpeachable terms why Groundhog Day doesn't count as timeloopslop. I suppose one aspect is that it was literally the first, or among the first examples. The trope hadn't yet become a boring device for gaining power and waifus and actually had themes to explore. It's also a work where the anomaly encompasses the entire work, rather than being a vehicle for other plot points. It's not a deus ex machina if a deity suddenly interfering is what kickstarts the plot rather than solving crucial parts of it.

Naturally, I suspend disbelief when reading most literature. However, suspending disbelief for increasingly formulaic and lazy disbelief-inducers gets boring.

If an apple fell up once so conveniently that the entire plot happened (and it was never explained), I'd consider that bad writing unless, I suppose, the irony of this one unexplained anomaly is the entire premise.

If there are apples falling up periodically yet it's never recognized or addressed in-universe even though it drives the entire plot, again, bad writing.

You can "not justify" something in the sense that we don't know a justification for why gravity exists and works the way it does, and you can "not justify" something in the sense that despite everything we've been told about gravity, an apple falls up instead of down.

There's crime against the outsider, which is merely warfare, and then there's crime against the ingroup. From what I have seen most leftists are firmly against the latter.

To the extent people don't agree with the Caesar's definition of criminal, it is the failure of the Caesar to unite his subjects into a coherent ingroup.

Isekai is usually a thin excuse to put a protagonist most palatable to the modern audience - a modern person - into a wholly alien setting (making the setting "modern world but changed" would require extra work on integrating the changes while keeping the MC relatable). This is seen as immature reading.

It also intersects with tropes such as power fantasy (protagonist has some power that puts them ahead of natives, usually not gained through effort).

Sounds like the progressive arguments are being defeated by a tool that has nothing to do with HBD and everything to do with your interlocutor's "just arrest people who do crimes".

Or maybe the man is actually a devout feminist. A true believer who legitimately thinks that "Men are dangerous" is an important message that must be spread in order to turn society into a better place. It just seems insane to me that an adult man would believe this. Surely he must see that his warning implicates himself and his friends as dangers to women as well. Do men like that even exist?

Don't traditionalists essentially come from the premise that men are dangerous (and should strive to be besides), and thus men should have a framework of mutual respect and women should stick with men that have personal reasons to protect them (fathers/vetted husbands)?

People organize into groups, and groups oftentimes take on an unlife of its own that is stronger than any individual's decision to continue to put forward the group's goals or not.

What is the HBD argument that would defeat "the cops are racist to black men so they police and sentence them harsher in the same situations"?

Prejudice is when you judge someone before they actually do something. Postjudice is when you do it after they do something.

I've stated my case in the very comment you actually started replying to me from.

I don't recall defending "Demonic pigskin". I defended "I will not be a slave".

There appears to be plenty of emotional reactions to all sorts of arguments here.

If there was a similar argument on the "other side" that convinced me, it would be an argument on my side. I reject your attempts to shoehorn me as a leftwinger, whose arguments must be scrutinized for sincerity if they happen to oppose rightwinger arguments.

If you think there's no discussion with me because I'm partisan then there is no discussion to be had. If you have specific evidence of my partisanship then you can list that.

Is a particular black man responsible for a proportion of other black men victimizing someone or having gotten preferential treatment, that he should not argue for the bottom line of not being made into a second class citizen because of what the others did?

I think you're making the argument that currently, the powers that be are overly protective of the bad blacks in the way that they are not of bad whites. I agree with that assessment.

Is it morally unreasonable for a group to assert that they will not be second class citizens?

I do not care to project my position on every issue ever ahead of time to prove to you I'm not a committed partisan or something. You can check my post history if you're really curious and go with that.

You say all that as if "not being disenfranchised, particularly within the country they're very much not first-generation immigrants in" is an interest that's so uncommon and morally unreasonable for a group to hold that it can only be viewed with amused dispassion. "Look how politically effective their strategy is, asserting that they won't be second class!".

Again, most of those complaints sound like America just doesn't know how to build apartments. How come my country can build apartment blocks that don't shadow each other, and have soundproofing, and aren't dystopian pods 1 step across that you see in movies about South Korea or China, and can be afforded not just to rent, but to buy for many of the middle class?

One thing I'll give you is size of houses compared to apartments, but then again at some point I just don't see the value of having more space other than getting off on 'Murican gregariousness of life... and that point falls flat when in the same paragraph you're complaining that you can't afford a house. You got a family of 10 kids? Then sure, it makes sense to have a big house. How many families have 10 kids again?

I suspect most people live in apartments for part of their lives, and learn to hate them there.

I could possibly count on one hand the number of times where I've experienced something that could be fixed by having my own house in the 'burbs. Many things would be made worse. I'd need to drive to buy groceries, or to go to the gym, or do mostly anything that is done outside my own home. There'd be more shit to maintain. You can still have bad neighbors.