FtttG
User ID: 1175
FtttG
4hr ago
I don't think genetic profiling is necessary: these women tend to make themselves known via dyed hair and tattoos.
Well we're talking about two different things which are loosely correlated, and I'm basically just summarising an argument I made elsewhere.
When it comes to promiscuity, I think the proportion of women for whom it is a net-positive is very small. Most women will feel sad the morning after a one-night stand. Stigma and internalised slut-shaming may play some role in this, but I'd hazard a guess the same is true even in free love communes.
When it comes to pornography, among circles of friends, it's generally seen as poor form for a woman to directly tell one of her female friends that she isn't very good-looking: deranged yasslighting seems to be the rule rather than the exception. As a consequence of this, many women end up with an inflated perception of how physically attractive they are, and some decide to open an OnlyFans account on that basis: after all, if you're a 10/10 bad bitch, you're sure to make bank. But they're in for a rude awakening when, after a few months, their account is pulling down somewhere near the median of the OnlyFans income distribution, thousands of dollars below the US minimum wage, and potentially for far more hours worked. No matter how much we end the "social stigma" associated with sex work, if a woman joins a platform in which her expected revenue is heavily correlated with her physical attractiveness, and then she doesn't end up making much money, that's bound to be a disheartening experience. (I think this is what @coffee_enjoyer's comment upthread was arguing: that OnlyFans sells woman a fantasy of being able to use their sex appeal to extract money from wealthy men, but most of these women, by virtue of being insufficiently attractive, are being sold a bill of goods.) It will be an even more disheartening experience if the only way she can make ends meet is by appealing to the fetishes of perverts: I can't imagine anyone feels that good about themselves after a long hard day of producing golden shower videos. And we can talk about "ending the stigma" til the cows come home, but short of a nudist colony, every employer will look a little askance at someone (male or female) if they Google their name and the first result is a photo of their rectum.
FtttG
5hr ago
There would be nothing problematic about widespread promiscuity and sex work (certainly not about cyberpornography with zero risk of STDs etc.) if it carried no social stigma
Hard disagree. Most men (most "male people", if we're still doing the trans-inclusive thing) see a boost to their self-esteem the morning after a one-night stand, while most women see a decrease to theirs. Claim that this is purely the result of social stigma, internalised misogyny, internalised slut-shaming etc. all you like: from an evolutionary perspective, I don't think it's hard to understand why the sex which does the impregnating would feel good after carrying out the act which is a reliable evolutionary proxy for impregnating, while the sex getting impregnated would feel bad after doing that act without extracting commitment from the impregnater.
FtttG
6hr ago
Pretty much what I argued in May last year, expanded to my second-most popular post on Substack. There are a small subset of women for whom sexual promiscuity and a career in pornography will be a net-positive to their quality of life. For the majority, it will be net-negative.
FtttG
10hr ago
No. Revenge porn is distributing intimate images or footage of people without their consent. Revenge cucking is a time-honoured ritual for male status jockeying, and legally protected under all applicable laws and statutes.
Counter-example: Eminem's entire career. He wrote songs attacking his mum, his ex-wife and a boy who picked on him in primary school, none of whom ever attempted or aspired to be famous. He's widely considered one of the best rappers of all time.
Finished my third read of Lying for Money yesterday. I've realised that I have a particular fascination with stories about liars and frauds getting found out and exposed. I loved reading the Wikipedia article about Theranos (and have been meaning to watch the miniseries about the company, The Dropout).
Debating what to read next. I was thinking of reading The Mothman Prophecies, but I'm loath to read two works of non-fiction (I suppose I should say, two books which were marketed as non-fiction) back to back. However, none of the novels in my to-read list are really piquing my interest: Hey Zoey? A Canticle for Leibowitz? After Long Silence?
In the end I opted for Jack Kerouac's Tristessa, which I'd forgotten a friend gave to me a few weeks ago.
FtttG
1d ago
Started yet another attempt on XCOM 2 at Commander difficulty with Ironman enabled last night. This afternoon I got a total party kill on a mission and ragequit. In my defense, I think I only had two soldiers left alive.
FtttG
2d ago
I suppose the closest English-language equivalent would be the "right to be forgotten" or the broader category of defamation of character.
FtttG
2d ago
Chuck Norris created giraffes when he hit a horse with an uppercut.
This is such a funny mental image, in addition to being a weirdly Lysenkoist joke.
FtttG
2d ago
I understand the vintage of the term "meme". What I meant was that I don't remember people referring to Chuck Norris facts as an "internet meme" contemporaneously. My recollection is that, at the time, we just called them "internet jokes" or similar.
FtttG
2d ago
I'm done with this. You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite. You think that gender identity, like sex, is an innate trait. And you also believe that people of a particular gender identity should be given special treatment, which implies that people without that gender identity should not receive special treatment. By your own admission, you think we should build a separate prison facility for trans-identified male convicts to protect them from the non-trans-identified male convicts who might want to hurt them. What about vulnerable non-trans-identified men who might be at especial risk of violence in prison? Fuck 'em.
You demand special privileges for people who possess what you believe to be an innate trait, an "accident of birth". And then turn around and smear me as a pervert and racist for demanding special privileges for people possessing a different innate trait. The only difference between us is that the trait I'm talking about is falsifiable and can be trivially checked with a cheek swab test.
You believe that male people who claim to identify as women deserve special protection from male people who claim to identify as men, even though there's no inherent reason we should expect a member of the former group to be less capable of defending himself than a member of the former group. But you believe that female people deserve no special protection from male people, even though a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrates, without ambiguity, that male people are vastly stronger than female people (and also qualitatively different, in that male people can penetratively rape female people, but not vice versa).
I think you just don't care about female people's welfare. Strange that this is a feeling I get so often when debating with trans activists, who are basically just crypto-MRAs.
In what sense is the word "sex" disputed?
You're not replacing the symbol with the substance. You're replacing a common-sense word with a dysphemism that normal people find creepy and alienating. This is a tactic that trans activists have a strange predilection for ("pregnant people", "menstruator", "chestfeeding", "birthing parent"), under the guise of "accuracy" and "inclusion". And trans activists have the nerve to ask why people find them and the way they talk so off-putting.
Chuck Norris dead at the age of 86. RIP.
The reason I'm putting it in the fun thread is that my first exposure to him was via "Chuck Norris facts", an early 2000s internet meme so old that I think it literally predated the term "internet meme". These were outlandish examples of Norris's awesome skills in the cardinal domains of mortal combat, womanising and lovemaking. I think someone even gave me a paperback book compiling the best examples from the website of the same name. Aside from his very brief cameo in Dodgeball, I still have not seen any of Norris's movies or TV shows, nor do I intend to.
My favourite Chuck Norris facts:
- Chuck Norris once went to the Virgin Islands. They are now called the Islands.
- Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had sex with 20,000 women in his life. Chuck Norris calls this a "slow Tuesday".
FtttG
3d ago
It punches entirely at someone's appearance and perceived sexuality.
In other words: it's a hip-hop diss track.
FtttG
3d ago
True. I can't imagine the reverend would have been an enthusiastic supporter of gay marriage or trans rights.
Based Afroman. He should file a civil suit for them to compensate him for the damage to his property.
FtttG
3d ago
No, they also have testicles rather than ovaries; all other biological differences are downstream of the hormones produced by these organs, hence 'sequelae'.
Right: in other words, "sex". I don't propose discriminating on the basis of genitals; I propose discriminating on the basis of sex (in certain contexts). Why then do you insist on using the extremely long-winded phrase "genitals and their sequelae" when the word "sex" would capture exactly the same distinction?
Oh, right. Because gender ideology is such a nonsensical and incoherent worldview that you can't defend it on its own merits, and have to resort to underhanded tactics like implying that anyone who disagrees with it is a sex pest.
FtttG
3d ago
Yeah, I'm not surprised it's blocked. What's surprising is some of the sites which aren't blocked.
And how do you think a trans-woman might feel, when people characterise her identity in such a manner?
If someone is loudly parading their perversion around for all and sundry to see, it's not wrong for me to accurately characterise it as such. Rather, you demanding that I refuse to recognise that the Emperor has no clothes (something which is obvious to everyone, including you) amounts to gaslighting.
Woman: Getting changed in front of a male person makes me uncomfortable and I don't think I should be expected to do it.
Trans-identified male: When I put on women's underwear, I become physically aroused experience gender euphoria.
Celestial-body-NOS: Oh my God, I can't tell the difference – they're exactly as sexually deviant as each other!
Likewise, plenty of trans women just do look ridiculous. Maybe you think it's not polite to point it out, but I know you think it. Don't tell me you look at this person and think to yourself "wow, what a hot sexy lady! I would love to take a gander at those bizarre prosthetics she's wearing under her top!"
The pro-trans side was not the first to use that particular tactic.
To reiterate what I said above: many trans women barely even pretend to hide that their "identification" is just acting out a sexual fetish. You can do this "tu quoque" shit all you like: doesn't mean it's equally true of both sides. Women who want to protect their intimate spaces are not exactly as perverted as gross fetishists who are openly, proudly addicted to sissy hypno porn and hold conferences on how to "overcome the cotton ceiling". In fact, the former group isn't perverted at all.
We can quickly sense-check this by looking at the two groups' stated demands. If, as you imply, gender-critical people's obsession with trans people's genitals is borne of sexual deviance, it sure is weird that they're demanding that trans people not expose said genitals to female people. Is this how we talk about any other kind of kink or sexual fixation? Do people with foot fetishes explicitly object to people walking around barefoot? Do men with a fixation on women's arses generally object to strange women baring their arses in front of them? Gender-critical people are not obsessed with trans people's genitals because it turns them on: they know what's in a trans-identified man's pants and have no desire to see it for themselves.
Meanwhile, trans activists are demanding a) the right to expose their genitals to female people who have made it abundantly clear this behaviour makes them uncomfortable, and that b) female people get undressed in front of them, even if doing so makes them uncomfortable. In other words, on the basis of a claimed, unfalsifiable mental state, trans activists want a special dispensation to commit acts which would otherwise be considered indecent exposure or voyeurism. Call the female people objecting to this hateful bigots all you like – we both know which of these two groups it's more appropriate to level the accusation of sexual deviance against.
I have re-read the linked posts and have not found anywhere where I have claimed that you refuse to tell us why you think you're entitled to know about the genitals of complete strangers
A transparent lie. You said:
The anti-trans faction, believing themselves entitled to know, and act on the knowledge of, the genital/gonadal configurations of strangers, then started referring to 'sex' instead of 'gender', 'males' instead of 'men', and 'females' instead of 'women'; thus allowing them to make the assertion that other people's genitalia are any of their business without being seen to make said assertion, and avoid anyone asking why they are concerned with other people's anatomy.
Would it be fair to say you consider me part of the "anti-trans faction"? No gender-critical person I've ever met or interacted with (and there have been plenty) has ever been the least bit shy about telling me why they disagree with gender ideology, and why they don't want to share intimate spaces with male people. But for some reason you insist that gender-critical people have some secret ulterior motive for wanting to know strangers' sexes which they're refusing to disclose. It's bizarre. I genuinely don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.
If you walk into your manager's office and you're like "I want to see all my cow-orkers' complete medical charts, which will help me make Bayesian inferences on which ones are most likely to go postal, so I can shun them.", how amenable do you think your manager will be to your request?
If you really, honest to goodness, think that I need to see someone's full medical history in order to accurately tell whether they are male or female, I really don't know how we're expected to proceed with this conversation. Are you blind? Are you composing these comments using text-to-speech?
As an aside: I pointed out to you last time that some other aspects of a person's medical history simply can be inferred just by looking at them. If you're obese, myopic or using a motorised wheelchair, it's meaningless to complain that your right to medical privacy has been violated when people notice this just from looking at you. Likewise, certain mental illnesses. If I get on a train and there's a homeless person who obviously hasn't bathed in days and is loudly talking to himself, you're damn right I'm going to infer that he's probably psychotic and try to stay out of his way on that basis. I'd hazard a guess that you'd do the same.
In your worldview, is this behaviour "ableist"? I would prefer to characterise it as "capable of basic self-preservation".
Also, why would my manager have access to my colleagues' full medical charts? Even your counterfactual reductio ad absurdum makes no sense on its own terms.
FtttG
3d ago
Well, I explicitly said "When I talk about "wokeness...". I'm aware that other people use the word in a different way, sometimes in a manner indistinguishable from how their parents would derisively call things "liberal". But I think my usage is closer to the standard usage than that one.
I don't know why but three leading much likes for three by three analogous statements pleases my brainstem.
What?
Thanks for the link, this was morbidly fascinating. All that looksmaxxing wasn't for naught: he is a fairly handsome dude. I would've thought being that handsome was incompatible with being a lolcow, but apparently not.
Freddie deBoer advanced the theory that Clavicular might be a profoundly closeted gay man, and nothing in that thread contradicts that theory. It's almost like he's so in denial about his sexuality that he's decided to perform an exaggerated parody of what he thinks a macho man behaves like (casually racist, drives a big stupid truck for no reason, says appalling things to and about women, drinks too much, reacts violently to perceived slights etc.). It's sad. I hope he gets out of the streaming game and finds something more fulfilling to do with his time.
I'm really sick of you trying to make me (and other gender-critical people) sound ridiculous and/or perverted by characterising my opinion as "discrimination on the basis of genitals" or similar. "Sex" is not reducible to genitals. Male bodies are not just female bodies which incidentally happen to have penises bolted on. Even trans-identified males who have undergone bottom surgery retain male patterns of violent crime.
"FtttG thinks sex-segregation is reasonable in certain contexts" is a perfectly acceptable gloss of my opinion on this matter which I wouldn't object to. "FtttG thinks he's entitled to know about the genitals of complete strangers, but refuses to tell us why!!" is both a flat lie (I have been more than willing to articulate my reasoning) and a transparent effort to imply that anyone who isn't maximally trans-affirming is a sexual deviant. It's cheap, obnoxious and contemptible behaviour. Knock it off.
FtttG
4d ago
This strikes me as a bit of a weaselly definition. The Catholic Church is institutionally opposed to abortion, homosexuality and divorce. Women cannot be ordained as priests. People have been characterised as "far-right" for much less.
How many priests are Right Wing Icons?
John Paul II, for one.
Do you have their phone numbers?
More options
Context Copy link