DiscourseMagnus
2d ago
...are you implying that warfare was better for civilian bystanders in premodern times? I'm under quite the opposite impression.
DiscourseMagnus
5d ago
I wonder if Disney's own power in that regard has waned as of late.
It clearly has. People half-joked for ages about Disney lobbying for yet another Mickey Mouse copyright extension - a joke which, in itself, made the thing less likely. But as Mickey started to hit the public domain, not only was the public watching out for that kind of legislative abuse - Disney was itself in a precarious position, more entangled with the culture war than ever before. They no longer have many friends in high places, relative to how it once was; the Republicans hate the gays and the Democrats hate Americana.
DiscourseMagnus
5d ago
Look at the Wikipedia page for the Rotherham scandal, though. Even on Wikipedia, you can see how much under-reporting and mis-reporting still occurs.
This is actually an extreme improvement from the state of the page a few months ago, when they attempted to cobble together a narrative that the whole thing was a racist hoax (the page got renamed "grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom" and rewritten to match). It stood that way for several months before people started to take notice and they quietly changed it back without admitting fault.
DiscourseMagnus
5d ago
If the victims were Pakistani and the perpetrators white,
I'd be surprised in that case if the perpetrators survived to go on trial.
DiscourseMagnus
9d ago
I'm all for it.
DiscourseMagnus
9d ago
It seems like a fairly natural continued escalation of the combined thoughts "I care very deeply about protecting my daughter", "I have an extremely expansive definition of protecting my daughter which includes preventing her from ever having a relationship with a man, regardless of what she wants", and "you should be scared of me because I am criminally insane, particularly in these daughter-related matters".
DiscourseMagnus
9d ago
That's a pretty typical attempt at well-poisoning when any man prefers, or is suspected to prefer, a real or hypothetical daughter to be chaste.
I disagree. While it is sometimes used to well-poison in this way (and while I do think that our society severely undervalues chastity and parents do have a moral responsibility to protect the chastity of their children and particularly their daughters), I think that "your behavior strongly suggests a subconscious-at-best desire to fuck your own daughter" is an insult that is deserved far more often than it is issued.
Perhaps it is precisely because of the complex collapse of traditional sexual morality in our society that so many fathers are unable to articulate a desire to protect their daughters' virtue that does not ironically sound disgustingly incestuous. (I would certainly expect that this is a large part of the problem; the pathology I'm pointing at rings so false to me because it seems detached from any hope of eventually finding one's daughter a suitable husband. It's like a male-pattern counterpart to empty nest syndrome, at least as afraid of one's daughter growing up and getting married and moving out as it is of her falling victim to some cad. Watch out for rhetoric suggesting that the reason the daughter's chastity should be preserved is to extend her easy low-maintenance childhood; this implies both that the father specifically objects to the thought of his daughter getting married young and that he'll be fine with her becoming a slut once she gets too old to maintain the facade of childhood anymore.) In any case, though, I don't think that this behavior helps to preserve traditional sexual morality on either a personal or societal level.
("Rules for dating my daughter" t-shirts, pointedly-gun-cleaning-in-front-of-the-boyfriend rituals, etc, aposematically convey to me: "I am unable to distinguish between the concepts of protecting my daughter from men with ill intent and kidnapping her to go live together in a cabin in the woods, and I am very close to doing the latter; I have often considered the logistics of setting up a Josef Fritzl basement.")
Trads probably don't get to blame 100% of this problem on modernity, though. A lot of it does seem rooted in (echoes of the long-gone) patriarchal model, in which women are property first of their father and then of their husband, and, IE, rape is understood as a form of property crime. While such a model does have a lot to recommend it, it also clearly has a lot to disrecommend it, and though I have a very low opinion of feminism, I think one of the more compelling (and fringe) complaints they've made is that traditional societies seem to have had a lot of unreported incestuous rape going on. The parallel construction of father-daughter and husband-wife is clearly very easy to fuck up and confuse both in ancient and modern contexts, and I would generally urge people to maintain a clearer delineation between these roles.
Libertines would like us to think that the offputting thing about purity balls, purity rings, and the like is the purity, the thing that libertines want to destroy. The actual offputting thing is the balls, the rings, signifiers of marriage where no marriage can actually exist, with the father in the husband role. These young women should be getting married off ASAP, not LARPing as pseudowives for their fathers. I would also suggest that, when fathers participate in their daughters' weddings, they should take care not to equate themselves too directly with their new son-in-laws, and to generally be watchful of innuendo and scandal. General talk of "giving away my daughter" is iffy; talk of "giving this man my daughter to love as I once loved her, though we'll always know that I was first" is right out.
Of course, there are also men who deserve this insult for reasons that have nothing to do with some malformed defense of chastity. (Sometimes, indeed, because they are insufficiently protective of their daughters' chastity; because they proudly parade their daughters around in a sexualized fashion, unbothered.) Certainly, for everything positive one can say about Donald Trump, and there is a lot, this is an attack he has invited upon himself.
DiscourseMagnus
10d ago
I want to be clear that this idea (blood relations don't matter that much) is not what I was trying to get at here; I was not by any means calling TitaniumButterfly's ideas absurd on their face because they were pro-blood-relations-mattering. I was saying that it was absurd on its face to treat father-and-son-but-racemixing-happened as a looser blood relation than eighth-cousins-thrice-removed-but-you're-all-super-racially-pure, and it speaks, IMO, to running screaming away from the actual mechanics of how blood relations work because you're desperate for a kludged-together definition that supports your racialist worldview. It hits my ear the same way as something like "actually, black people have more in common with chimpanzees than they do with you or me". I don't think that that's true, and I don't think that you think that that's true. I think that you would like to think that that's true, and I think that that's very silly.
DiscourseMagnus
11d ago
"ping pong ball"
DiscourseMagnus
11d ago
Defining it the way you do raises a lot of questions that feel fundamentally unserious. (If a Frenchman has a kid with a French woman, are there still some random strangers he might occasionally meet in the street who he's more closely-related to genetically than his own child? What if it's an Italian woman? etc) It feels like a reductio ad absurdum of a racialist mindset, and for that reason I would expect it to be rhetorically counterproductive for you.
DiscourseMagnus
12d ago
Speaking as a retail worker, litigiousness is a leading factor here, and I'm shocked that no one has brought it up (EDIT: I was beaten by a minute actually). Seeing-eye dogs were the original foot in the door that made it difficult to keep dogs out of any public space like a grocery store, particularly when combined with the ADA. In theory, this might have been a workable system: seeing-eye dogs are as well-trained as dogs get, and it isn't really feasible to credibly pass off a regular dog as a seeing-eye dog. (One small hole though: seeing-eye dogs do need to be trained in the first place, these seeing-eye-dogs-in-training are definitionally not necessarily trained yet, and it's a lot easier for some schmuck to pass off a regular dog as a seeing-eye-dog-in-training. Not that big of a problem, though; people who train seeing-eye dogs aren't themselves blind, and therefore aren't really able to credibly threaten a lawsuit over something something disability accommodation. Although, really, any psychopath can get all sorts of things by insinuating that they'll file an obviously frivolous lawsuit in the right voice. Sad!)
Then the idea of "emotional support dogs" or "therapy dogs" arose and everything went to hell. The preexisting infrastructure for mandating tolerance for seeing-eye dogs was repurposed to mandate tolerance for "emotional support dogs"; instead of acting as a disability accommodation for blindness, they acted as a disability accommodation for "I am mentally ill and will throw a fit if separated from dog". Many parallels here! The small core of asshole true believer psychiatrists quickly gave way to a much larger scene of asshole grifters who marketed identification cards, medical diagnoses, legal services, etc to the whole country's backdrop of asshole dog owners who wanted to take their dogs everywhere. Even then, it wasn't as bad a problem as it is now - but eventually, the normalization hit a critical point where businesses started setting policies of "don't even bother to ask for their medical I Need Dog ID Card they got off the internet; we just have to tolerate the dogs now", and then the I Need Dog ID Cards stopped selling so much and the normalization exploded through the roof as all of the dog owners who'd like to take their dog everywhere but had too much dignity to get one of the cards and call themselves mentally ill realized that they were now free to take their dogs everywhere. And so it goes.
A cascade of collapsing Schelling points falling to Moloch; no one able to stop them because of legally-mandated norms of politeness-to-the-unpolite and such. Very American story!
DiscourseMagnus
16d ago
I suspect that this was his original intent, but at some point in the process someone rushed into the room and said "sir, on Xitter they're saying that this means you're going to free [blah blah blah specific examples]", and he adjusted accordingly, but didn't see the ideological contradiction. Idiocy.
DiscourseMagnus
16d ago
For what it's worth, they seem much more honest about it these days than they did when I was young. The misanthropic Malthusians have been marginalized on the mainstream left in favor of the honestly-concerned-about-the-apocalypse types, who are, funnily enough, typically more moderate in their views on the matter.
DiscourseMagnus
16d ago
Yeah, there are pointless murders on the NYC subways all the time, but this seems like an especially nasty one. Despite the lack of a literal connection, it feels like a coda to the Daniel Penny story - in the same way that people drew contrasts and parallels between the Daniel Penny story and the Brian Thompson story, but much, much moreso, because this is actually a clear illustration of why Penny's actions constituted a reasonable response to a real and ever-present threat, a threat that should not be there.
Maybe I'm just growing old and cynical, but it feels like everything is becoming so nihilistic and farcical lately. There was a school shooter a few days ago who was a fifteen-year-old girl groomed into doing it by grown men she knew online. We still don't know what's going on with that latest nonsense car attack on that Christmas market in Germany, how much mental illness was involved and how much ideology, and what ideology. With the aforementioned assassination of Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione, we've got Italian-American anarcho-communists carrying out lethal terror attacks again like they used to a century ago, "propaganda of the deed", and it seems like the entire online left is stoked about it, including relatively quiet and moderate figures. And, of course, any random person in the big city is liable to be randomly murdered at any time, and if you try to step in and protect them, much of the country, including the legal system, will be out for your blood.
What the fuck is 2025 going to be like?
DiscourseMagnus
18d ago
Because the complaints focus on the cringe art that the targets of the criticism are associated with, and not on the good art that they are failing to engage with.
DiscourseMagnus
18d ago
There's nothing wrong with a person in their thirties reading YA fiction in addition to reading books intended for adults. It's when YA fiction, fantasy, sci-fi etc. is all that you read that it becomes a sign of immaturity.
This seems like a classic motte-and-bailey situation. I find that I'm put off by this sort of rhetoric not because I disagree that having varied and challenging artistic tastes is of value, but because I at least suspect that I am actually being called to narrow and limit my artistic tastes. Indeed, your OP here is all about how our society needs to be less permissive - how we should permit fewer things, fewer styles, less art.
DiscourseMagnus
27d ago
Another analogy that occurs to me is the dsyfunctionally adversarial relationship between employers and applicants. An expectation emerges among the applicants that it's acceptable to lie while applying for a job. The employers tacitly accept this; they don't punish the dishonesty, and instead act dishonestly themselves, asking for qualifications that are impossible or at least implausible, reinforcing the emerging norm that it's acceptable for the applicants to lie. And so it becomes quite difficult indeed to determine if the applicant is actually qualified for the job. The people have collectively failed. Thanks, Moloch. (There are other factors at play there, of course.)
But modern society turns this into a trap for the men in the relationship! If you ask with the tacit statement that you'll be offended by your future wife "having cheated on you before the relationship even begins, what a sinful broad", what do you think your wife going to say?
I thought I already explained this in the previous post, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm uninterested in nonvirgins as partners, but the moral offense to me comes in when someone tries to pull one over on me. My whole point here is that I'm not cursing the women who honestly filter themselves out for me, as I consider this more honorable than trying to subvert the filter. That can't mean that having a filter is itself wrong; that's an absurd modernist notion, like saying that hiring decisions shouldn't take ability to do the job into account. If you put up a sign that says "looking for qualified drivers" and you get a bunch of qualified drivers and a bunch of liars, then sure, the people who didn't show up because they weren't willing to lie about their ability to drive are far more virtuous than the liars, but that doesn't mean that you should hire them to drive; it means that you should try to figure out which of your applicants are telling the truth.
DiscourseMagnus
27d ago
Here's an interesting question that occurs to me, inspired by this post:
Is promiscuity worse when it's public or when it's private?
I'm inclined to think that we reached a social consensus that public promiscuity is worse than private promiscuity. ("As long as they keep it in the privacy of their own bedroom", laws against obscenity, etc.) But I'm also inclined to think that that social consensus is wrong. Yes, there are special types of damage done by public promiscuity - "normalization", corruption of bystanders, etc. But there are also special types of damage done by private promiscuity, and I'm inclined to say that they are much worse.
Everyone here can laugh it up about the men who'll marry these open prostitutes. But, y'know - at least they'll know what they're getting. It's not exactly a viable secret to keep. This doesn't seem, to me, nearly as corrosive to the social fabric as the general social expectation that even normie religious women will have some sexual history that they don't need to disclose to their husband.
My instinct is that it is actually better and less sexually immoral for a woman to be a clownish slut and publicly document a farcical orgy centered on herself than it is for her to act chaste and traditional but have a single one-night-stand she never tells another soul about. It is better to unconsciously offer oneself up as a cautionary tale about rough living than it is to consciously erode the trust between the sexes. I do not find that the cases like Aella blackpill me nearly as much as women in explicitly Christian/conservative contexts who accidentally let on that their morals are looser than they realize. It's like the difference people point to between Donald Trump, who's repulsive, but openly so, and a more classically dishonest politician.
A car's value plummets as soon as it's driven off the lot. Provided, I have no interest (in this metaphor) in purchasing a used car - but I have no quarrel with used car dealers, per se. It's about the integrity of the thing.
DiscourseMagnus
29d ago
Between Brian Thompson and Shinzo Abe, we seem to be developing a worrying new meta of assassinations in which they can be used to martyr the assassin and move the world ideologically against the target, rather than the reverse.
DiscourseMagnus
1mo ago
Here's the main article I'm going off of, although its same claims seem to be reported elsewhere as well:
DiscourseMagnus
1mo ago
Ever closer grows the day that the elite are de jure, rather than de facto, completely legally free to do whatever they want to everyone else.
DiscourseMagnus
1mo ago
I was curious about the case, so I decided to look it up. As I suspected, it turns out that the original murder was a case of vigilantism against, allegedly, a habitual abuser of women. When it was put in the public spotlight, many years later, by the London Bridge attack, apparently much of the public felt that, lawful or unlawful, he'd done the right thing in the first place. The whole story felt very British.
DiscourseMagnus
1mo ago
Have you already forgotten about the Clintons? What about the Kennedys?
DiscourseMagnus
1mo ago
I think that this is a very good take, but I would further add that I think "teen pregnancy" as a snarl phrase is a malformed or malicious meme to begin with, antinatalist in itself even before the emphasis is added. We should be trying to discourage unwed pregnancy, while encouraging women to have children inside of wedlock both early and often. Surely our society would be in much better condition than it is now if it was seen as a terribly unfeminine thing for a woman to be unmarried or childless at 16. It might seem gross, backwater, Muslimesque - but what did being liberal and feminist get us?
The charismatic megafauna are the ones that most need to go! They make much more impressive trophies for humanity. We've accomplished so little in the "driving species to extinction" field in so long. We're close to getting some rhino species, but some others are still doing just fine.
More options
Context Copy link