ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
14hr ago
I actually think that somebody thought they were making the world a kinder, more empathetic, and higher trust place.
Don't all racists?
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
14hr ago
so then why not just lead with that instead of "boys rule girls drool god says so"?
and by extension, why doesn't the average traditionalist seem interested in changing their byline about women to this?
What matters is what an individual should do,
Yes...
how to build virtue,
Getting closer...
and treating people in accordance with their god given gender roles.
And a miss. So close; I'm sure we'll figure out a constructive version of interaction between the sexes without going straight to the cold bucket of water someday.
I don’t know which sex, on average, defected first.
Nobody defected. What happened was that men went with the best information they had at a time when the bottom fell completely out of the market for the product men provided, that being "material goods for survival". In the US that happened 90 years ago, a timeline most Western countries followed.
See, in the pre-industrial ages, where the picture of the US is Little House on the Prairie (and people think this is true of Europe all the way back to the start of the Dark Ages- it's not true, but this is what most people think), men were responsible for a society's survival. They're the one evolution gave that advantage to.
That gives them leverage in a way it doesn't for women. Even your verse- rated #1 by Wicked Husbands Weekly for the past 2 millennia- has this state of affairs buried in it. The duties assigned there are rhetorically symmetrical, and perhaps in the first century they actually were, but in post-scarcity "men, love your wives" is little more than an inkblot/no-op, while the converse demand of submission is an utterly massive ask for a post-scarcity woman. We're rich enough now that the reason a man would take a wife he wasn't willing to love already has been lost, so it's a strict boon for men at the expense of women.
Wicked and simple men love this verse for a good fucking reason. They know what they're doing.
What happens when a society structured around food scarcity runs into the brick wall that is the hydroelectric generating station, the internal combustion engine, the assembly line, the farming combine, smokeless powder/dynamite/the other trappings of modern chemistry, the Haber-Bosch process, practical fixed-wing aviation, and hundreds of thousands of others? Well, what happens is that men who grew up in a society where being a man had privileges because survival was a scarce resource now had nothing.
So you get a few generations of people born right at the tail end of scarcity, right as the value of survival was hitting zero, and their children, who have absolutely no earthly clue on how to maximize their daughters' standing in modern society, did the only thing they know how to, the only thing they reasonably could have been expected to. Fathers and mothers alike agree, because that is how it was back in their living memory, that women must be submissive to men because men do deserve it, or rocks fall and everyone dies. That is why going barefoot from kitchen to bedroom was the highest calling- Mom would have legitimately loved that this job had been made so much easier to the point it turned her full-time job into one that required perhaps an hour or two at a time and Dad just can't fully understand what the big deal is; after all, it worked for them, and Mom loved it, did she not?
Thus leading us to having a breed of more-than-average-disagreeable woman who refused to listen to their folks who told them not to make anything of themselves, and they prospered wildly, especially compared to the ones that did and never made anything of themselves (and who comprised the first huge divorce wave once it was legalized in the '70s). Which now makes the selection effect of "don't listen to your folks, they don't know fuck all" because they really, truly, genuinely did not know fuck all (they simply weren't equipped to do so; nobody at the time really had a good idea of what "the value of men just dropped to zero" would mean), so as the generations go by and the older pre-scarcity people die off, there's no counter-meme for moderation.
So if you're wondering how you get feminists, and how '60s feminists turn into '10s gynosupremacists, that's how. Under Whig History, this is traditionalists' "fault", and aspiring traditionalists who still believe in that (and perhaps more importantly, who want to convert people into Christians) must absolutely come up with an answer for that. Until that day, our "god-given gender roles" will continue to be viewed as a twisted joke, and our persecution complex (and the makeup of our churches- which is selected for men and women who haven't come to terms with modernity, whether we like that or not, healthy people don't need doctors after all) will tempt us to double down on RETVRN.
There were some academics- the autistic women [and men] who were disagreeable enough to get into an academic career track to study this- that did show some signs of actual understanding. But the weapons they left lying around were then picked up by wicked women, and it turns out they continue to work even today. We even pretend it is an advancement to be ruled over by wicked women than by wicked men.
So, uh, what's a path forward? Well, I don't actually think men can do anything about it on their own; their marginal value is basically zero, after all- other than noting that men did not fight a violent battle against women when it became clear the "battle" was lost, or to attempt to restore our monopoly on survival, and that the main problem is women fighting a violent battle [by proxy, and forcing men to bear the costs of intentional inaction because the solution wasn't "just right"] against us now.
We'll generally be in the supporting role for this one: specifically, that if we ultimately agree that the role/general desire of the statistical-average woman is indeed to be provided for, that we take care not to burn out the devotion that makes that state of affairs tolerable -> attractive -> stable. Already we see this is on a knife's edge more than it used to be in part to an overzealous slash-and-burn of what used to provide a path resistant to mere boredom/casual unwillingness to work, and the standard traditionalist "the moral inferiority of womankind is an obvious conclusion of most redpill/traditionalist thought, but proponents of such always either handwave it away or dutifully ignore the implication" doesn't actually help that (I'm not sure why redpillers are particularly interested in doing the mental equivalent of calling their wives, or the stock of the pool of wives for the average man, stupid and fat- oh, wait, yes we do).
Fortunately, the average progressive has a weakness: they also believe (due to instinct) that they're morally inferior to men, and are as such so focused on taking revenge for this state of nature that they make mistakes in a way that the traditionalist female stereotype can predict and outperform.
That is, when it's not just being used as an excuse to be retarded. Oh well, at least if we fumble the ball sufficiently we can at least take solace in the fact that virtueless women (and men) will fail to reproduce at outsized rates, and will have a eugenic effect on the population. So maybe humanity will evolve to solve it ourselves.
enforcement of the social contract
You misunderstand.
The difference in "social contracts" between Tokyo and all those other places you mentioned is that, in those other places, the social contract is "you don't get to have safe streets or go to the park and not get harassed by gangs because that's what we believe to be social justice".
The question would not fall to the whim of private parties (as in, the other party in the social contract) in the first place if society at large bothered to uphold a productive social contract, as it does in Tokyo. The entire problem is that society has intentionally broken what the social contract used to be, and would now rather form one with the gangs allied against you than the reverse because #BLM was more fun.
The police enforce this version of the contract; that's why barely anyone got arrested for rioting in 2020. A member of the public stood up and put them down, though; the biggest impact was not "3 BLM protestors died", but because it sent a message to the now-aggrieved by the changed social contract that they could fight back too.
However, the modern world has too many men.
This is why, when one actually does exercise the male role, we make sure to treat it as a crime.
Men (as in, people specialized in dealing with this responsibility- they're usually male, but not always) are in significant oversupply in Western society, and as such instinct dictates that it is a moral imperative that they human-wave attack into the "enemy" and get killed until there are no longer too many men.
If they're not willing to do that for whatever reason, we'll just marginalize them more and more- make them pay for the worst men there are- until they snap and a group of them stand up to fight; at that point our forces can conduct the purge (or we lose and our enemy, more worthy than us, takes us over).
This is good for me if I'm Blue and my outgroup is domestic; waging a civil war on Red, if I win, will destroy my enemy and solve my excess-men-in-society problem in one fell swoop, much like it solved it for my ancestors in 2000 BC when they had this problem, which is after all why my instincts point me in this direction.
[This doesn't necessarily need to be military; it can be done through politics if the problem isn't bad enough, as that's just war by other means.]
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
What I'm thinking of here is that we can't just tolerate that some people are making different choices - we must celebrate them and take them up to 11
Yeah, but a lot of that's just the standard warfare between the redistributionists (generally because they lack the thing but can still convince someone sympathetic to take it away from someone with more) and everyone else.
Fat people want beauty redistributed.
Stupid people want [the fruits of] intelligence redistributed.
People without self-control want [the prosocial effects of having] self-control redistributed. ("If I'm not trustworthy with the right to self-defense then you should go without too.")
If you've lost the ability to say that some things are better than others it's a sign that they've taken over.
Thinking on it a bit more, maybe sons are more properly seen as foot soldiers for their mother's goals, and men shooting them is more an intra-mother proxy fight than anything else. I think about that every time a society with equal representation but unequal draft votes itself into a war, where the old send their young to die for the goals of the old. The designated caring gender seems to strategically forget its role in these scenarios.
Considering fathers do this with opposite-gender offspring, it would be strange to think mothers don't have a similar reflex with their opposite-gender offspring, and since the two genders are close to parity mothers have a lot more resources to throw at each other (and correspondingly, more to lose).
By the way, with respect to "not logical thinking": I think people who do this are running on instinct, and that instinct generally gives people whose brains are not good enough to outperform instinct a baseline on which they can otherwise compete/survive (so they might have a brain, but using it doesn't give them good results; this is what education is supposed to fix, or it did before an overwhelming incentive to fail to educate people arose). But instinct is generally mediated by environment (this includes other humans), so if a bunch of the inputs instinct depends on to moderate itself change or disappear things tend to go off the rails quickly.
Male instinct wasn't as unconstrained by technological development, so female instinct becomes more salient. And I think it's that female instinct that mediates the general case of "every other son is morally obligated to give resources to mine".
Perhaps the real problem is that intelligent women don't trust their child-raising abilities any more just like intelligent men don't trust their abilities to take risks, and so everyone's depressed and unwilling to resist the instinct-driven?
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
I would wager that "adults who can use drugs responsibly should not have to take restrictions due to irresponsible addicts" is a much more Blue position
It's a liberal position that happens to be closer to Blue, and [within Blue] is a holdover from when Blue was the more liberal-friendly Tribe.
Blue still technically espouses this policy but only as an incidental to the race/marginalized angle.
The addict friend, who continues indulging in his addiction and happily spamming me every day about what haul his most recent $500 of paid pulls got him, took the "ban it all" position.
People who are poor in virtue are better off if virtue is redistributed. They're virtue-communists.
People who are rich in virtue are better off if allowed to capture that value. They're virtue-capitalists.
The stereotype that complains about "all these commie rules" are directionally correct, they're just not capable of telling you why.
the adults (and police etc.) in that community should have been there taking out the trash
What do you mean? They were there taking out the trash (the police were there supervising)- they were incinerating it, salvaging useful materials, and forcefully removing those who would prefer the trash.
A child, Rittenhouse, proceeded to shoot three garbage men in the course of their lawful adult duties. He should have stayed home, out of their affairs, but instead he was tried in the state he crossed into when he pulled that trigger (i.e. as an adult).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
Sure it is- if they believed the victim, and were correct in that assessment, then they need not fear a lawsuit.
Clearly, they do not want to do that. And if they aren't empowered to do so by broader society, well, that's already been covered by the preceding points (i.e. "they suspend a certain minority more, they suspend students of parents [who are also bullies] more, they don't want to do the work").
Also, the voting record of their personnel reveals they prefer candidates who don't see their inability/unwillingness to do their jobs as a problem.
And not only that, but high impulse control people hear the meme and repeat it uncritically; this then harms other high impulse control people.
High impulse control people don't need to be told "they have the burden to lose every stupid argument", and continuing to tell them that will over-calibrate them into losing fights they really shouldn't be walking away from.
You don't need to tell me not to shoot people with machine guns because their dog pissed on my lawn, and someone treating me as if they did need to tell me that "because Some People would" is best seen as projection (as in, the speaker is low-impulse and has to tell himself not to do that, so he assumes he has to treat me as if I would).
Non-gun-owners have a higher rate of violence than gun owners do for this reason, or at least they do in at least one country that has a licensing scheme and keeps stats in English. The effect is not just limited to guns but looking at them is revealing.
that it was now "legal to shoot progressives"
Why is that strange?
What they said was trivially true- someone had shown that non-progressives could kill their footsoldiers and the government legitimizing their presence would not only refused to stop it, but outright judge progressives to be in the wrong for the first time in several months.
This demoralized them, because (like conservatives) their cognition of right and wrong comes mostly from authority, so to have that authority suddenly reject them and tell them they were in the wrong was a massive wake-up call. Once that happened, the people who did have a sense of right and wrong had enough, went home, and stopped posting; those left were more likely to double down due to that social evaporative cooling effect.
Progressives act like the person who shot the congenital felon was the one who decided their life wasn't worth a car.
That's what they say, yes. But killing a man in self-defense is an attack on the privilege of mothers (and those that may become mothers) everywhere, and that is what they're actually objecting to. (And if ~12% of mothers produce 52% of the bad sons, it suddenly becomes extremely relevant if those mothers are alike in some way, so it would be even more important to further protect the way they're alike. Rights/privileges are only preserved by successfully defending scoundrels, after all.)
Killings like this being permitted is an explicit statement that it's possible to raise a child so badly and so selfishly that someone else can not only kill him, and people will not just celebrate his death, but they claim that killing the children [of bad mothers] underpins society in general. Self-defense only further legitimizes the right to kill those sons.
When you see Blues/progressives/women in jubilation over the killing of Charlie Kirk, this is what and why they're celebrating- a strike against the people who cheer on, encourage, and legitimize killing bad sons [and perhaps by extension, them]. (The fact that involved killing someone else's son is not relevant.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
They imply murder, not very justified self-defence.
They're the same picture. (Related: ever wonder why Demolition Man used the phrase 'murderdeathkill?')
There are some reasons you might see it that way, including but not limited to:
- You think self-defense shouldn't be allowed against [insert your favorite identity] for Historical Injustice(tm) reasons
- You're a bully, afraid someone's going to have had enough and shoot you some day over some stupid argument [either directly or by proxy], and you want to make sure it's harder for them to do that (also, see
- You're a strict Social Contract theorist who is incapable of thinking outside your authority's exclusive right to decide who deserves what or think their decisions and conflict-resolution power are strictly superior to its subjects (the "people can't handle the right to self-defense" one falls into this bucket)
- Axiomatically never believing a claim of legitimate victimhood (this is the "school zero-tolerance, suspend the victim" mentality, which is the distaff counterpart to the "maybe she should have dressed more modestly" line for rape)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
and should emphatically not be confused with autism or other deficiencies in socialization.
yes but how else do you expect midwits to fulfill their need for a label for people that do this
We’re supposed to be shockingly different from each other, and we’re supposed to cause friction with each other; that’s nature working as intended.
Yes, but friction and difference causes perceived risk that the hippy TV programs never taught their parents to properly deal with, so in turn they couldn't teach their kids to deal with that in a healthy way. So it goes.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
2d ago
it is indicative of a society that doesn't feel a lot of pressure to push older minors into the workforce, not a society struggling to find employment opportunities for its people.
I'm not as sure; I think it's both. That's why the warehousing exists the way it does; it adds pressure to keep the under-18 set (and under-25 set with respect to college for the white-collar professions) out of the workforce.
There's not enough economic opportunity to employ them sustainably. There used to be, which is why their workforce participation was higher in days when there was more economic opportunity for that (and is part of why society tolerates the credentialism spiral that normally consumes the objectively best days of one's life, that being your early twenties).
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
3d ago
I would not characterize the ad as 'shitposting'.
Shitposting, saber-rattling, attempting to propagandize a foreign nation/people your economic future depends on for ego reasons...
not having a trade deal is leaving quite a bit of money on the table
For the Canadians, yes, which is the point of Trump loudly turning 360 degrees and walking away. Not really as much for the Americans.
It's actually kind of a paradox, where American foreign policy is designed to encourage a more pro-business/pro-reality elite in other countries, which then results in a stronger country that's then more able to tell the Americans 'no'.
Naturally, the hyper-conservative elite [this can also be voter blocs if political representation is sufficiently slanted in their favor, and the Canadian political system is this way by design] hates that idea, especially because the last few administrations were happy to both let them free trade their way to prosperity so long as they threw Pride parades and DEId. Thanks in great part to the US having kept this up for so long, these ideas are now the baseline conservative position, which is part of why conservative elites like them (the other reason is because it's a way to pretend they're on the side of the young).
Now that a liberal has taken power the elite in those countries feel empowered to keep on keeping on. They aren't as capable of rapid change as the Americans are, mainly because the people who were capable of that emigrated to the US a long time ago (or who never reproduced due to the deaths of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers in the Great European Mass Suicides of the 1910s and 1940s).
I think Ontario is basically well within its rights to use ads to affect US trade policy.
And the US is well within its rights to set trade policy however it likes. The government of Ontario clearly has the money to spend on foreign propaganda so clearly they're not suffering too badly.
Even if the ad was paid for by Carney
It probably wasn't (considering the incentives at play, I think the corresponding denouncement was genuine), and that's actually kind of a big deal. Individual provinces have been more effective at influencing foreign trade policy than the Federal government is, for better (Smith) or for worse (Ford). What good's the Federal government if it won't do this, and has revealed to instead be too weak to enforce message discipline on its constituents?
it still makes sense to negotiate.
This is a negotiation- the corporate arm of the people of Ontario being one of the interested parties. The fact that those people still see fit to go out of its way to shitpost is actually relevant; I wouldn't want to do business with them either.
And sure, maybe the Supreme Court rules it all illegal and everything goes back to normal, in which case Ford can take a win back to his most elderly, jingoistic supporters and not spend much goodwill on the people who had to pay for them. That's the gamble he's taking here; perhaps it'll pay off, perhaps it won't.
Assuming that PM Carney has control over Ford would be like assuming that Trump has control over Newsom.
You're assuming the average American knows or cares about Canadian political structure? Canada is a monolith to Americans, especially those living in the East (that's why the meme is '51st' and not '51 to 55'). But then again, I think this makes more sense if understood as an intra-Canadian political slapfight that more tangentially happens to involve the US.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
And really, it's so much more ridiculous than even that.
It's perfectly coherent. Just take the initial biological condition that the modal women has to work for a man to get resources from him, then model women as a sex worker's union (employed by men for sex) and marriage as a lifetime contract for that sex work.
Feminism really is just Marxism with "all men" as the collective employer.
but a lot of people are mere animals in this
We call those people 'men'. (Being more animalistic means you can afford a higher-quality mate in primitive circumstances.)
and a lot of other people treasure the connection and pleasure someone else appears to obtain from the coupling
We call those people 'women'. (Being better at this means you can demand a higher-quality mate in primitive circumstances[0].)
Some people are trans to varying degrees (women seeking sex as end, men actively seeking woman's pleasure), and trans is very over-represented in popular media and on the internet (and among certain subcultures, especially classical liberal ones- the Sexual Revolution was trans pride in this sense, and you kind of have to be trans to be classically liberal anyway re: Haidt's Moral Foundations[1] so the two go hand in hand) even without active attempts at banning traditional thought for outer party middle class members. (Even 1984 didn't go that far.)
I think the people who are not trans are far more prevalent than we think, especially if we note it's a fallback mode; I think the people who are not trans are more likely to be the people doing physical work (and women have other options than 'trying to opt-out of environments of physical labor in which you would not be competitive as fast as humanly possible', which is abnormal with respect to human evolution).
And I get that we want to try to erase that past (for various reasons- a lot of it has to do with the generation in power taking the end of that extremely personally re: feminism) because muh End of History, but we function this way for a reason. You can't be beyond male and female without understanding what a man or woman is.
[0] And by "primitive circumstances" I mean the ancestral environment where the typical family's caloric intake is directly linked to male physical labor [or warfare] (and female childbirth, for laborer or soldier). In practice, this means any society of behaviorally-modern humans that didn't keep slaves and wasn't mechanized.
[1] Progressives are all just conservatives, morally speaking; this is a Boomer blind spot. The liberal-as-in-freedom people are the actual mutants.
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
Maybe there's room in polite society to allow men to express their sexuality a bit more, but still restrained. A middle ground, so that we can express ourselves without resorting to these unlimited anything-goes online spaces of depravity.
The 20th century was in part defined by women gaining the social privileges of men.
Perhaps the 21st century will conversely be about men gaining the social privileges of women. (Arguably, that has already happened, it's just you need to be wearing a dress to invoke said privileges.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
they'll use the only method they know for such problems: turning some weapon against male behavior
Times have changed: women no longer have enough men to pull this off (the men they could convince just turned 70). They'll no longer commit industrial-scale mass suicide just because they started handing out white feathers like they would 100 years ago- arguably the turning point for that was Vietnam- but it's true for most other countries even without that.
Now, there's still the opportunity for gynosupremacists (as in, feminists) to try and impose this on their own, since you don't need as many men to pull this off these days now that you have computers to do it for you.
The elephant in the room about the SR is that it did in fact raise the clearing 'price' for marriage. That's why you have the weird distribution where half of divorces come from people already on their second marriage (assuming 50% of marriages end in divorce, but 75% of first marriages do not). That's why you had the massive spike in the 70s where people who [20 years later] had no business being married, and were never going to get along with anyone, split up.
Doesn't each man taken off the street and holed up in a cave, never to be met in real life again, give women less to fear?
The hedonic treadmill model also works for risk (both are fundamentally selfish and as such a prime driver of anti-social behaviors), so no.
perhaps some tactic other than inflicting fear or shame or pain might be called for at some point
Men had to evolve in 1900-1930 with technology taking away their primary biological niche. Sex got a lot more expensive as a result (markets distorted in the 50s but corrected themselves by the 80s).
Now that technology has done a similar thing to women, perhaps they need to evolve too. Women need to fix this problem for themselves, and step 1 is realizing that it is a problem in the first place. (This probably won't happen while Boomers are still alive, but obsolescence tends to lead social change by some time, and it takes longer the older the mean decision-maker is.)
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
4d ago
It's even more galling in areas that just experienced a forest fire: because clearly a forest that just lost its fuel load is more likely to burn.
(Honestly at this point insurance companies should have their own private air forces of fire suppression equipment. It'd probably be cheaper.)
it's about narrative control, not protecting children.
It's about controlling a narrative that, as a selling feature, increases the rate of child rape.
Sam Hyde is trivially correct about why this is.
Why? We remember both MLK and Malcolm X, so I guess we simply have to wait until someone takes a shot at Fuentes to see just how much history rhymes.
Perhaps Fuentes is the seed crystal for what will be, in 50 years, clearly identifiable as post-progressivism. Or post-post-conservatism, but that's silly.
More options
Context Copy link