ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2hr ago
I can't snap my fingers and get everything my heart desires without having to work for it; rather, if I don't work, I don't eat, and I die.
In that sense, I am raped by reality.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2hr ago
Nobody has argued for a broad societal reconsideration of whether men are adults
Everyone who has uttered the words "the brain doesn't finish development until you're 25" is making this argument.
It's not laughed out of the room.
Another example is thinking that "love is just chemicals".
Technically accurate but not helpful, and used as an excuse to pretend sex has/had no emotional dimension after the fact in that trademark Annoying Atheist way.
I have this very controversial belief that "sexualities" don't exist in a sense.
I think "sexualities" were created by the same detached/objective intellectual thinking that causes problems when normal people try to use them, primarily since they tend to be used as weapons (when a woman claims she's asexual, or when a man calls another man gay) rather than merely descriptive of {male or female, what characteristics are being pattern-matched on}.
Or perhaps they may have been intended as weapons/distractions from the get-go. I generally see it claimed as "well, it's because all the non-straights wanted to dissociate from the accusations of pedophilia that came with them at the time"... but I think that was a side-effect of the actual goal: censoring the instinctual understanding of 'men dominate, women submit' (children just being a more extreme version of women, which is also why it's stereotypically women using "protect kids [implied: from men]" as the metaphorical nose of the camel into the tent).
(Just to be clear: 'men dominate, women submit' just happens to be emergent from evolutionary biological circumstance, which is probably why it's generally applicable for [the physical dimension of] sex. The fix for 'woman good man bad' is not 'man good woman bad', though the lazy and selfish will jump to that conclusion anyway.)
I once guessed that somebody was gay because I could tell by the art style of their profile picture.
I just look at the head. My working theory is that the longer/more pronounced the snout is, the more likely it is that a man who likes that image will [prefer men on average]. (By that same token, most bronies are straight [note the lack of male OCs and abundance of futa]; see also Brand New Animal vs. Beastars.)
This also works for straights, but in a different way. The more feminine the body looks compared to the face, the more likely a man who likes that image will [prefer women on average]. This is most of why "are traps gay?" is the meme that it is (and the related complaint of "draw a girl call it a boy"), since most men who like that [prefer women on average]; it wouldn't be controversial otherwise.
I thought that your view on sex might have been a consequence of many years of detached and objective thinking, which is common in intellectual types.
No, it very definitely started out that way (and not influenced by any external source). I've learned to describe and emulate the other one over time as required, but it's not native code; maybe this is what ChatGPT 'feels like' when it's asked to ERP.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
14hr ago
I observe those things are called "work" and "taxes", respectively.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
17hr ago
That article appears to have been written by someone who doesn’t work with his hands… or drive a nice car, for that matter.
You put the nice car in the garage so you don’t have to spend a bunch of time brushing off the car when it snows. If it’s a ragtop, you don’t have to worry about vandals slicing it open; if it’s a truck with a tonneau cover, you don’t have to worry about leaving it open lest the tweakers break it open to see all the nothing inside.
You also have a garage so that you have room to do things to maintain the house. Need to paint a door, or space to marshal furniture, or maintain the car? You can’t do that if you don’t have a clear workshop… which is what the people in those pictures with their cars outside are using their garage for, and dedicated shop areas are even rarer than garages are.
Detached garages are still ugly for the same reasons attached ones are, but if your lot’s on an incline there’s usually no place to put one. With an attached garage that’s not a concern, obviously.
Oh yeah, and you can just put another storey on top of an attached garage. Sometimes you can even fit two floors, so you have rooms on the second storey with a better view.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
21hr ago
· Edited 21hr ago
I think the main difference between the far-left and far-right is how they deal with the biological ground truth that "women are useless, men are disposable".
The far-left leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the disposability of men (and that men exist to serve women, "all are equal but men are more equal than others", #itsHerTurn) while encouraging women to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("a good woman is independent and dominates men", "criminals and vagrants can't help it", and the like). Men are not permitted dignity in this society and their masculinity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be communist (where any masculinity-driven private improvement belongs to your neighbors).
The far-right leans a lot more into policies emphasizing the uselessness of women (and that women exist to serve men, "man is head of the household", etc.) while encouraging men to make sacrifices for some grand social project ("women and children first", wars on neighboring societies/white feather effects, 996, and the like). Women are not permitted dignity in this society and their femininity is taken for granted; that is why these societies tend to be [what people actually mean when they say] fascist (where any femininity-driven public improvement is a waste of valuable resources).
This doesn't necessarily mean that these factions are going to state this openly (it's just relying on instinctive human behavior; anyone not following their instincts is naturally suspect), but it is why far-leftism and far-rightism naturally attract women and men (respectively) who are worth less. By contrast, centrist men and centrist women aren't just running solely on instinct (for a variety of reasons) and tend to hold views that are a mess of sloppy, logically-inconsistent compromise between those extremes.
It's clear why the far left and far right hate it: the Fascist-Feminist Synthesis holds that women have no agency in such a situation, and that they must be protected from their own decision to offer themselves to beastly men.
Not quite.
When you view women through the standard "human fleshlight, plus domestic labor" lens (and the far-left and far-right agree that this is the best a woman can do in life; they just differ slightly in their approach to making that state of nature men's problem), prostitution and sex tourism offer a far superior product to domestic women.
Normally, to get a human fleshlight you have to marry it and you're stuck with it for the rest of your life; prostitution offers a massive variety and it's by the hour. Southeast Asia is considered the best place for prostitution simply because there's no minimum (w)age for prostitutes there.
Gynosupremacists are simply making sure there's no competition for domestic women, so they can get a higher price for their assets ('why buy the cow' and all that). Casting aspersions about the safety and morality of the competitor's products is a classic sales tactic.
The exact spear counterpart to this is illegal immigration; foreign men work harder and expect less than domestic men, so it's obvious why the femcels love them.
But why does the center go along with this still?
Because those sales tactics work.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
1d ago
lolly water
I didn't think that kind of product would be carbonated; I'd expect it to taste rather flat.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
1d ago
So I just want to warn you in case this is what you're doing to your own perception of sex.
Doing? (Turning? Deciding?) This isn't an outlook I had to modify my behavior for; I've thought about sex this way since the day I discovered what it was. I get that it's natural for people whose outlook on sex is not naturally this to assume one has to have intent to erase this, and agree that it would be wrong for them to do that.
are you saying that she did in fact consent because she didn't resist enough, because she enjoys submission (and therefore of having her consent overruled), or because of how human nature works fundamentally?
Yes.
I think that to enjoy anything as someone who submits, you inherently accept the fact that sometimes you're going to have to do something you don't want to do in the moment, and your long-term enjoyment of having done that thing, or being in a relationship where that thing is asked of you, may be contextualized or modulated by the fact that you did the thing you did not want to do [either chronically, like you're a child being asked to clean a room that by your judgment is not dirty, or acutely, where you're asked to try a food that smells revolting but after you've taken a bite it's fine].
This is what "consent" entails for submissives. Women are, in aggregate, submissive; dominant women are by definition exhibiting transsexual/transgender behavior. (This is the "getting drunk at the bar so that, when someone asks me if I'd like to come home with them, it is psychologically easier for me to say yes".)
Dominants, by contrast, do not have a concept of "consent" in the same way. And that is good; it would be actively harmful to their position in the relationship if they believed they had to get the sub's consent before they asked something of them, or accepted a "no" without consequence- for instance, the child eats the food on their plate because there will be nothing else served, or the child will deserve an injury if they fail to clean up their mess to an acceptable standard.
What "consent" means to a dominant is that initial agreement (or state of reality)- in the "you will do the thing you don't like because you will be better off" case, consent is violated when "be better off" cannot be delivered. It's a negotiation between equals, or at least as buyer and seller, at that point. Men are, in aggregate, dominant; submissive men are by definition exhibiting transsexual/transgender behavior. (This is the "buying drinks at a bar for a woman in hopes she will say 'yes' if I ask her to come home with me".)
Some men pass as submissive [twink]; some women pass as dominant [tomboy]. Less twinks than tomboys though; excess femininity is selected against in nature. Tomboys get real mad when you suggest they're not really women/are trans because they don't have the same innate understanding of gender that their sex in aggregate does, and bad people do it constantly to get social power by arbitraging that lack? of shared understanding. (Vice versa for men.)
But some don't pass- they might have the will, but they can't back it up.
And they're very self-conscious about that fact, and they're going to take it out on everyone else if they aren't dealt with.
And the way they have done that is by equating the power of submissive consent [only exists in context of a relationship] with dominant consent [the definition of the relationship] with all the baggage that entails (the only 'dominant' form of consent a submissive can exercise in a relationship is by ending it)- after all, because they won't "be better off" with a man because they're just as good as any man, and because everyone works [or secretly wants to work] like them, then that is the way it should be. The legal system was a great cudgel to impose this, so they wrote it in there.
Naturally this had the negative consequences of
But if you destroy these games to get rid of their consequences, then you also lose the advantages, and your life will take another step towards emptiness/nihilism
that you describe, especially among people [younger generations] who didn't know these people, and this existential anxiety made manifest, is why the way things are the way they are. It's a tautology that the driving force behind this is always going to be dominant women, not submissive men.
(Popularly, the reason for that is "penis envy"- a term that probably did more damage when trying to combat these people than it ever shed light on in the first place. It's not clearly stupid to call it that in a first pass, though.)
(Side note, so I can cross-reference this later: now you know why humans instinctively group behaviors derivative of 'submissive man' [non-passing/uncanny valley effeminacy, gay faggotry, "I want to be the little girl/boy"-type pedophilia] and 'dominant woman' [non-passing/uncanny valley masculinity, butch lesbianism, "I want to make you into my little girl/boy"-type pedophilia].)
Treat people equally before the law, and generally socially and culturally.
Are we pursuing equality, where in the case where there's an easily-predictable bimodal distribution of anti-social behaviors, imposing a law grants massive advantages to the group whose anti-social behaviors are less legible?
Or is the goal equity, where we acknowledge that legal equality is, in aggregate, going to create a power imbalance (and thus seek to install guardrails to limit that)?
Wokeism is not a failing of liberalism.
I strongly disagree.
The entire goal of liberalism is to destroy the fact there's a distribution in the first place. That's why we impose equality before the law when this when the distribution splits across, say, sexes- we subsidize the high-performers in the [in aggregate] less productive sex at the cost of the [in aggregate] more productive one by permitting more mayhem by the low-performers in the [aggregate] less productive sex. Same with race, same with religion, same with everything else that's generally accepted as a consequence of the role of the cosmic dice.
Wokeism is the natural expression of the now-uncontrolled moral hazard created by this regime under the same banner of subsidizing the high-performers in the disadvantaged group (Exhibit A: "women in STEM", used as an excuse to have more women than men going to college for worthless degrees).
That's why the people who have a mind for equity find themselves drifting closer to the traditionalists, who for all their failings at least had a solution to the moral hazard- traditionalism finds itself more compatible with a surviving society by induction, but by its nature cannot inform how a thriving one should behave.
Wokeism is explicitly illiberal
The woke can only be considered explicitly illiberal if they're aware the moral hazard exists and are trying to expand it. (Simply taking advantage of the fact it exists is only illiberal in the fact that the resultant untaxed [social] pollution causes [social] climate change to a point where the average member of society feels that the underlying cause of that pollution must be addressed before it destroys that society's ability to exist.)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
1d ago
cultural conservatives
There's a well-established overlap between cultural conservatism and traditionalism, and a further overlap between traditionalists and the intellectually lazy.
"Just parrot whatever came before uncritically, everything new is bad" is the easiest social heuristic to follow, even more than "tear down everything that came before, everything old is bad", which is why progressives have a cultural advantage over traditionalists. (People think intelligence is just reversed stupidity for a reason.)
Georgism for virtue, by contrast, is already widespread. The idiom is "ruining it for everyone".
"If you have enough self-control, intelligence, and/or temperance that restricting your freedom is an injury, you're obviously wise enough to find a way to be able to pay the taxes on the licenses and permission slips we deem necessary before you may exercise those freedoms. If it saves just one life taken by the most selfish, nasty person in society, it's worth it."
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
4d ago
I don't know how that happened.
4chan exists, at least in part, to be a reaction to moralfaggotry on SomethingAwful.
It was always going to end this way.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
5d ago
And at that time, by the time the kids were capable of a reaction other than "eww, gross", they had already moved out.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
5d ago
Monkey's paw curls
You have lots of middle-aged women who are sexually interested in young boys, but those women want to make those boys into women, not men.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
This is straight-up international diplomacy.
And I find it more interesting that the Liberals don't give a shit. Then again, it's not like that had far-reaching consequences in Texas even though it really should have, but then again the US hasn't had an acting President for the past 2 or 3 years.
Maybe they think it'll end with a Con majority so Smith is just wasting her time playing Queen of Alberta (or hedging her bets if the Liberals somehow retain their minority status- and that's a risk I think is understated given the below), but I think the more notice the Cons (and their newer Ontario backers) are put on the better it'll ultimately be for the West if for no other reason than to provide a check against policy starvation.
but I'll believe it when I see it.
The reason I think it's still going to be October is just because that's the optimal game theoretic strategy for every interested party. If an election was called today everyone already knows the result; what else do they have to lose by stalling for time? Black swan events are a thing, and if you don't wait for them, you can't get lucky.
Unless they change the rules, that candidate could get in by appealing directly to foreigners for votes
I can't think of a more on-the-nose emblem of Liberal immigration policy than this. Fortunately, non-citizens can't vote in elections, so I don't expect much to be put on the scale by these groups, but still.
Interestingly, this also appears to be occurring in Ontario itself, since the rest of the province has stood in opposition of the federal government for the past 7 years [and the same thing was true of the City of Toronto itself, at least for a time, considering who they elected as mayor]; this is partially why Ontario didn't set up internal border checkpoints (the police told them no), and is part of how [and why] the truckers were effectively permitted to occupy the city where a significant fraction of Liberal voters live and work for a solid month.
Really, Ontario is Canada in microcosm- it's as harshly divided [against the policies the rich and the federal government (and its employees) would prefer] as the rest of Canada is in comparison to Ottawa. No wonder the Feds (and by extension, the supporters of the current government) feel so threatened and fed up that they can't get anything done.
We now have provincial leaders dealing with Federal responsibilities (see Alberta Premier Danielle Smith visiting Trump), which is an odd change of pace.
That's actually a big fucking deal, for the same reason it's a big deal when Texas starts signing security agreements with Mexico. Granted, there isn't exactly much migration across the prairie border (not that the US could really stop you, of course), but the fact that the US is the primary trading partner for each province isn't lost on anyone here.
Canada calls its federation "confederation" for some reason, but if the Federal government continues its abdication and some absurdity happens (either the Western Canada party doesn't get a majority, or Trump actually does manage to destroy the Canadian economy especially if no election occurs until October, or Quebec continues on closing itself off from the rest of Canada) it might actually become what it's called.
until his replacement gets selected by his party in late March
I kind of feel sorry for Kim Campbell 2.0. Maybe they won't do it because the PC already claimed 'first female PM' back in the '80s but I have no expectation that they'll be able to refrain from doing this- perhaps an East Indian woman, both to out-IdPol Singh and remind that intentionally-imported demographic who brought them here in the first place?
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
do we know how many happy celebrities have left happy groupies with A+-would-bang-again experiences that they will treasure for a lifetime?
Considering we already know the ones who regret it have massive incentive to say something now that they have a worldwide platform to get sympathy, and considering how many gay now-celebrities give glowing reviews of getting raped laid in their early teens (to say nothing of Milo Y.), I expect the rate of satisfaction from these encounters to be in excess of the base rate of satisfaction per encounter for normal sexual relationships, which for reference averages around 69%.
I continue thinking that to look at the life of rich celebrities and seek to derive any conclusions about what rules the rest of us ought to live by is foolish
I think this but for people who make unconventional choices more generally.
Just because it works [or is within the bounds of acceptable risk] for them (for reasons you might not know, and maybe it isn't working) doesn't mean it will work for you (because you just want to stick it in the new hotness rather than your wife- she's not as hot any more, you see), and if you can't understand why it's working for them (because it's not done with the implicit or explicit intention of taking more than they put into the relationship/they're capable of dealing with the pitfalls) then it will hurt you if you do it (because that is why you are doing it).
(Which is the positive justification for censorship of infohazards like open marriages are; too bad the principal-agent problem is a thing, so you make the choice between ensuring the high-performance unconventional people have everything they need or blinding them so the less-able are less distracted by bad options they don't have the mental or social capacity to avoid. It's almost like the people in these relationships owe it to the less-able not to broadcast it to the ends of the Earth, and the less-able owe it to the more-able not to interfere; perhaps this comprises some sort of social contract?)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
the clarity of consent
There can be no "clarity of consent" because "consent" doesn't actually exist- it suggests that women are just as dominant as men are just as submissive as women (1), but then as we see a bit later...
She protested that it wasn’t hygienic. “He said, ‘Are you defying your master?’” she recalls. “I had to lick my own shit.”
...that's pretty obviously false. That's the inherent tension with having a gender whose average participant gets off on the submission- and if they start to resent that for whatever reason, and have the political power to get their top/dom jailed, then arises the incentive to abuse that power. But the fact that this woman isn't availing herself of that power that she knows (or can be reasonably expected to know, especially since she demonstrates an understanding of what the word "consent" is implying) is at her beck and call is actually quite significant, so I'd take the claim of "yeah, it sure was a time, I have made my peace that this is just how [my] sexuality works, this isn't a big enough deal so fuck off" at face value in this instance. (Actually, it kind of reminds me of this.)
But the whole charade does remind me once more of the peculiar way in which Western culture has come to insist that there is nothing problematic about sexual promiscuity.
Fundamentally, it comes down to whether you think sex (and by extension, whether or not you've made peace with the fact consent doesn't exist) is a big deal or not. The people who think sex is a big deal are unwilling or unable to deal with the fact sex no longer leads to pregnancy or disease (2); and the people who think sex has no consequences are unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that implies it's child-safe (3). And the world turns.
(1) Which makes sense, considering "consent" was manufactured by non-gender-conforming men and women in the late '80s as a reaction to the free '70s, so it's only natural those [in a purely descriptive sense] trans-gender individuals would come up with a system that doesn't match how normal human beings actually function, then get all defensive when it doesn't work.
(2) If you don't allow needle-shaped objects to penetrate your ass, you're relatively safe from the only STD of actual consequence (and even then, it's "take these pills for the rest of your life or you'll die 2 weeks after someone coughs on you", but diabetics and epileptics manage that just fine, so...). You're still going to get herpes but the cold sores are just the cost of doing your mom business.
(3) "But what if the 5 year old girl consents" is specifically meant to call out the fact that "consent" doesn't actually mean "accedes to"; the concept is, quite literally, used as a condom. It's so thin at times ("my 5 year old is trans") it feels like it's not even there, which is exactly how Trojan claims it should be.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
they get the best gear to help them compete, anything for an edge to claim glory
Devil's advocate: people being able to buy the best gear also advances the sport. Competitive shooting does this all the time in its Open divisions, where you can run basically anything you want; if you've discovered a kind of setup that gives you a leg up over the other shooters then it's perfectly valid to use it (and if it came out of your garage you'll probably have people wanting to commercialize it).
Of course, not all divisions are Open (so if you don't have 5000 dollars to spend on the best gear, you can still be competitive with everyone else), and you still need to actually make the shots so if you're bad you'll get beaten by people in lower divisions much less your own... but having a division where you can just push the envelope however you like advances the sport.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
11d ago
My favorite name for it is the French one; literally, "low country".
it's also worth noting that the language spoken there calls itself 'Nederlands'. It's kind of like how the Franks speak Frankish, and very much how the Deutsch speak Deutsch.
I believe there are international efforts to ban the use of minefields that linger and cause problems after the war
Call me when a country whose military actually fights wars commits to that in any meaningful way. They haven't (and won't) for obvious reasons; the ultimate problem with mines is that they're both extremely useful, and extremely cost-effective. You can make them on 3D printers, and the Ukrainians are doing exactly that. That treaty did them a whole lot of good, clearly.
Cluster munitions are the same way (and again, relevant military powers all retain them for that reason)- they're great for exploding the slightly-older-children when they come out to repair the areas (typically runways) we drop them on. Of course, they're not as cute, so they're fair game, naturally.
If you're not willing to shell your own position and kill your own soldiers [that haven't even been born yet, in this case], you are not willing to win. Hamas is willing to win (that's why they position their forces in schools). The Ukrainians and Russians are also willing to win (that's why the Ukrainians are mining their own territory even though they pinky-swore not to do that).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
11d ago
I think the acceptable number of birth defects caused by the use of your weapon systems in an unprovoked war of aggression against another state is zero
Uncleared minefields (and UXO in general, though to a much smaller degree) tend to produce injuries similar to congenital birth defects, up to and including the sorts of defects incompatible with life, like missing limbs or heads. They can be found wherever wars are fought.
DU by contrast is merely toxic, much like lead and TNT are.
Because man bad, woman good. Young men are also more physically disorderly than young women (despite 48% of population, overwhelming majority of violent crime), so you can sell it as risk control.
It's certainly laughed at less than any proposals to lower the age of adulthood, which suggests the average person believes it should be higher.
More options
Context Copy link