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
3hr ago
It's a real shame that the traditionalist position tends to be trivially reducible to "peepee in but = bad", not that the progressive one (which is just "peepee in vuhgina = bad") is any better.
Honestly, I'm more interested in the mechanisms of why it might come to pass that a child might somehow be "converted" into a Gay. I would rather hear "well, you constantly said Man Bad so I became [a reflection of] a woman instead (coincidentally complete with all the negative attributes, or at least lack of positive ones, thereof)" than it just being chalked up to XXX-rays.
I am continually told it happens but without a claimed mechanism of action unique to sex (since most "grooming" is not, in fact, based solely thereon: how could it be, if convincing you to have gay sex was the hidden goal?)- indeed, the entire point of "grooming" is to make someone do something sexual they do not want to do by psychological tricks that work on those without the self-confidence to resist them- I can only have the elementary schoolboy understanding of why the gayness is bad. Occasionally, I see "well, you can't raise kids with two dads", which is trivially true but similarly taken for granted, and every single relationship failure mode claimed unique to gays are also failure modes when straights do them.
So I notice that I am confused about why sex is magically special, why having a bad sexual encounter is a life-ending event (outside of the sociobiological need/instinct to pretend that it is). And without that understanding I can't pass the Turing test, but if "peepee in but = bad" gets me most of the way there, should I continue to believe there's anything deeper?
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
5hr ago
I remember the memes showing Seattle's Space Needle on a foggy day as "the first day of legalization"
I still make that joke; I don't really smoke weed, but I appreciate that at any time I could choose to.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
5hr ago
The Department of Defense is obfuscatory: it assumes that wars are defensive, not offensive. It frames the question wrong, and obscures the reality of what the Army is for and what it is doing.
Countries wage war. They have clear indications of where their territory starts and ends, and the notion that the country is everlasting doesn't quite enter the picture- wars are things that can be lost.
Empires keep the peace. They claim the entire world is theirs and that war against their empire is illegitimate on its face, and that the empire (greater than any one country) is everlasting- empires cannot lose wars because they do not conduct wars.
Also, the Romans did this.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7hr ago
Research on human sexuality is pretty limited.
Can't imagine why.
The only people who would even want to research this in the first place are already relatively sexually open [at least, in theory], so the results they get aren't going to be couched in language that makes it applicable in a way to the average man or woman that doesn't instantly just turn into more ammunition for the gender/culture war.
the average person doesn’t see a teenaged boy having sex as a big deal, and most of these cases are female high school teachers sleeping with their male students
You're not defining abuse correctly here. I do not believe most of these cases are abuse, because [abuse] is forcing the victim into an unnatural/undeserved submissive role they didn't assume. Women are instinctively submissive physically by default, so they'll likely be more vulnerable to this physically, while men are submissive emotionally by default, so they'll be more vulnerable to this emotionally.
Which is why, on first pass, it's generally considered abuse [by the above definition] when it's a male teacher fucking a female student, but not the other way around, even if the motives were the same. The woman's bearing 100% of the physical risk of the interaction; that's why the response to this is generally "nice". You can't rob someone by sticking a wad of cash in their face, and sex [for most people] works the same way.
The problem is that we're only set up to catch and punish instances of physical abuse. So of all anti-social sexual behavior perpetrated by women we're only going to catch the gender non-conforming behavior (that is, women + physical) while ignoring what they actually do, and trying to use the tools we use to punish physical (most anti-social sexual behavior by men is in this group) abuse by relating the two does not, and should not be expected to work.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
23hr ago
Bi/pansexuality has the natural problem of being too expansive a category. While it is technically true that if in a set of a million people you might be romantically interested in, one is male, that "makes you" bi, most people who claim to be bi/pan are going "sure, I could conceive of the idea of a man who looks exactly like a woman being a suitable sexual partner" despite no living human matching that description.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
23hr ago
Do you know what makes abuse abuse- the real why of it being harmful? Because it's forcing the victim into an unnatural/undeserved submissive role they didn't assume.
Sexual abuse is that, but in specifically a way that has to deal with sex (just like how racism is this in a way that has to deal with race).
Now, we know what that looks like when men do it- take the sacrament in your mouth, my child- but men tend to dominate physically, so that's the kind of abuse mode we should expect from them. It's inherently playing the short game- sexual domination here has a clear beginning, a clear end, a clear definition, and a translucent white evidentiary trail.
Pre-20th-century schools and churches are overwhelmingly staffed by men and thus if left unchecked tend towards this failure mode.
What happens when the gender that likes to dominate socially/emotionally does it? Well, women tend to dominate socially/emotionally, so what we should expect from them is types of more subtle abuse over time that prevents boys from developing natural assertive/dominant behavior.
So they're playing the long game of attempting to run [sexual] interference on boys. Which includes things like punishing all physical contact (and what physical contact is allowed is colored as being a gay thing), showing them pictures of gay sex in an attempt to force them to see sex like adults do (and that mostly-innocent-yet-still-definitionally-sexual harassment should be treated as violent rape), making sure that boys who act like girls (not necessarily the stereotypical gay man, but deferring to the proper authorities, not developing their own strengths and ensuring that those who do use them are punished) are favored, and things that will ultimately serve to make them submissive, anxious, and above all unattractive. The worst thing in the world is if a girl exhibits male qualities- that should be discouraged at all costs (and if she fails to desist from that trans-gender behavior, the girl should be encouraged to self-mutilate; boys are also encouraged to do this, but for them, it's a Skoptskyist "cut your dick off to prevent you from sin" thing).
Public schools/daycares and management positions more generally are overwhelmingly staffed by women and thus if left unchecked tend towards this failure mode.
See now that attempts to deal with the second using the tools meant to deal with the first fail. A woman being physically sexually dominant towards a boy is seen as neutral to positive in the collective consciousness- men can't be hurt by women expressing dominance in the male way (popularly, "men can't be raped").
Thus, attempts to hold to account sexually abusive women with the same reasoning, and in the same way, that we do sexually abusive men do not resonate with the general public.
See now that attempts to deal with the first using the tools meant to deal with the second fail. A man being emotionally sexually dominant towards a girl is seen as neutral to positive in the collective consciousness- women can't be hurt by men expressing dominance in the female way (popularly, "trans women are women").
Thus, attempts to hold to account sexually abusive men with the same reasoning, and in the same way, that we do sexually abusive women do not resonate with the general public.
The long game can be punished, but you have to fully embrace equity to do that- men and women act in anti-social ways differently, and only punishing men gives women a blank check to be destructive (as they have been). An environment of equality can only punish men, but an environment of equity acknowledges that differences between men and women require, in aggregate, different tools to deal with.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
1d ago
I think Vivek and Elon didn't realize that when they waded into the H1-B visa debate a few weeks ago.
The people most statistically likely to have their wages suppressed through employer ab/use of the H1-Bs are Blue tribers.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
2d ago
Once it becomes clear that it's nowhere as bad as it was thought, and the primary risk was for old and sick people, then lockdowns should have been lifted
The problem there is that old people (and the sick as a subset of old) are an extremely powerful constituency in the West. They proceeded to [ab]use that power to carve out a bunch of advantages for themselves at everyone else's expense; hence the hysteria continuing until it was clear the people paying for it had had enough of their bullshit.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
The G in GIF is pronounced like
I tend to pronounce it with a 'y' sound. This can create problems with programmers since they tend to prefer yiff GIFs.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
People owe the societies they live in, actually.
No. Communistsitarians tend to think this because it allows them to demand infinite sacrifice for zero benefit, but the social contract is continually and constantly renegotiated.
In this case, society isn't holding up its end of the bargain- the "owes its members a future that's at least as good as it was before" part- and as a result, the individuals that make up society will under-deliver in TFR until it starts delivering.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
If the Health department says that it's about health, there is absolutely nothing that will counterbalance that
In Canada, as with the rest of the Western world, 3 Goddesses are worshipped: Safety, Equality, and Consent.
The Parks department's approach contradicted Equality, so what they wanted was bad and denied.
But the Health department are Safety's priests, so what they wanted was good and applied.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
could explain why co-sleeping leads to worse outcomes in the US
In the US, P(co-sleeping | elevated risk for post-natal abortion) >> P(elevated risk of post-natal abortion | co-sleeping). The babies who are not at risk for post-natal abortion (and hence much less likely to get killed by co-sleeping) generally find themselves in cribs anyway, which contributes to the average American woman thinking co-sleeping is far more dangerous than it actually is.
That said, there is a valid reason to ensure innocent mothers whose babies actually do magically up and die on them aren't getting prosecuted for murder by default, and SIDS is the mechanism by which that is done [which is why we generally limit our prosecution of it to obviously depraved-heart things, like "no longer visibly a baby" or "left the child, with the whole cord still attached, in the trash can"]. It still creates lots of waste by neurotic mothers who think the average SIDS case isn't a sufficiently deniable post-natal abortion, though.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
causing large numbers of people to die
Your framing of the problem is wrong.
In a suicide, the fault for the death ultimately lies with the one who pulls the trigger.
Overdose deaths are suicides.
It'd be pretty embarrassing if [all the heroin addicts killed themselves], then a few months later someone came out with a new AI-devised wonderdrug that can cure all addictions with a single pill.
That was their choice to make, and an isolated demand for rigor: if we actually cared about this for human beings more generally, cryopreservation would be a much larger industry.
is it moral to buy children, or is it not?
Well, the market's supply of children only stopped exceeding the demand in the Western world around the 1950s.
You could legitimately just stop by the human[e] society and inspect the merchandise. They were usually no-kill shelters, but naturally, any healthcare an inmate received would ultimately be palliative. Resources tend to be very limited under these conditions.
Haiti is the closest non-Western country where this is still true, which is why it's a popular choice for Western women- inspecting the merchandise is important in all transactions. Scratch and dent domestic models (prenatal drug exposure, abuse, etc.) are also a popular choice in the Western world and come in a much wider variety of colors, should that be a consideration for you.
Of course, then you have to make the other decision- imported child, or domestic cat?
there are all sorts of unethical things that you could do to make children
[Insert debate around contraception here.]
Just because someone was wrong one time
There's being wrong, and then there's being wrong with intent.
Just being wrong isn't generally cause for concern. Being wrong with intent, on the other hand, will naturally prompt back-checking of work and a "deny by default" posture until they re-earn that trust... if that's even possible. They did a lot of damage.
On the other hand, though, "number go down because a bunch of insane outgroupers had their way" is the only lever I have to pull for them to be forced to face any consequences whatsoever, so it's in my political interest that skepticism be maximized even though it would strictly speaking be better (and a local maximum of health outcome) for most people (who are themselves much dumber than the medical establishment) to blindly trust said medical establishment.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
Ironically I think men are not disposed towards monogamy are the most likely to be Christian conservatives
The church is where the people who know they are sick go. Thus it is understandable that they might tend to over-emphasize certain ways of dealing with what made/makes them sick in the first place- thus "porn-brained" (and complaints [generally more made by women and the old] about "hardcore" pornography, as opposed to anything that isn't missionary, read exactly the same way to me).
The problem with this sin is that by addressing it in this way, the Church is [popularly, as well as in matter of fact] no longer in any position to indict people who are smart enough to realize (1) what cheating is, (2) why that would hurt your wife, (3) why that's bad. Ain't exactly rocket science, though I'm aware of some men who genuinely aren't self-conscious enough to know that, or tell the difference between the acceptable and unacceptable ways to hurt one's wife (because some of them need to be done as tactical considerations or as negotiating tactics when husband and wife interests aren't aligned- which, I will point out, is how cheating is generally couched).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
Musk is African-American, so their hatred of him is stereotypical even ignoring the fact he's wildly successful.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
more evidence it was just some ridiculous mistake.
Mens rea doesn't matter in blasphemy/sacrilege cases.
you'll probably never give them a new kids book, would you?
Kids media (books, movies, games) have, as a general rule, always been complete shit.
This is mostly because the stereotypical kid media isn't actually made for children- they're made for adults who think that's what children like (and they kind of have to be, considering that's who's buying the tickets).
Meanwhile, consider this kids' toy and the fact that the movie it's based on is in a rating category such that theaters would refuse to let the person who would [want to] own that see.
Now, consider that scene where Robocop shoots that guy's dick off. That's going to trigger alarm bells in the adults who see it, but not the children; for the adults, it's "yeah, they're trying to rape the woman", for the children, they're probably not going to get the full implications of "hair down there" (or kinda just roll their eyes a bit)... but "he got shot in the dick lol" still has universal appeal. That's true for most of the superfluous sex scenes in other movies, for that matter- the main downside is not that they'll get it and enjoy it a little too much, but that it degrades the movie to pander to an audience that isn't them. They see sex scenes [and sexuality] the way everyone else sees wokeshit; and ironically the only movies to point this out are themselves 'kids movies'. [Shrek is another one, but is far more explicit about shitting on it, a lot more literally, in the first scene of the movie.]
At best, it's integrated organically into the story- hard to take the sex scene out of Terminator because the entire story is built around it- but if you show a kid that movie I guarantee you he's mainly going to be stomping around the house making robot sounds and saying "I'll be back" way too much, not trying to act out movie sex.
Anyway, so Tolkien is like that. The "wokeshit"/moralizing that is there (which is... mainly bog-standard Christianity in a way that isn't quite as blatant as Lewis' is) isn't all that jarring, as there's a reason for it to be there and it's generally intended positively rather than "Remember Kids, Leave Room For Jesus"-style messaging (like "see, the race of rock people are all gay, remember that being gay is OK" in the middle of a mediocre-to-bad superhero movie).
It's not all that accurate to group "elements of media that adults like" as "adult" to then exclude "not adults" from it. It's OK for most things to be universal.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
Yes he's a comedian and he's playing it for laughs, but it works because both he and the audience know how true it is.
What else are they going to offer? Pussy?
(Actually, come to think of it, there are some exceptions to this: cougars are what women-offering-dick looks like, and "male-offering-pussy" is the trap archetype. 'Masculinity' and 'femininity' are derivatives of this, but they mean different things to each gender.)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
I won't lie - it was quite the turn-on.
I think being able to provide/appreciate the "virgin experience" is an underrated part of relationships (and creates certain anxieties in people who don't understand that -> simultaneously overvalue and undervalue virginity, in the sense that it's very important to be one, but whether you otherwise act like one is irrelevant).
It's also not really an itch that video porn in particular, being spherical-cow-in-vacuum sexuality, can scratch beyond just saying magic words (and is an underservable market for exactly the reasons one might feel you'd have to lie about/downplay wanting to do that specifically).
maybe they have to go on welfare
You misunderstand. The government job is the welfare.
It is in the best interests of the people receiving the welfare that a significant fraction of the public perceives them to have been removed from the dole without cause to maximize the chance of being back on the dole if and when welfare is expanded again. That's a much harder sell if they're removed for cause.
This is instinctual behavior, which is why it doesn't require any tho(ugh)t-leader on Twitter to say "just comply with it, don't resist". Compare parents who tend to be cowed into submission should CPS threaten to take their children away.
This is also partially why removing the probationary welfare recipients is probably a sounder tactic than it would seem at first- people who aren't used to it yet are [politically] easier to wean off of it than people that are.
And the people that have been there for a long time aren't going to be employable once they're fired because, like a coal miner in his late 40s, his skills won't transfer no matter how smugly you say "learn to code"... which is why, when the mine's shutting down, you offer the motivated ones several months' severance so that they may buy and attend training for a different job, move to another area, or leave the workforce entirely- the other reason being that, because they're competent, they can throw their weight around much more effectively if the reason the mine's closing is a political decision on the owner's part; if you're going to purge a group, and the group will 100% find out before it occurs, it's best to offer favorable terms of surrender to the ones that could make a real mess before the purge occurs (obviously blind-siding everyone costs less, but democratically-elected politicians can't do that for obvious reasons).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
Combine this with the fact that physical courage seems to be dropping across the board
"Lying flat" is a type of strike/collective bargaining. It's not generally recognized as such because the people in power and the people who are thought to be on the side of collective bargaining are the same people, which is why China tries to suppress it.
the group who tends to have the most physical aggression and willingness to go occupy a building or storm a castle
Young men need to have an incentive to do that. They haven't had such a thing for 2 generations now- things have gone downhill for them since the '80s due mostly to enclosure by the old (through various justifications- environmentalism and safetyism being the most popular). In places that have less enclosure, people are doing better- TFRs are higher, wages are higher/costs of living are lower, the police force actually functions, military recruitment remains very high, R&D budgets are high, etc.
Now, young women generally benefit from that because young men will generally compete and distinguish themselves more for access to young women. But they've just discovered that the reward they offer to do those things- that being themselves- is insufficient. Their social credit card has been declined, and if you've spent the last 20-50 years forming your entire identity around having limitless social credit (and men fighting for the privilege to pick up your tab)?
Yeah, I can see how that could be existentially demoralizing. The lies stop being fun to tell when people stop believing in them.
Combine this with the fact that physical courage seems to be dropping across the board
The old also actively punish young men for exercising this virtue. If you remove them and create institutions that reward this it'll come back, but that's going to take some time and require investment.
Just like when it's a Matriarchy; the only difference is which gender gets the better deal by default in the divorce (if it's a Patriarchy, the man comes out ahead, vice versa for women under Matriarchy).
Yes, marriage is the oldest and most respected form of professional agreement: sex for resources. Some people do describe that as love, and I have no reason to believe they are not telling the truth. It is the optimal arrangement for some, likely most, people- and this is how negotiations between husband and wife should function provided both are conducting themselves with the proper amount of self-interest.
The ultimate problem with gay couples is that no such agreement can exist due to them both being the gender that provides resources. Naturally, they cannot be strongly bound to each other. Lesbians have that problem as well- they both have a surplus of sex, so how will they obtain resources? And don't get me started on the people who forsake their natural strengths to the point they cut them off.
All of those relationships can't produce children while still qualifying as monogamy, since sex is when you implant, or run the risk of implanting, one participant's sperm into the other's egg. So, if the sperm or egg come from outside the relationship that means, on its face, it is not monogamous (and claims that it remains so are a farce).
No- in the context of "marriage" I think they're very similar. Lesbian "marriages" are less stable than straight ones due to lack of resources and initiative, whereas gay "marriages" are more stable than straight ones due to more of those things- proving that at the end of the day, it is the resources and the proper management thereof that keeps the family together.
More options
Context Copy link