ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
No bio...
User ID: 822
that's a 7 year old's face on a young woman's body.
The more I read this the more I'm convinced nobody saying this has seen an actual kid in many, many years. (Or they have, but were trying so hard not to crimethink that they didn't actually perceive them.) If I didn't know any better I'd say it's something puberty does to you, but I actually think it's in-built preference. Or maybe you're old enough that even young adults have started to look like kids (something else I've heard people say- never sure if they're serious).
Actually, there's a better and more recent example of this about Diana [from Pragmata], whose character design is actually trying to be a kid (with the associated and predictable discourse about how transparently obvious it was that whoever was complaining definitely wanted to fuck her, lmao this was Harmful and Bad). She isn't really "sexualized" in the game outside of maybe that one DLC outfit (critics remain correct that the coat's cheating her age in the downwards direction; she can be as curvy or not curvy as you imagine under there, the mechanic outfit just makes it obvious); this protagonist is pretty obviously fully grown, which you can see clearly at 2:47-2:48 in the trailer.
The most kid-like her face gets is the final frame at 2:50 (you'll have to go frame by frame for it), and note that she's slightly looking up in that frame (reducing the apparent length of her face) and taking a "pose" that minimizes the shape of her face more generally. If that shape was the default, the argument would maybe be more valid, but everywhere else you see her face it's adult-length (and comes to a finer point typical for adults), so...
But, I dunno. Maybe I'm completely miscalibrated in terms of what a kid actually looks like- I'm expecting a round/truncated face on top of a body with relatively straight lines up and down. But then again, I've also noticed people are just really bad at guessing ages, even those that should by all rights know better, so...
you generally have the argument that the people who die in it either outright volunteered to be there or at least are perpetrators to the same degree they are victims.
Which also applies to most of the high-profile "revenge porn" cases, and every case involving teenagers sexting (which a naive approach of "punish production" would still catch, though "the privilege to arbitrarily have your daughter's boyfriend jailed" is something traditionalists do like...)
All 5 of them?
A - The same extent as any adult male. /r/combatfootage and [whatever LiveLeak's successor is] is a couple clicks away- a shame most of the claimants aren't alive to make the claim, but what can you do. (Note that the same seems to not hold true for women; they're trying to have pornography of themselves treated the same way we do for children now, and in some jurisdictions are succeeding.)
B - Has the supply of step-sisters stuck in holes in the wall increased to fill the demand PornHub seems to assert exists?
is because its production is inherently harmful
Tell that to the Snapchat users; I'm pretty sure they've generated 90 if not 99% of all material that counts as this.
I'm sure they screamed did not consent to their finger pressing the send button.
The problem for small trucks is that the average Westerner already drives one.
It just has a carpeted, covered bed that shares room with the seats. Crossovers, as these are generally called, are literally just better small trucks/utes, where the only reason you wouldn't prefer that is if you were intending to transport something you didn't want in the cabin, or if you were occasionally wanting to haul something longer than could fit in said cabin.
The Maverick also sells partially because it's the best of the two options you have to choose from. Same with the Bronco and the Mustang, for that matter.
Clearly the SKS is only about as dangerous to the general public as the average cop.
UK women were likely in a bit of a quokka situation
You can believe that. I don't.
The moral hazard [at least, from the viewpoint of the relevant actors, that being the middle-class English woman] arises from those girls being sexual competition, and it's good for the sociopolitical power of the median English woman if their ability to perform that function is compromised. The fact that it allows them to be turbo-Xist is just icing on the cake.
I mean, QC can certainly give Americans a lesson on how best to throw your weight around and fuck up the rest of the country using that as an excuse. It's why it's politically important for the guy to be from AB, too.
Of course, those consequences also directly led to Tumblr Ridge, so...
I would contend that that falls under the "trade secrets or photos of victims or whatnot"
Which means you lose when "racist caricature" [equal to/implies] "photo of victim", like it's being treated here.
You have to deny that some races are smarter. Just always pick the pro-migration position.
Or more generally:
You have to deny reality. Just always pick the conservative position.
Now consider the Overton window, where (starting at the liberal end and moving to the most conservative [traditionalist-progressive]) in a universal suffrage democracy you have:
[The people who are more productive deserve to keep more of their better outcomes] (population x proportion on the high side of the bell curve) -> [some genders are more productive than others] (population x 0.5) -> [some races are more productive than others] (population x 0.1) -> [some sexualities are more productive than others] (from population x 0.01-0.001)
And since 'some sexualities are more productive than others' has had serious issues lately it makes sense that progressives are going to focus on the more defensible position.
(It's also why the LGB-T speedran the civil rights playbook; it worked for the two previous causes, why wouldn't it work for the third?)
The trads/progs, as different flavors of conservative, simply take as axiomatic what that answer is going to be (men/women, white/other, straight/other) because they are not comfortable with what being on the low side of that equation actually means, or less charitably are actively mining the market shortfall that [society as organization being axiomatically wrong about something] provides them and would have to do something harder if that resource collapsed, and that looks different as you travel up the window.
That's just the motte of the previously-discussed bailey, though.
Point is, the
OttomansParty had a pipeline ofcarefully selected, above average slavesOuter Party members directly owned by theSultanBig Brother andeducatedcredentialled at great expense for personal loyalty and professional competence. That's the sort of selection process you need to staff an empire, but it isn't stable long term.
Note that Orwell's most famous book was about how this could be made stable.
It just needs to be a high enough rate of churn in this administrative class to keep it from becoming its own political entity.
Democracy complicates this because it gives this administrative class far more political power than it should have, especially when it's universal (also, "all bureaucrats are female regardless of their actual genitals" has a lot of very interesting implications, the least interesting of which trivially explains the politics of that class). The US made an attempt to strip bureaucrats of political power- that's why DC isn't a state- but it didn't go anywhere near far enough. Stripping all government workers of the right to vote in relevant elections would likely improve any Western democracy significantly.
Marriage rates declined because with the sexual revolution
Marriage rates have been declining because the floor for a successful marriage has risen to the point that it excludes a lot of people and no-fault divorce in an environment of higher financial stakes has done the rest. We got a break from that in the '60s because wages for young men rose dramatically, and gradually petered out over the next 20 years, which is why you don't have any historical data to look back on (the SR tends to confound traditionalists; they only have the one lens to look through).
Before, this was mostly solved by men having all the money and women having none of it with a soft ban on obtaining any of it outside that context (and where soft bans didn't exist the constraint was mostly just called "the reality of non-mechanized work"). This worked OK, but it's a compact that didn't survive automation, specifically the line shaft.
You can't marry unless you can support a wife and multiple children
Indeed, which is why young men can't marry now (and you lose a lot of the stability from dual-income being functionally mandatory). And yes, we could simply make it legal for young men to accumulate an attractive surplus, but by the time the effects of that have propagated the young men will be middle-aged.
At least for competitive swimming you just get DQ'd on that one particular event.
(You don't get booted from the meet entirely, or at least, you shouldn't be- this isn't like competitive shooting where that does happen, but that also only happens for safety infractions.)
no but you see this is good because young men expecting to have sex with young women (to say nothing of the opposite) even in the confines of a marriage is bad
imagine having sex with women that are actually young, couldn't be me, i hagmax like Ben Franklin
if we could we'd push age of marriage up to 40, 50, 60 because they'd be more mature then and more cognizant of the risks, that would be good
especially because most of us are already unhappily married and we want to help our kids avoid that, but we have no idea how to do that so we just tell them to delay it and they trust us, dumb fucks
imagine marriage was an important part of living life, and imagine that you'd ever want to maximize the amount of fulfilling life time you (or others) will get
I've seen video evidence- this is absolutely an epidemic, especially among step-siblings.
Though realistically, and as always, this is only really a problem if the two have a bad relationship or one (or the other) has poor impulse control, and that's going to create other issues beyond the fucking. (If they have a better relationship with each other they might try it, if they have a better relationship with the parent they'll tend to accept being talked out of it, both problems fully solvable by public health education efforts. Naturally opposed by people with [an assumption of]/[excuse that it'll exacerbate] poor impulse control.)
Some people (trads/progs) believe is a risk magically created by porn, but it's mostly just exacerbated by it if you already have it. Kind of like alcoholism, actually. But when your power (or rather, your justification for excessive risk aversion- kids grow out of this when they become adults, popularly referred to as the "teenage years") comes from not understanding that, well...
Because everything is supposed to be about women.
Which itself is an understandable liability if you're coming from 'everything is supposed to be about marriage' and have no mechanism beyond the inherent constraints of pre-mechanized civilization to grant value to men (who are the gender made to combat them). And that degraded over a few generations rather than all at once (and hidden because the generation in power was granted a reprieve from this due to WW2), so no decisive reckoning happened, like a divorce that occurs over 20 years for the sake of the kids.
The problem with being yoked to first century sexual mores is that it's not the first century any more, and part of the reason reconciliation can't be sold to women (or their simps) is that the traditionalist response tends to be some variation of "well, just make it the first century again, then all your problems will be solved" (and the liberal and progressive reaction to that is flat rejection, which is correct).
The degree to which solutions lack theory of mind remains interesting to me. For instance, if you're fighting "rates of female education attainment lead to later fewer marriages", the correct answer is "credentialism sucks the life out of everyone" and not "well, stop educating women exclusively then lol".
'oh shit is he a threat to his sister' than anything about female solidarity.
They're the same picture, and I can assure you that this reaction happens even in porn-free households.
Yes, the reaction is equivalent to how the highly progressive mothers react to these sorts of things, because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good. (One might even say that the highly religious father is the exact spear counterpart.)
It's really not any more complicated than that. You just get butthurt you can't control sex because that's what your primate brain tells you is important, so out come the rationalizations. Oh no, a female leg, so scandalous.
The US is the only place where I've seen this strange obsession with statutory rape.
Yes, because it's a moral panic and not real (that's why they have to add the extra word at the front). Puritans and Californicators tend to be given to those things, and the Anglosphere (who grows up on a constant diet of cultural slop from those places) simply follows along, though admittedly most of the people who obsess over it have the same ancestry and so it's just an HBD thing.
It's generally an Anglosphere thing, and a feminist thing more generally.
The worst period of the Great Depression had a higher fertility rate than today.
I actually don't believe this proves much as the number would imply. Yes, TFR was 2.1, but the country was also far more rural at the time and mechanization hadn't quite replaced the child as unit of labor on farms yet.
If you assume rural families (50% of the country at the time) were still having 3.0 kids for that reason, that necessarily means urban areas were at 1.0, which is above modern South Korea but below the rest of the modern West.
The tipping point was around 2012. As you'll recall, that was when MS decided it'd be a great idea to trash the desktop UX in favor of a tablet UX everywhere, no matter whether or not it made sense on that device.
And they actually did have a bit of a point there- if you made it optional, you'd just end up with another Windows Media Center that nobody used, and what better way to force people to develop applications in WinRT? There were significant benefits to doing so, too- mainly around sandboxing, though the problem there was that it made interacting with the rest of the computer an absurd hassle. The original cheaper Surface RT tablet was made to push this too, and while an interesting piece of kit, it was also basically worthless beyond the fact it had an ARM-compiled version of Office on it.
They judged, correctly, that doing so wouldn't affect sales. And sure, the iPad wasn't as destructive to them as they had feared (which indeed was a reasonable fear at the time- that people buying iPads would then proceed to eschew real computers entirely), but they've also never had an incentive to go back and properly fix what they broke. And every version of Windows since has gone on to expose more of the rotten/unfinished foundation (and will likely continue along that path until Explorer is 100% React, takes 0.5s to respond to any button presses, require 16GB of RAM, and has to restart at least once a day because it gets overloaded like Firefox does when you watch too many YouTube videos).
The other problem is that there's no real need for MS to write a new OS any more. Windows NT remains the gold standard for an OS (Unix was 20 years out of date in 1995, and the only reason it's still around is because you would be provided the source to build whatever you wanted) but after everything that made it the way it is has migrated to Azure and everyone just accesses your code through some flavor of web browser, what's the point of rebuilding it?
- Prev
- Next

However, liberalism only persists so long as "the people who can suffer from low-impact psychological damage should not be helped and to a point deserve it" does. Once that's gone, liberalism "degrades into" progressivism, where the damage goes from descriptive (something that happens to people) to prescriptive (something that should specifically be visited on the outgroup).
More options
Context Copy link