ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
4hr ago
The UN still ultimately handed control of that region over to them, though. Not that Britain really had much of a choice with a military that destroyed, but still.
I think a purposefully-ignores-most-history view that "the Jews got it as a treat back when we liked them, but now we think they're total AshkeNazis, so we should try them at the EU Inquisition (aka the ICC) and embargo them so the Virtuous Natives can take it back over again, it worked in South Africa so it will work everywhere, #peoplePower #queersForPalestine" is not completely without merit.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5hr ago
I'm being somewhat facetious, but yes, you've interpreted that correctly.
I think the modern anti-Semites are correct in their assessment that the Near East is just a treat given to the winners of the Most Oppressed Technically-Not-White People award.
80 years ago that was the Jews (and for people who are 60-80 years old, it is still the Jews), now it's the Palestinians.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5hr ago
Well, there was that time the most powerful EU member nation killed a bunch of the people currently occupying the Holy Land back in the early 1940s.
The survivors of that purge had taken that land, formerly administered by Britain (the second-biggest loser of WW2) by 1948.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5hr ago
That's because there no tolerated failure modes for men, the disposable gender.
the only limiting factor is societal opprobrium, not ethics, which somehow feels like the entirely wrong conclusion to draw
It's the entirely correct conclusion to draw, but you're also forgetting that (and I can't believe I actually have to say this) most men don't want to fuck little girls. Men want huge tits and a nice ass; tweens have neither.
Though of course there are exceptions on the margins, or when the woman initiates; human nature can't grok the concept of women initiating sex because it's massively counterintuitive, biologically-speaking (re: pregnancy risks), and in large part doesn't even attempt to do this (which is also why the concept that women can sexually abuse men is completely foreign- this is why female-dominated professions like teaching is obsessed with teaching 7 year old boys they're secretly girls, among other things). It's actually harmful for women to acknowledge it because their self-interest dictates they pretend sex is a chore, for the same reason your self-interest dictates you seek a high wage even for a job compatible with your interests; men take this at face value sometimes.
And by "little girls" I mean "not women", which per the thread's topic I consider to be <=12; ancient societies, including European societies until the Industrial Revolution, had this anchor point for reasons that have a lot to do with both biology and the fact that economic productivity wasn't yet gated behind a decade of credentialism and manual labor was still economically productive; both things that aren't true in modern times, so you get the 13-23 set acting super weird because their biology demands adult treatment that society pretends is illegitimate (because they simply don't have room for them in the economy, and segregation breeds contempt).
We pay for it in events where one of them runs amok and kills a bunch of their peers and consider this acceptable for some reason.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
6hr ago
"Gay" captures the destructive aspects of femininity (woke is a license to exhibit those qualities): that being effeminacy/learned helplessness, weakness, vanity, and superficiality. (It's not a surprise that men don't like sharing their space with this any more than they do a woman who isn't controlling those failure modes. Tomboys are partially exempt from this in male spaces just as gay men are partially exempt from judgment on those attributes in female spaces.)
"Retarded" is merely a signal that objective results matter.
Well, if you can claim 6 million dead, historically that's enough for European powers to feel obligated enough to you to give you a piece of the Near East after the fact as repentance.
Clearly, the pro-Palestinian people are simply asking the EU to do that again, but this time it's the Great Satan (the US) getting in the way of the historic, millennium-old European Peoples' tradition of dictating who controls Judea.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
6hr ago
couch their argument in terms of power imbalances rather than a lack of commitment.
Well, the argument being couched that way merely conceals the complaint about a lack of commitment; gynosupremacists feel entitled to male commitment.
"Power imbalance" is the way they legitimize that entitlement, as the power imbalance has favored the woman in any relationship for the past 50 years or so. Compare "eat the rich" (and the people who say it); in both cases, it's just a fight over whose version of entitlement is enforced at gunpoint.
Would even a consensual, non-manipulative act of sex with a much older woman showing me the ropes have caused me irreparable psychological harm?
If you have the wherewithal to ask that question the answer is no, trivially, but there are a bunch of people (and you'll see them come out in this thread when they wake up tomorrow) who will claim otherwise. The steelman of their opinion is that it's difficult to know which kind of person you are at that age, but they also don't know what it's like to be someone who isn't affected like that and can tend to be jealous of that trait.
A 30 year old man fucking a 14 year old girl produces a much stronger ick than the reverse. Why is that?
For women, biology (it's to a less desirable woman's advantage that more desirable men [to them] are forced to accept an inferior product for the same price). For old men, it's internalized misandry; for young men, it's jealousy.
As for why it's not that way in reverse (outside of people faking their orgasms offense as an extension of the pretense that men and women are the same- 14 year old men aren't allowed to fuck because that would lead to 14 year old women doing the same, and see above for why they don't like that), it's because men and women are different, so the way they bring value to relationships is also different. Women [and I'm talking about the statistic mean here] bring beauty and are attracted to dollars, men bring dollars and are attracted to beauty.
It's very confusing and incoherent to the average human being for older women to prefer to fuck men who can't offer dollars; usually it just marks the man as a dumpster-diver [because older women are less beautiful -> less valuable], and marks the woman as someone so undesirable she couldn't even give herself away. (The predator angle is usually invented; human instinct says men can't be raped, you need to be educated to believe otherwise.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7hr ago
they think they can easily use "first principles thinking" (what in the actual fuck?) to transfer that competency to another domain
In fairness to people who are intelligent high-decouplers, we're generally correct when we make that observation. We're really good at basically anything that requires you match patterns (because that's what intelligence is); that's why the middling among this class of person is also especially paranoid about being replaced with a computer system that can do this. When we take a step back and examine a system's inputs and outputs without being butthurt about the way things are [or "low decoupler" for short], and apply our reason to the way a system emerges from that, we call that "first principles thinking".
And yes, that means we do know better than you, about most everything, most of the time (and not internalizing this posture is destructive for us; it is a fail-state for us to ever communicate that sentiment to you, obviously, but I see no alternative here), but because of that there are a bunch of challenges that- if not accounted for [the shorthand for this is "the human element"]- will end up causing more harm than good. One of the pitfalls unique to us is that we end up creating the 1 Corinthians 8 problem, where what we're doing is, from first principles, correct [and we know that- if we shut ourselves off from knowing it, or otherwise permit low-decouplers to dictate our morality for us, we self-destruct] but mere correctness isn't the only factor in a solution, or what is acceptable to do or say when. INT outwardly resembles, but isn't actually fungible with, WIS. (And yes, it takes someone who has both to teach that, and yes, they are very rare. Accommodation is following God's example; He does not grumble dragging the cross- the ultimate instrument of accommodation for humankind- and as such, neither will you.)
On a broader level, this is also kind of why different cultures end up with different perspectives on things; different starting conditions reveal different answers to different questions, and also create different problems. Which is also why we tend to be given to weeabooism and other weird/offensive nonsense; part of the appeal of spicy or particularly unpalatable food is enjoying the fact nobody else can eat it, and the same applies to certain kinds of information for the same reason. Of course, if you were a restaurant and made every dish that way, your restaurant would close and you'd end up serving nobody, unless you had a sufficient hard-core customer base that hung around enough to sustain you. (This is why 4chan is the way it is.)
You do ultimately have to accommodate for the low-decouplers and the people who take time to come around to things. Which I think is why
A big BIG part of Palantir is a role called "the forward deployed engineer." This is a software engineer - a team of them, usually - that sits on site with customers and builds, within the Palantir platform, purpose based "applications." Once the app is up and running, the Forward Deployed Engineers also, sometimes, try to "build back in" whatever they just built into the core Palantir platform.
would probably be an effective strategy to combat/work with that type of person. You actually have to observe the customer, how they work, how they communicate, and how they think and reason, to turn Knows Better into effective service.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7hr ago
1.5x the energy
Recoil is based solely on momentum, not energy; energy is not conserved in explosions. m(bullet) * v(bullet) = m(rifle) * v(rifle).
Accounting for similar impulse (since the bullet spends about the same amount of time in the barrel for each of these), here's what we see:
7.62x39 out of a Draco is 124 grains * 1700 FPS, and a Draco weighs about 7 pounds (or 49000 grains), so if you let the rifle freely recoil it'd hit you at 4.3 FPS. Oh yeah, and that's after the action's done cycling; the peak impulse is only going to be about 6/7ths of that because there's about a pound of mass that takes a while to hit the back of the assembly.
Compare to-spec .357 Magnum out of a typical pistol, which is 158 grains * 1400 FPS, and the gun weighs about 3 pounds (or 21000 grains), so if you let the handgun freely recoil it'd hit you at 10.5 FPS.
This is why Dracos are manageable one-handed from a pistol; but the fact you're holding 7 pounds out in front of you makes them kind of unwieldly.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
7hr ago
There are 3 reasons why:
- it's an end run around the 1989 Federal import ban of "non-sporting" rifles (pistols are not rifles), which in addition to AKs also tends to affect clones of HK products, particularly MP5s
- it's an end run around SBR laws, especially after the advent of the "pistol brace" (it's a stock with a fig leaf over it); yes, the lack of tax and registration is part of it, but there are a bunch of other rules around SBRs that don't apply to pistols
- because rifles that short are kind of stupid and impractical, and memes are a great reason to own guns (usually Dracos and TEC-9s, but also applies to AR-18s around St. Patrick's day, Carcanos around President's Day, FALs in certain paint jobs, etc.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
1d ago
Just look at the hysteria "Adolescence" kicked off.
That was pure oppression pornography perpetrated by those who know in their hearts they deserve to get stabbed to death by spurned teenagers, though.
Or perhaps more charitably, they're rationally afraid of the only force that could actually hold them to account for what they have done at that group's expense.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
3d ago
the trans monoculture is especially susceptible to globohomo
"Give more privileges to the trans monoculture" is currently well-understood to be a conservative-as-in-50-Stalins movement (reformers don't really like it that much) and its adherents can claim to be oppressed and hated if they don't win, much like how back in the '80s the conservatives at the time could reasonably claim rolling back religious rights was a direct attack on Christians.
Consider also that de Tocqueville's statement about revolution only happening when things are improving also applies on a personal level to suicidal [including the running amok kind] behavior- when anti-depressants precipitate suicidal behavior, it's because the sufferer finally has the energy (which leads to collecting other resources) to finally carry out their plan (and is, I believe, why people who have experienced this tend to say "don't go for a permanent solution to a temporary problem").
In this case, we have an angry Moralistic/conservative man who Feels Oppressed, is getting better now that he actually has a support group, and decides it's time to accomplish the support group's stated goals and commit suicide for The Cause at the same time (it takes time for your life to start to matter; young men (13+) perceive, generally [and for society at large, shamefully] correctly, that theirs doesn't so big flashy statements like this are more attractive to them).
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
3d ago
Making it up in their heads based on attempted mindreading
Yeah, because women would never try to do that, especially when men are concerned.
Men, despite their actual statements and their observed behavior, are secretly all hateful towards women and actually dislike them very much.
Well, we could turn that around and say
Women, despite their actual statements and their observed behavior, are secretly all loving towards men and actually like them very much.
which I think is closer to the truth of the matter but it's inconvenient for both parties. That whole "seriously but not literally" thing comes to mind... but then the [comparatively rarer] women who don't work like that achieve power -> an audience because they don't work like that, then start telling the more traditional women that not being treated [as a fellow man would be] is bad, who then believe it and enter a state of confusion where they don't actually want to be treated that way but insist on it anyway because femininity is, like, weakness or whatever.
(Of course, because that's been the room temperature for the last 100 years, most of the literature about this is just, like, really bad, and as we can see from what passed for psychology in the late 1800s [and earlier] we were just as stupid then as we are now so it's not like you can even go back to the past for answers.)
Meanwhile we can see many womens' negative feelings towards men demonstrated constantly in their easily observed behavior.
You know, it's almost like that negging thing is fundamentally uncomfortable to women [the kind it doesn't work on] more because they know it's the thing their gender does to men. A trans-gender behavior where the man's adopting what the woman sees as a female behavior.
We can't talk to each other honestly because some of us don't even work like that and especially post-feminism it's all case-by-case for people who aren't used to that. The pronoun discourse is perhaps instructive about this matter.
If I was of a group that had barely any ancestors [particularly, of my gender] that did anything interesting, it's only natural I'd be tearing down the notion anyone should be proud of that too, least of all the people closest to me (i.e. men) whose ancestors actually did do anything interesting.
I would also be incredibly concerned about the fact that the technological developments that even allow me to feel this way in the first place were also nearly exclusively developed by those ancestors. I would claim that the reason why my ancestors have no achievements is out of malice, and make sure the dominant pretense in society is that my gender (in aggregate) is just as capable- because if those guys organized (in the way my gender does instinctively), they would shut me out again.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5d ago
True, but sufficiently advanced risk-taking is indistinguishable from suicide.
This is most apparent in war zones; as the designated war gender, men are a bit more instinctively accepting of this.
Rather than judge the emotion, we should judge the reaction to them
Perhaps, but some emotions are very easy to judge this way (anger leading to violence), and some emotions are very difficult to judge this way (fear leading to sabotage).
It's extraordinarily difficult to judge sabotage, both in that it happened, as well as what impact it actually had. And some forms of sabotage are known by other names, like "prudent business practice" or "protecting women and girls", where society at large can't even decide what is/isn't, and that's not even getting into the associated moral hazards from each group that would benefit from the laws against that kind of sabotage being stricter or looser. Oh yeah, and some elements of sabotage are personally profitable for whoever's doing them, and some people care less or more about that, and...
and we can generate emotions too to some extent
True, but see above, so the saboteurs are far more likely to get away with failing to control themselves. It's pretty easy to judge people who generate within themselves anger and then go out and get in a fight (hard to hide bruises or broken limbs). It's very hard to judge people who generate within themselves anger (or fear) and then go out and sabotage their domestic enemy with -ism or drowning them in an ocean of what-if. There's just no hard evidence that [progressives and the emotions they're responsible for] are harmful in any way, and since our system is set up for benefit-of-the-doubt, you can't catch them without going full RICO (which, it's worth noting, is exactly how laws mandating discrimination already work against their targets: a progressive would argue that law discriminates against Italians and be correct).
It is very likely that a panopticon society would be capable of prosecuting this, but the nature of/reasons such a society arises means it could only ever target the innocent. Ancient societies squared the circle by pre-emptively convicting [the gender of person more likely to cause sabotage by emotion] of that sabotage and limiting their opportunities to do that, but that filter punished most those who could control their emotions (and if we're going by contribution to economy, men and women are pretty equal in an age of automation so a more granular system is needed anyway).
but they've messed up the scale of the matter pretty badly
Difficult to get a wo/man to understand something when her/his salary depends on her/him not understanding it.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
8d ago
and we insist on making this a moral issue
True, but remember what this is actually litigating. Because the worth of woman-as-class (statistical aggregate and instinctual behavior, not a value judgment) is specifically beauty, this is an attempt to make it so that women who provide much beauty and those who have little are equalized in political power. That's the moral [redistributionist, communist, equality, "equity"] angle.
This is why it's most salient for the ugliest ones, and why the ugliest women tend to be the most feminist- they have the most to lose. (Of course, the ultimate extension/expression of the power to equalize this is demonstrated by the ability to force other women to treat men-dressed-as-women as women, including when it comes to dating, which is why you only hear about this in women's spaces, never men's.)
It's not actually about men-as-class here other than the inescapable fact that they are the arbiters of who is beautiful and who is not (in the same way women are for success in men). Women must solve this for women.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
8d ago
This is a costly chimpout for the rest of us.
I think the term is "vae victis".
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
10d ago
Remember that you're talking about the Groupie Generation here. They're '70s people. And House is kind of peak liberal (as in, not progressive) media anyway so it's natural that people who aren't tied into knots about the fact sex exists are going to treat hangups about that as a punchline.
The gynosupremacist "every female teenager who has sex was raped" angle ramped up later, in the '80s.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
10d ago
services such as AOL, Genie, Compu$erve, Fidonet, and standalone dialup BBSs
These still required specialist knowledge, and specialist equipment, to actually use (AOL did try their best though). The technology became refined enough for general use in the late '90s; graduation from dial-up to dedicated always-connected hardware helped with that especially in the pre-cellphone days.
Academia was a few years ahead of that in terms of having those kinds of networks ahead of time, of course.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
10d ago
Why is prejudice based on sex tolerable, but prejudice based on race & religion, not?
What made you come up with that observation?
Prejudice based on race and religion is not only accepted, but encouraged.
This is downstream of (I'd argue a direct result of) prejudice based on sex, which is accepted even more than prejudice on race or religion.
And that's just downstream of the fact that Cain's rights and responsibilities are fundamentally different than Abel's- so whenever you have an easily-divisible dichotomy where one side is lesser than the other, that dynamic re-emerges. Man vs. woman maps onto that pretty well (especially in the age of mechanization, and especially if Abel isn't paying attention to the downstream social effects), as does white vs. other and Christian vs. other to lesser degrees.
The Abel side has to pay attention in a way the Cain side does not. Abel doesn't need an in-group bias because he'll generally succeed wherever he goes (and developing one would be corrosive to Abel-ness); but in-group membership is life or death for Cain.
Ironically, encouraging the side of a population perceived as more likely to contain Abels to develop that in-group bias is the main thing that would destroy that perception, but the problem is only an Abel could do that.
Is there evidence of 14 year olds being uniquely damaged in countries where the AoC is (or was) 14?
Until about 30 years ago the average age of virginity loss was around here, so this is obviously false. Unless you can't tell a 14 year old and a 4 year old apart, which is perhaps useful rhetorically but not realistically.
Sure you can- break into a Texan's house. Though this is just splitting the difference over "breaking into a house defended by armed homeowner will definitely get you killed" and "all cases of self-defense are murder".
More options
Context Copy link