Oceans Yet to Burn
Month
So the web history thing is a fishing expedition, but’s a known thing for congress to exempt themselves from things like healthcare laws or insider trading rules or whatever, so it isn’t an entirely ungrounded assumption.
Basically don’t call people “cucks“. Don’t be surprised when people react badly to being called “cucks“. Don’t try to reclaim “cuck“ by telling other people that being cuckolded is a good thing.
multiheaded1793 said: I feel cucked by this post.
the battle will be lost when cuck replaces fag as the generic disparagement term of choice for 15 year old boys.
By the year 2035, it is common slang for “acting against one’s own self-interest”. Puffed up thinkpiece writers write on the virtue of enviro-cuckism and a hundred other causes.
on whatever has replaced Tumblr, debates still rage over whether it’s okay for anyone to use this reclaimed slur, or if you have to be a cuck yourself.
This discussion intensifies following the release of the first cuckbot, which exists solely to raise male status by getting cucked. Female cuckbots for women are soon released. Sales of conventional sex robots dwindle.
Basically don’t call people “cucks“. Don’t be surprised when people react badly to being called “cucks“. Don’t try to reclaim “cuck“ by telling other people that being cuckolded is a good thing.
multiheaded1793 said: I feel cucked by this post.
the battle will be lost when cuck replaces fag as the generic disparagement term of choice for 15 year old boys.
By the year 2035, it is common slang for “acting against one’s own self-interest”. Puffed up thinkpiece writers write on the virtue of enviro-cuckism and a hundred other causes.
on whatever has replaced Tumblr, debates still rage over whether it’s okay for anyone to use this reclaimed slur, or if you have to be a cuck yourself.
This discussion intensifies following the release of the first cuckbot, which exists solely to raise male status by getting cucked. Female cuckbots for women are soon released. Sales of conventional sex robots dwindle.
Basically don’t call people “cucks“. Don’t be surprised when people react badly to being called “cucks“. Don’t try to reclaim “cuck“ by telling other people that being cuckolded is a good thing.
multiheaded1793 said: I feel cucked by this post.
the battle will be lost when cuck replaces fag as the generic disparagement term of choice for 15 year old boys.
By the year 2035, it is common slang for “acting against one’s own self-interest”. Puffed up thinkpiece writers write on the virtue of enviro-cuckism and a hundred other causes.
You’re just at the edge of the abyss, it goes so much deeper, dare you heed the call of the depths
Oh Argumate, you innocent nocturnal predatory bird, I am far from innocent myself, but there is a reason I hold my own cards close to my chest. Some things should be tolerated but not celebrated. Some things should be secret.
“Oh my goodness” is an affectation. :)
Edit: special note: the secret is not cuckolding, in case you read this as implying so, gentle readers.
mitigatedchaos said: wait that cuck comic I saw circulating was supposed to be serious?
oh my today is your lucky day
Oh my goodness, I thought the Alt Right was making this up somehow!
Oh my goodness, I may have to draw a reaction image.
This is like… they just walked right into it, more than walked, like a cat bounding straight into a glass door with a leap. I’m trying not to react but I can’t help it.
(”Straight men have a thing for women, it’s terrible! They pigeonhole them as either submissive delicate flowers or raging tough bitches and exotify them in ways which contribute to an oppressive culture of-” oh wait that’s Asian women, sorry got my stereotype stereotypes mixed up there for a second).
I mean that’s kind of true according to that frame without the readjustment to a subgroup at the end. There are people that treat male heterosexuality like it is some sort of perverse and oppressive kink for itself, and that’s before we get into “everyone is secretly bi” territory.
all these immortality people are in like their 20s max. you’re physically in your prime and you’ve been cognizant for less than a fourth of the total time you can expect to live. incredible hubris
What, that they might make it this time, or that they should? Because it isn’t particularly arrogant to not want to die.
If you think smug anime faces are bad now, just wait until 2070 when you’ll have to face them in reality.
Tried to get a twitter account, and about four seconds after signing up it was “We’ve detected some suspicious activity, can we have your phone number?“
Fuck no, twitter
“Aw, come now Squiddy honey-baby, you wouldn’t mind providing your number to lil’ ol’ me, would you?”
- Twitter, probablyAin’t nobody gettin my number, I resent the very existence of phones.
Good. I saw Twitter collecting over eleven thousand phone numbers at a bar the other night. Can’t trust a woman corporation like that.
Just so you know, we haven’t hit the weirdest part of the timeline yet, where brain scanning technology is used to download tulpas from people’s brains into waiting android bodies.
That is, of course, before they start going insane and homicidal, but the brief moment between culture shock and sci-fi horror is interesting to say the least.
Poor dude got bitten by a spider and now flesh eating bacteria has claimed both his legs and possibly his arms as well; it’s shit like this that gives Australia a bad name.
The Alt-Right has convinced me that Australia is a (((plot))) to hide the real Oceania from White Americans, and The Crocodile Hunter was filmed on a soundstage in Arizona.
In this strange timeline, we may somehow end up at war with North Korea, though of all the American wars in decades, at least that would make some modicum of sense.
You call it dumb, but the Mexican government is sending out information about how to get through our immigration system, so clearly they actually are operating on those ideas. So does the government of China, to a degree. It’s actually pretty normal. And as for the institutions, I will never get over the Left’s blind faith that institutions are totally not fragile, you guys, and there is no reason to worry about them.
Not credible. Sanctuary cities are crypto-open borders and support for open borders generally is growing.
I was talking about my republican father about immigration. He flat out said he cares more about Americans than non Americans and that horrified me. Like… I’m not extrapolating this from some other position he holds, he literally said those words.
I asked him what made Americans so morally relevant. Perhaps he thinks Americans have a greater capacity for feeling pain and should be protected more because of that? Perhaps non Americans are automatically evil?? He said no, it’s because he is an American. He said also that it sucks when a player from another baseball team gets hit in the head with a baseball but when somebody from his favorite team gets hit in the head it’s a tragedy.
This is so hard for me to understand, like… they’re both people!
Also, it can’t just be that he thinks people with more in common with him are more worth preserving. Like, he would definitely have more in common with a truck driving poker fan in Belgium than a black punk rocker communist in America. I should point this out to him next time.
Arrrrrgh whyyyyyyyy
tribalism is a thing, group membership is still important
anyway we know the drill: arrange a Martian invasion, unite humanity against it!
Ok but how is a country a group even it’s just a bunch of people who happen to be born in the same spot
Why doesn’t he feel more tribalism with poker players worldwide the way I do with rationalists worldwide (and even then I don’t think we matter more than other people when it comes to quality of life!)
DiscoursedRome had a lot of good stuff to add in response to this, but also:
If a nation fails to maintain a sufficiently large core of people who are willing to kill and die for it, it will cease to be a nation. These people must be willing to kill those who, outside of a war, would not deserve it.
For instance, do you think most of the men fighting in the Iraqi Army during the invasion of Kuwait deserved to die? Most of them were there through fear, probably coerced. The same would be true of a Communist invasion. For North Korea, one can argue that even if they’re brainwashed into it, no one deserves to be brainwashed. And sometimes, people that would otherwise be normal will fight to the death during a war out of loyalty or ideology.
That isn’t to say that you can’t do anything about this. The US Army deliberately targeted armored vehicles rather than light infantry and took many prisoners during the first war with Iraq, in part because they knew the men would surrender.
But if some dictator took over Mexico and formed an army of conscripts moving north, bent on human wave attacks, then you have to be willing to kill at least some of them who didn’t deserve to be in a conscript army, or you will lose territory.
Of course, having this capability means having the ability to misuse it, which is why I will never forgive the NeoCons.
There are other things like this as well. There are criminals, terrorists, ideologies with higher numbers of terrorists, foreign agents, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, elements that would politically undermine democracy, and so on. Then there are incentive problems with open borders, in that if people aren’t at least somewhat glued to a location, they have less incentive to take care of it. There are issues with the fragility of cultures, institutions, and moral norms.
If the entirety of Earth were made up of the LW diaspora this wouldn’t be as much of an issue, but it isn’t.
Tried to get a twitter account, and about four seconds after signing up it was “We’ve detected some suspicious activity, can we have your phone number?“
Fuck no, twitter
“Aw, come now Squiddy honey-baby, you wouldn’t mind providing your number to lil’ ol’ me, would you?”
- Twitter, probably
Not much local coverage of St Petersburg terrorist attack; seems that Russia is mentally more distant than France or Germany.
You’re in ‘straya so I can’t chalk it up to the media building a Russia threat narrative.
I think it’s probably the future of relationships, just because most non-religious people can’t produce a coherent case for monogamy except “think of the children”, and most people will very reasonably say “well, I’m not planning on having children for a while so I’ll be poly for now”. It also seems like nonstandard relationships getting more accepted is a trend (gays, interracial marriage, etc) so I guess I should bet on the trend continuing. I’m not sure there’s a real dichotomy between “genuinely in love with many people” and “wants to be promiscuous”. For example, I became poly because my girlfriend at the time was poly and it would have been weird to have a mono person in a relationship with a poly person. Then I continued because why not.
There’s lots of stories about women succeeding at traditionally male things (e.g. Mulan, Legally Blonde) but almost none about men succeeding at traditionally female things. When a woman does male things, it’s “she’s a woman but she’s awesome enough to live up to male standards”, but when a man does female things, it’s treated as a joke at his expense.
We need more stories about “he’s a man but he’s awesome enough to live up to female standards”.I imagine you don’t count, like, Mrs. Doubtfire?
While I can see how Mrs. Doubtfire is sort of about a man learning to succeed at femininity, I find it deeply unsatisfying for two reasons. First, Daniel Hillard (Robin Williams’s character) only attempts to learn feminine skills in order to pass as a woman. This reinforces the idea that femininity is a female thing. Second, at the end of the movie, I feel that he’s presenting as a more-well-rounded masculine, rather than simply feminine. The message seems to be “it’s okay to cook and clean and spend time with your kids, because it doesn’t compromise your masculinity”. I want a message of “it’s okay to not be masculine”. I’m vaguely reminded of countersignaling; I get the feeling that Daniel Hillard is allowed to have feminine traits because he manages to not let them overshadow his masculinity.
By contrast, consider Kanahe Tomohisa, from Puella Magi Madoka Magica. He’s a stay-at-home husband who wears an apron and takes care of the housework, his build is slim and his demeanor submissive, and this is (at least in the episodes I’ve seen so far) not remarked upon at all or treated as a source of either drama or humor. It’s treated as perfectly normal, natural, ordinary, healthy, unremarkable that he should tend the home and the children while his wife earns the family income as a career businesswoman. The show isn’t really about him, he’s only a supporting character; but he’s the sort of character that would be a natural consequence of the shows I want to see.I feel like the fact that Elle didn’t compromise her femininity was a big part of Legally Blonde, though. Do the two movies do this differently or am I just completely misunderstanding what you’re saying? (I haven’t actually seen Mrs. Doubtfire. I’m just going off what you say)
I’ve actually only seen a couple of scenes from Legally Blonde, but I got the impression that, while she’s femme in a shoes-and-lipstick kind of way, she’s also characterized as having qualities that are necessary to success specifically in classically male endeavors: proactive, academically gifted, a take-no-shit attitude, etc. She’s undeniably girly, but I don’t think she could be characterized as soft and vulnerable. What I know of Legally Blonde gives me a “women can be strong too” vibe, as opposed to the “it’s okay not to be strong” that I’m looking for.
popular culture cannot bear the sight of a weak man.
Can the median neurotypical cishet woman?
I think that’s a lot of where this really comes from. That kind of man isn’t really seen as desirable, and that isn’t going to change soon outside of atypical women, which in some ways is fine because we can’t demand they change their preferences, but on the other hand there are a lot of side effects and it isn’t just evil masculinity that’s the cause of them.
Just make all speech laws global!
Either you can say anything that is allowed in at least one jurisdiction, ie. there are no restrictions at all, or you can’t say anything that is banned in at least one jurisdiction, ie. you can’t say anything whatsoever.
Come and see the contradictions inherent in the system!
Seriously though I’m glad the internet was largely invented by Anglosphere people raised in a cultural tradition of free speech, and particularly Americans, who have a particularly strong cultural tradition of free speech even by the standards of the Anglosphere.
The entirety of Unicode is an April Fools prank directed at me personally.
Luckily he has accumulated sufficient capital that he has no further need to work to maintain a higher standard of living than most of the people on this planet.
Failing that I guess he can get a new livelihood.
yeah, they’re pretty crummy, especially when they verge into territory of “praising stories and rewarding authors for being bad at depicting power and not thinking about the actual ramifications of things in their story” – which they often do, any time science fiction or Goku is involved
Now I’m wondering what if students could spend student loans on other things, like starting businesses.
So you’ve come around to the radical libertarians calling for voluntary slavery?
Just highly suspicious of the American student loan system! Like most American institutions it seems to neatly combine the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism. Why not just have regular loans (allow bankruptcy etc.) or just socialise the system entirely like a sensible country??
The money must be laundered through the private sector to prove that it isn’t Socialism™.
Nevermind that either doing it in a more capitalist, more socialist, or just straight-up better national centrist way would be more effective.
I was doing semi deep dive into Orion’s Arm after @immanentizingeschatons reminded me of it, and it got me thinking about post-scarcity and politics.
Specifically, I was comparing it to some of the other post-scarcity settings I’ve seen, like Eclipse Phase, Mindjammer, and Nova Praxis. One thing that all of these have in common is that the politics presented in the game seems off.
Nova Praxis and Mindjammer to my mind don’t really have political conflict. They try to describe some of the political units, but they seem to be stereotypes masquerading as politics or and otherwise just poorly described. Eclipse Phase and Orion’s Arm do have political units, but they’re fairly obviously based on the political viewpoints favored in the demographic and seem kind of goofy and impossible because of that.
And it strikes me that to some level this is an impossible problem. If you think there won’t be real politics in the post-scarcity future, I’m going to very much doubt that. But if you think that you can predict the nature of political conflict in the post-scarcity future, I’m also going to very much doubt that. So, either way, you’re stuck with writing a political scene that’s weird.
But really, can there truly be post-scarcity? Maybe with magic violating conservation of matter-energy, but without it, someone is going to want to use the mass of your asteroid to build their habitat to replicate their ideology.
I consider “post-scarcity” as describing when technology has advanced to the point where the common material desires like food, housing, and entertainment of any person are trivially easy to fill.
Then aren’t we there already in some countries?
Indeed. “Post scarcity” more refers to “when people believe there is not a scarcity of stuff.” And as the discourse over the $500,000 New York family shows, it is unrealistic that that would ever happen no matter how many resources our society generates.
The year is 3122. Transhumanity has colonized the entire solar system. The total GDP of mankind and its descendant species long ago exceeded its 2340 high of 14 quadrillion US2016 dollars. A new discourse arises.
PRIVATIZE THE SUN
ＰＲＩＶＡＴＩＺＥ ＴＨＥ ＳＵＮ
The PewDiePie discourse seems to help illuminate two schools of thought regarding the inculcation of extremism and such.
One school of thought, favored by SJ and left-wing people, is that extremism is generative: if left unchecked, it grows.
The other school of thought, favored by less-than-left people, is that extremism is reactive: it is always growing in opposition to perceived overreach/overreaction.
@theaudientvoid @brazenautomaton @thathopeyetlives @argumate Thoughts?
what if elegant abstract general principles are insufficient to describe the full complexity of the world we inhabit
No Argumate, you stupid owl, it works in exactly the way most convenient for my ideology.
*Monitors resulting level of pro-owl extremism in order to test hypothesis.*
We keep having trouble coming up with good ways to describe the sorts of e.g. feminism that are harmful and abusive, so I propose that we go with “Discourse Feminism.” Discourse Feminism:
- focuses on naming and shaming individuals as a means of ideological enforcement and/or abuse
- tends to misuse academic terms, often in ways that are the exact opposite of their original meaning. Example: patriarchy, intersectionality, emotional labor
- really just wants a list of who the Bad People are so they can accuse anyone they dislike of being a Bad Person
- puts excessive focus on making sure people use the right identity labels (“if you think women are people you’re a feminist!) and PC language relative to actual substance
- treats anyone who disagrees as an Enemy To The Movement
But this is by no means limited to feminism! You can use it to describe the bad parts of any political group:
Discourse Social Justice
Discourse Anti-racism
Discourse Men’s Rights
Discourse Sex Positivity
Discourse Christianity
Discourse Communism
“Sh-shut up. I’m not a D-discourse!”
“Yes you are. Cast her into the pit!”
Regarding arguments around race and racism.
I would argue that we haven’t actually tried having social policy that doesn’t suck yet. A combination of factors produced by our society and policies incentivize bad outcomes.
You get the outcome the incentives produce. To change the outcome, one must change the incentives.
Some of this ongoing race issue in the United States could be fixed, but it would require stepping on about ten different ideologies, spending a lot of money, and being very pragmatic. None of those things are realistically going to happen, except for the middle one, which when used just by itself would fail spectacularly.
(Before anyone gets too excited, I’m talking about things like school reform, wage subsidies, removal of welfare trap, etc.)
what I’m trying to do is end the dominance of capital over all our lives, end the endless wars for profit, the system of white supremacy and settler colonialism that has resulted in generations of suffering, and end the actual destruction of our ecosystems. and since the only alternative to capitalism is communism,
I see this conflation all the time and I’m compelled to be bugged by it every time.
There just haven’t been that many wars for profit lately relative to historical standards, the ideology of white supremacy has little to do with adoption of capitalism across non-white nations, settler colonialism is orthogonal to all of these issues, and destruction of ecosystems is a side effect of industrialisation and ballooning population growth that needs to be addressed in similar ways regardless of economic system.
I am confused by people who dislike rap specifically because it’s not singing when, like, since when is reciting poetry not an ancient human form of art that has pretty much existed forever?
Also there are crap tons of white musicians who growl, scream, or otherwise gargle their lyrics so since when is singing a requirement anyway?
*wanders off to listen to some people gargling words*
like, since when is reciting poetry not an ancient human form of art that has pretty much existed forever?
yeah, and a lot of us aren’t crazy about that either. Or maybe that’s just me.
Moi aussi.
私も。
>2017
>Being concerned about things fixed by us terraforming Mars
A common talking point that comes up in the healthcare debate is that having a right to healthcare is a right to the labor of another person. That you can compel a healthcare professional (shorthanded to “doctor”) to act without compensation for their labor.
This is fundamentally wrong. Rights can only compel inaction, not action.
To draw a parallel: you have the right to a gun (second amendment, yay). Does that mean that you are owed a gun? That gun manufacturers must make you a rifle? No. It doesn’t. It’s a laughable claim to make and it stands contrary to hundreds of years of American history. Having a right doesn’t compel others to action, at best it compels them to inaction.
The right to not be assaulted means you don’t get to punch me.
The right to self-defense means you don’t get to jail me for protecting myself.
The right to control my labor means you don’t get to enslave me.
The right to have kids means you don’t get to force me to have an abortion.
State’s rights compel the inaction of the federal government.
The state of a country to its internal politics compels the inaction of its neighbors from interfering with its domestic politics.
The right to a lawyer doesn’t compel people with law degrees to give you free legal representation.
Anyone trying to represent a right as the ability to force action is either a fool or a liar.
The right to free association means you can’t force my business to- OH WAIT LOL
the right to tell your free association meme to fuck off means you can’t discriminate against an entire race
Except that the right to a lawyer DOES compel the state to provide you a public defender if you can’t afford your own. That’s been the accepted interpretation for centuries.
it compels the state to provide you with a lawyer but not to force this specific lawyer to defend you for free
Why, that almost sounds like the state hiring doctors, who can leave the profession or emigrate, to perform medical services.
Unfortunately the actual reason there is such confusion is that rights theory is false, but under Consequentialism it’s quite acceptable for the state to procure healthcare for citizens if it does a good enough job at it. Man, it would be so nice to save 5% of the GDP.
In the year 2028, Hipsters use curved LCD technology to recreate the old Cathode Ray Tube style monitors and televisions, only with bulky, laughably light-weight empty plastic housing. 90s-punk becomes a hit style for a few years.
the discourse around this Testosterone Rex book has been deeply irritating in its stupidity; I mean how many hours must be lost to arguing over whether it’s even theoretically possible for a man to sire more than one child a year.
perhaps we’ll look back on this as the high watermark for sex-does-not-exist smugness.
You clearly haven’t heard of my plan to use surrogates to have three dozen genetic children simultaneously. Other people, well… they just lack ambition.
the mods are awake, stop posting discourse
“The Postmodern Symbolism of Predatory Birds in Post-Rationalist Mythology”
@mitigatedchaos, with excerpts from WP:ForestWander, WP:Stemonitis, et al. Tumblr Journal of Sociology, 31 Mar 2017. (CC-BY-SA)
Anarcho-Capitalism and hardcore Libertarianism both assume the political and cultural conditions under which they can be created and maintained. If some other group comes along that can undermine the cultural support for their ideals over the long term, or better unite to use force, they will inevitably be dethroned and replaced with something else.
left-wing political word filters
New Alt-Right Browser Extension Replaces “Liberal” With “Cuck”
How America’s New Nazis Wrap Themselves in Layers of Right-Wing DelusionBut hey, what if we made one that removed all the Fnords?
You run into the scunthorpe problem with commies complaining about neoCUCKism, which is meant as an insult against centrists, not lefties. Apply honey CUCKly to the glazed ham! Breitbart complains about the ilCUCK left in social justice.
> implying they’d have a problem with this
I’m not sure whether we’ll see an increase in it under the Trump Administration.
Nationalism and Social Centrism are both more defensible than Bush and Obama-era American Conservatism, which is part of why we’re seeing them rise, although they’re not calling it Social Centrism yet. A less jingoistic Nationalism is also a better counter to the Globalism popular among the Left, more capable of exploiting the holes in modern Multiculturalism that have been made vulnerable by the increased stress on the system, but it seemed that for a long time the Jingoism was all we got.
Don’t forget the part where markets pay people to lobby the government to undermine markets.
I don’t think I qualify as right-wing yet. Still more of an edgy centrist.
